PROTECTED AREAS

[RogerFraser]

Provincial reserves are in a perilous state – report

https://dailyfriend.co.za/2023/05/20/pr ... te-report/

The State’s metastasising ineptitude and poor governance knows no boundaries. A recent report published by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), simply titled The State of Provincial Reserves in South Africa, points to the decline and, in parts, perilous state of South Africa’s provincially-run nature reserves.

Many of these reserves, which contain and conserve much of the country’s biodiversity are, according to the report ,not fulfilling the primary conservation objectives and, in many cases, not achieving peripheral benefits such as eco-tourism. The latter has knock-on effects for financing the reserves themselves and acting as local catalysts for job creation.

South Africa is the most biodiverse country in Africa and one of the few megadiverse countries on Earth. The country’s biotic bounty is, however, not afforded the requisite formal protection, with among the lowest percentage of its terrestrial area formally conserved – around 9.2%.

Given that formally area-based conservation through protected areas is still regarded as largely being the best safeguard for conserving biodiversity and associated ecosystem services (such as clean water provisioning), this alone is cause for concern.

There are over 500 provincial and municipal reserves (as opposed to national parks, managed at a national level, and privately-managed reserves) which cover just over three million hectares. Although this is less than 10% of the total conservation estate, they theoretically protect important smaller areas of natural ecosystems. In the case of municipal reserves, they often protect endangered species in patches of greenery in a “sea of concrete.”

Despite a robust legal framework under which protected areas are declared and are managed, the report found that their legal status is largely no reflection of their ability to meet their mandates.

The authors used three approaches in compiling the report. First, Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool (METT-SA) reports were assessed to highlight high conservation value reserves lacking effective management. Second, the authors solicited expert opinions on the state of and challenges facing provincial reserves using an online survey. Finally, relevant personnel including reserve managers, NGO representatives and conservation practitioners were interviewed.

The report found several key factors which inform the ineffective management of reserves, and that poor infrastructure maintenance within reserves was commensurate with said management. Expert opinions showed that the main challenges affecting management effectiveness were poor management skills, weak capacity, and low levels of allocated financial resources. These findings thus mirror the issues plaguing much of South Africa’s state-run entities.

Unsurprisingly, the effectiveness of biodiversity management as the core mandate of these reserves was highest among Western Cape reserves, highlighting the trickle-down of effective governance at a provincial level. Free State reserves also score relatively highly in this regard. Just under 40% of low-scoring reserves on the biodiversity management metric are in KwaZulu-Natal, although the province has a more stringent reporting approach and significantly more reserves than other provinces. Four of the Northern Cape’s six reserves showed biodiversity resource management scores of less than 20% according to the analysis of METT-SA reports.

Reserves in Limpopo and Mpumalanga fare the worst in terms of management effectiveness based on the analysis of expert opinions, with more than 40% of respondents indicating poor management in these provinces. Again, the Western Cape was looked upon favourably, with around 50% of experts considering the provincial reserves in that province to be either ‘well’ or ‘very well managed.’ Overall, more than 80% of experts highlighted financial resource constraints as being the biggest issue facing provincial reserve management, followed by technical capacity constraints.

A similar picture emerged from the responses from managers themselves with financial resource constraints, including budget cuts and budget allocations being the key issue reported. In some provinces it was found that 80-90% of management budgets are allocated to wages. Poor skills, lack of experienced staff, low morale and motivation, and declining institutional knowledge- all critical ingredients for successful biodiversity conservation – were also regularly cited concerns. “Debilitating” procurement processes and poor maintenance of both staff and ecotourism infrastructure further inhibit effective management, with spill overs into reduced tourism revenue at many reserves. These are compounded by more industry-specific threats such as alien invasive species spread, poaching, arson, human-wildlife conflict, and illegal occupation and grazing in reserves.

The report ends on a hopeful note, with several opportunities outlined to address the problems and challenges faced. The report also indicates which reserves with limited resources and annually declining budgets should be prioritised for the most urgent interventions. Reserves that have high biodiversity value (high endemism and species richness), but low resource management scores are obvious priorities. These include lesser-known reserves such as Karkloof, Barberton, Lekgalameetse and Pongola Nature Reserves. Other key reserves outlined in need of urgent intervention due to their value according to experts include most of the reserves in KZN such as the Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park and Ndumo Game Reserve (KZN), as well as Borakalalo National Park, Madikwe and Pilanesberg Game Reserves (North West), Limietberg and Hottentots-Holland Nature Reserves (Western Cape).

Improved recruitment of qualified and dedicated staff was regarded as a relatively simple remedy, whilst increasing strategic collaboration, particularly with the private sector (such as outsourcing non-core aspects such as tourism and marketing) and NGOs, was also a key opportunity. Refurbishment of tourism infrastructure alone is likely to assist many reserves in realising their full potential and generating much needed funding to maintain these critical national assets.

The report is a necessary piece of research into a relatively neglected aspect of South Africa’s environmental sector. These reserves, ranging from expansive, well-known game reserves to tiny reserves protecting isolated indigenous montane forest patches, are critical to the overall ecological health of the country. They are critical for not only safeguarding endangered, local fauna and flora, but many vital ‘invisible’ benefits, not least of which is the protection of some of our most important water source areas.

The report is a timely reminder of the role these areas play, the threats they face, but also the focal areas for reviving these areas to enable sustainable conservation measures and sustainable development for predominantly rural communities. Failing to capitalise on these opportunities will be a cost to the country, which it can ill afford.

Joshua Weiss

Joshua Weiss is Senior Climate Change Advisor at Prometheum Carbon, a private consulting an advisory firm in South Africa. He Holds an MSc in Conservation Biology from UCT. Together with his brother, Alex, and friend Michael Halley, Weiss developed Forge New Frontiers (t/a Forge), a mapping and geospatial solutions startup. Forge designs a location- and mapping-based application supplying outdoor enthusiasts with highly detailed and accurate maps of all hiking, mountain biking and trail-running trails.

[Richprins]

Everything the government touches collapses!

[Richprins]

SANParks remains the international benchmark for conservation management in South Africa. As part of its commercialisation drive, SANParks aims to deliver thirty-nine new tourism products over the next three years in partnership with the private sector. Fourteen of these projects will open in this current financial year.

In addition, these programmes provide economic opportunities to local communities by creating 2 209 direct jobs in local SMMEs from whom concessionaires receive goods and services valued at R75 million a year.

WTF! Is the job of a conservation board to conserve nature or create jobs??

It is sick, there are dozens of other departments to do that, FFS!

Meanwhile SANParks have overseen the destruction of our rhino stocks, often by their own employees, so not a happy conservation story at all.

[Lisbeth]

Talking about SANParks the word "commercialisation" is used much more than "conservation"

[Lisbeth]

CONSERVATION TARGETS


A leopard in the Kruger National Park. If SA wants to hit the UN 30x30 conservation target, it would need to protect the equivalent of the Kruger National Park, and then some, every year from now until 2030. (Photo: Warren Little/Getty Images)

SA needs to preserve the equivalent of Kruger Park each year to meet UN goals

By Julia Evans | 07 Jun 2023

If we want to put 30% of our land under conservation estate — as the SA government committed to do at the last UN Biodiversity Conference — we’d need to protect the equivalent of the Kruger National Park, and then some, every year from now until 2030.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
‘This is the first of the many conversations we will be having,” said Mohlago Flora Mokgohloa, deputy director-general of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), during a consultative workshop on Tuesday.

The three-day implementation workshop with government officials, researchers, NGOs and indigenous people is being held in Boksburg this week to find ways to implement the headline “30×30” protected areas target from the last UN Biodiversity Conference agreement.


Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Deputy Director-General Mohlago Flora Mokgohloa delivers the opening address on 6 June 2023 at the workshop on the implementation of the ‘30 by 30’ target of the UN’s Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. (Photo: Julia Evans)

The 30×30 target aims to effectively conserve at least 30% of the world’s lands, freshwater and oceans by 2030, while also respecting the rights and contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities.

“And we need to, at some stage, much sooner – and I’m saying much sooner – start to move into real action… get out of the air-conditioned rooms and go out to the ground and really start to do real work working with the people,” said Mokgohloa, who is the deputy DG of the department’s biodiversity and conservation branch.

During COP15, held in Montreal, Canada, last year, implementation was a key theme. The last time countries that are part of the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) treaty set biodiversity targets, in 2010, none was adequately met by the deadline.

So they tried again, and in December 2022 – along with 195 other nations party to the CBD – South Africa adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, or “the new deal for people and nature”, committing the world to implement 23 targets by 2030 and four goals by 2050 with the aim of halting and reversing biodiversity loss.

Before SA committed to the 30×30 target, we had the National Protected Area Expansion Strategy from 2016 which committed South Africa to achieve 28% of land and water protection by 2036, with the ultimate target to eventually conserve 36%.

The plan was to increase protected areas by half a percent a year, funded by the government. But Mokgohloa emphasised that as only 1% of the fiscus went toward conservation (public expenditure is the largest contributor to conservation), SA would need a lot more money to reach the 30% target by 2030.


Day one of the consultative workshop on the implementation of the ‘30 by 30’ target of the UN’s Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework hosted by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment on 6 June 2023 in Boksburg, Gauteng. (Photo: Julia Evans)

Mokgohloa said her department’s implementation plan aligns with both the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and SA’s recently gazetted White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity, which, if implemented, could be groundbreaking for biodiversity.

How much of SA’s land and seas are protected?

“If we want to hit the target by 2030, we’ll need another 16 million hectares to be added to the estate. That’s adding [the equivalent of] the Kruger National Park and a bit every year to hit the 2030 target,” said Karl Naude, the director of protected area planning at the DFFE.

Currently, 17% and 10% of the world’s terrestrial and marine areas, respectively, are under protection, although the Marine Conservation Institute emphasises that of the 10%, only 2.9% of the ocean is fully or highly protected from fishing impacts. In South Africa, the numbers can be equally misleading.

According to the DFFE, 16.75%, or just more than 20 million hectares, of the total 121 million hectares of land in South Africa is under conservation. This includes freshwater resources like some parts of strategic water source areas.

But Naude explained that of the 16.7%, only 9.8% is considered a “protected area”; in other words, formally declared under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Nempaa). This includes national parks, world heritage sites and nature reserves.

The remaining 6.8% is considered “conservation areas”, which are not declared by Nempaa but classified by other legal instruments as national botanical gardens, biosphere reserves or Ramsar sites.

In terms of water marine protections, 14.5% of South Africa’s waters are in marine protected areas, but Steve Kirkman, specialist marine scientist for DFFE, explained that just 5.4% of SA’s marine environment around mainland South Africa is under protection conservation. The large Prince Edwards Islands marine protected area in South Africa’s Southern Ocean territory accounts for most of the 14.5% figure.



To get to SA’s medium-term target of protecting 10% of mainland marine areas, we need to protect a further 48,800km2 – which is equivalent to the size of Lake Victoria, the largest lake in Africa.

Kirkman explained that South Africa’s marine protected network represents 87% (131) of the 150 marine and coastal ecosystem types – which is pretty good.

“Compared to some other countries that report much higher protection – and have quite a lot to say about it in the marine area – some of the networks are much less systematically obtained and less ecologically coherent than our one,” said Kirkman during a presentation at the workshop.

Kirkman explained to Daily Maverick: “Marine protection globally is generally not very ecologically representative… it is skewed to coastal and inshore areas and large remote places where there are few threats anyway.”




Kirkman said if you look at the Marine Conservation Institute’s Marine Protection Atlas and consider a country like Brazil – which reports very high marine protection, at 26% considered either highly or less protected – the distribution of Brazil’s Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are not very representative of marine and coastal ecosystem types.

“Which could indicate that they are putting MPAs where it’s convenient as opposed to where it’s needed,” said Kirkman, “and looking good politically by reporting a very high percentage.

“But if you were to compare the other attributes of target three [30×30], they would not look so great. Which is a problem with there being so much political emphasis on quantity.”

Kirkman indicated the same could be seen in countries like the UK, the US and France.



While Kirkman said that while SA’s marine protected network represents 87% of marine ecosystem types is something to be proud of, the remaining 13% of ecosystem types are considered “not protected” and a further 15% are “poorly protected.”

Ecosystem types either not represented or underrepresented in the network include many offshore ecosystem types, the West Coast, and, in particular, estuaries, according to research by the DFFE and CSIR.


DFFE oceans and coast specialist scientist Steve Kirkman presents South Africa’s marine protected areas during the workshop on 6 June 2023 on the implementation of the ‘30 by 30’ target of the UN’s Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. (Photo: Julia Evans)

“And we haven’t yet given due consideration to things like ecological connectivity, replication or climate resilience in the design of our particular area networks, and we need to do that,” said Kirkman.

Additionally, because most of the 14.5% of the country’s waters that are reported protected are in the Southern Ocean – far away from mainland SA – overall we are not representative.

That said, SA has a very good design to build on, which includes coastal/inshore as well as offshore MPAs that are representative of the distribution of most ecosystem types.


A school of yellowtail in the De Hoop Marine Protected Area in the Western Cape. (Photo: Steve Benjamin)

Rights of indigenous people

“Gone should be the days when people just see safari vehicles driving into parks close to them and yet they can’t even access the places,” said Mokgohloa during her opening address.

“We need to bring these people on board so that they form part of the work we are doing. The only way we can win the war against poaching, as an example, is that we involve people in the work that we are doing.”

Mokgohloa explained that along with the 30×30 target, one of the central tenets of the Kunming-Montreal Framework is that communities living in and adjacent to conservation estates should benefit from the economic opportunities created there.

“Our commitment to target three goes beyond just protecting our environment. It is also about recognising the close linkages between biodiversity and the wellbeing of our communities,” said Mokgohloa

“We know that many indigenous peoples and local communities rely on biodiversity for their livelihoods and cultural identity.”

Mokgohloa said that by preserving ecosystems, we are not only safeguarding the natural world but also promoting sustainable development and social justice, which are goals that underpin the new White Paper on Conservation, our National Development Plan and our Constitution. DM

[Richprins]

[Lisbeth]

With nature and biodiversity under threat everywhere, bold conservation funding ideas are needed


(Photos: Unsplash / Nadine Venter | Janine Joles | EPA / Nic Bothma)

By Julia Evans | 29 Jun 2023

How can South Africa double the land it has under conservation by 2030 when many of its wildlife reserves are falling apart? With a limited conservation budget from the fiscus, tax incentives could play a big role.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
If South Africa were to meet the conservation targets committed to at the last UN Biodiversity Conference, we’d need to protect the equivalent of the Kruger National Park, and then some, every year from now until 2030.

But how is this achievable when our private and state reserves are falling apart and increasingly threatened by declining budgets, understaffing and poaching?

“We have recognised that in advancing this vision of 30 by 30… we must ensure that the existing conservation networks [are] also taken care of because that is where our biodiversity is anchored,” said Mohlago Flora Mokgohloa, deputy director-general (DDG) in the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) during a workshop earlier this month to find ways to implement the headline “30×30” protected areas target from the last UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) agreement.

The 30×30 target aims to effectively conserve at least 30% of the world’s lands, freshwater and oceans by 2030, while also respecting the rights and contributions of indigenous peoples and local communities.

Currently, 16.7% – or just more than 20 million hectares – of the total 121 million hectares of land in South Africa is under conservation.

However, Karl Naudé, the director of protected area planning at the DFFE, explained to Daily Maverick that only 9.8% of that is considered a “protected area”; in other words, formally declared under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act. This includes national parks, world heritage sites and nature reserves.

If we were to reach the 30×30 target by the deadline, South Africa would have to add an additional 16 million hectares to the conservation estate, which is the equivalent of adding the Kruger National Park and a bit extra every year from now until 2030, Naudé said.

Provincial ‘paper parks’

Daily Maverick previously reported that a conservation assessment by the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) cautioned that our existing conservation estates cannot be allowed to become “paper parks” – meaning that they exist as areas of conservation on paper only and are not being protected in reality.

On paper, there are more than 400 provincial parks and reserves spanning more than three million hectares of the 20 million protected in SA. But most of these provincial parks are failing due to management issues, insufficient budget or lack of political will.

Mokgohloa, who is the DDG for the department’s biodiversity and conservation branch, explained that all South Africa’s parks fall into four categories: national parks, provincial, parks, municipal parks and privately owned parks – and while the national parks are doing relatively well, the same can’t be said for provincial parks.

Mokgohloa said that “provincial budgets have declined over the years”, with national government departments and their entities spending R36.1-billion, or 60%, on biodiversity from 2009 to 2015, compared with provincial government departments and entities (R19.7-billion, or 33%) and local government (R4.1 billion, or 7%), according to the 2016 Biodiversity Expenditure Review compiled by the United Nations Development Programme’s Biodiversity Finance Initiative (Biofin).

“We can’t continue to expand if we are not addressing the management effectiveness of the existing parks, which is what the management authorities are working on,” acknowledged Mokgohloa.

For example, the EWT report found that the Ntsikeni Vlei Nature Reserve in KwaZulu-Natal only has a single field ranger to patrol the 9,200ha of land, with more than 1,000 livestock roaming around.

Mokgohloa said that they were looking at improving the physical infrastructure (fencing) of Hluhluwe-Imfolozi Park in KZN, which is a hotspot for rhino poaching.

“We are then looking into what are the policy and legislative enablers we can bring in so that we can improve the state of the existing nature reserves,” said Mokgohloa.

Lack of funds

According to the latest – 2016 – Biodiversity Expenditure Review by Biofin, about 0.93% of consolidated government expenditure was directed towards biodiversity conservation-related activities a year between 2009 and 2015.

Mokgohloa emphasised that as less than 1% of the fiscus went toward conservation (public expenditure is the largest contributor to conservation), SA would need a lot more money to reach the 30% target by 2030.

The DFFE is also the single biggest key finance actor for biodiversity in the country, with the department accounting for an average of 33% of total public sector biodiversity expenditure from 2009-2015.

More recently, the DFFE reported that in the 2023/24 financial year, SANParks – which is mandated to oversee the conservation of South Africa’s biodiversity, landscapes and associated heritage assets through a system of national parks – has an annual budget of R3.867-billion (the budget was R3-billion in the 2022/23 financial year).

But according to Candice Stevens, the chair of Africa’s Sustainable Finance Coalition, the extra finance needed can’t just come from the private sector either.

Stevens explained to Daily Maverick that if we are going to reach the ambitious targets we agreed to at COP15, “we are going to require a considerably large amount of sustainable finance… finance beyond the traditional donor and grant funding sectors to bring in the private sector as well as align incentives.”

The DDG agreed that the government will never find enough money to buy private land for new reserves, and thus would need to find ways to further incentivise landowners to protect their land and the species that inhabit them.

So we need other means.

Tax incentives

Stevens, who is also co-chair of the IUCN WCPA Sustainable Finance Specialist Group, said that South Africa has actually made considerable progress in establishing positive tax incentives that act as a reward for conservation commitment.

The first tax incentive put in place along with National Treasury was Section 37D of the Income Tax Act, which entitles a taxpayer who declares a protected area (from an individual to a private company or community association) to deduct the full value of the land from their taxable income.

“This is extraordinary because nowhere else in tax legislation, regardless of who you are, or what you do that attracts tax, can you deduct the value of land. So only if you make the highest-level conservation commitment can you deduct the full value of land from taxable income,” said Stevens.

Stevens explained that what sets SA apart is that, “South Africa has very strong legislation in terms of protected areas that require long-term management, and are designated in the highest biodiversity value areas of the country.

“And because of this legislation, we were able to then create a tax incentive and implement it with National Treasury, because the tax incentive attaches to the highest conservation commitment that a private or communally owned piece of land can undertake.”

Stevens explained that the Sustainable Finance Coalition incubated this tax incentive as a finance solution with partners including Birdlife South Africa, Wilderness Foundation Africa and the South African National Biodiversity Institute (Sanbi), along with the DFFE and National Treasury.

It was piloted in 2016 and launched as a new tax incentive into tax returns at the end of 2016. And now it’s a finance solution that’s gone to scale, with Stevens saying that, as of 2020, the estimated value of the tax incentive is about R1.4-billion of finance dedicated toward long-term conservation.

For launching this successful incentive, the SA government and Stevens received the UN Pathfinder Award Special Commendation. The innovation is now being used by other countries such as Spain, Kenya, Chile and Peru to begin looking at incentives in those countries for their private and communal land conservation.

“If we can continue to demonstrate that those areas are contributing to our conservation objective and able to make a case to the National Treasury and Sars, we might be able to expand the tax incentive to other areas,” said Mokgohloa.

Out of bounds

Another tax incentive the Sustainable Finance Coalition incubated is one that attaches itself to “Other Effective area-based Conservation Measures” (OECMs) – areas that achieve long-term conservation outside of protected areas – and are deliberately attributable to the management costs of threatened species.

Stevens explained that this tax incentive benefits South African citizens who are safeguarding these species that don’t necessarily live within protected areas and are incurring management costs as a result.

“It’s very expensive to look after a rhino or a lion. And a lot of the anti-poaching costs are the reason for how expensive the species are to safeguard,” said Stevens.

“So this tax incentive comes in to be able to allow those management costs to be deducted in an extraordinary way, and to alleviate the cost burden. And essentially, reward a conservation commitment for threatened species.”

The incentive is now sitting with the DFFE, who are poised to take it to scale.

Biodiversity stewardship

Another benefit that is felt by individual South African citizens who safeguard land is an approach called biodiversity stewardship.

Mahlodi Tau from Sanbi explained to Daily Maverick that biodiversity stewardship is an approach that the government uses in the conservation sector to secure land in biodiversity priority areas through entering into contractual agreements with private landowners, occupiers of communal land and communal property associations.

“The owners of the land enter into voluntary agreements with the government to secure their land under biodiversity stewardship,” explained Tau.

For instance, a private landowner can have their own land declared a nature reserve. So instead of the colonial approaches of the past, biodiversity stewardship does not displace land owners from their land, but rather it encourages landowners to declare that land either as a nature reserve, or they enter into other contractual biodiversity agreements.

“By doing that, we encourage landowners to manage their land sustainably with the support from conservation authorities, like CapeNature or Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife.

“Biodiversity stewardship is going to be one of our principal tools to achieving our 30 by 30 goals,” said Stevens.

“And we can then utilise tax incentives like 37D to be able to support private and communal South African taxpayers to undertake and support these commitments alongside the government.” DM

[Lisbeth]

To save our struggling provincial game reserves, SA needs to look to fellow African states for solutions


We are already in the sixth great extinction, says Jane Goodall, who recalled how the Gombe forest, a once vast area when she first arrived to study chimpanzees, had been reduced to a 'small island' surrounded by barren hillsides. (Photo: Supplied)

By Matthew Hattingh | 05 Oct 2023

Joining famed conservationists Jane Goodall and Carl Jones at the 12th Oppenheimer Research Conference, a former SANParks conservation boss warns that – thanks to a lack of funds and government interference – most provincial game reserves face collapse, but suggests solutions might be found among not-for-profits, the private sector and surrounding communities.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Many of South Africa’s cash-strapped and sometimes poorly managed provincial parks risk collapse and new ways must be found to sustain them. We can do this by learning from successes and failures elsewhere on the continent.

This warning and advice came from Hector Magome, former head of conservation at South African National Parks (SANParks) during the opening session of the 12th Oppenheimer Research Conference on Wednesday, 4 October 2023.

Magome was speaking to a gathering of around 420 experts, conservationists and scientists, meeting to discuss biodiversity and environmental research in the country, on the continent and beyond. The conference continues in Midrand until Friday, 6 October.

Also addressing the opening were Nicky Oppenheimer, who welcomed guests and delegates;Minister of International Relations and Cooperation Naledi Pandor; celebrated ornithologist and conservationist Carl Jones; and the pioneering ethologist and conservationist Jane Goodall.

Sounding the alarm

“There is a very high likelihood that in future we will only have South African National Parks and Cape Nature … mainly because they generate 80% to 85% of their own money,” Magome said.

He feared that parks in the provinces “may finally collapse”, mentioning the unchecked grazing of cattle in some Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife reserves and the burning of a community-owned lodge in Mthethomusha Game Reserve by people from within the self-same community.


Everyone, including researchers and conservationists across disciplines and sectors, must play a role in developing solutions, says Nicky Oppenheimer, the chairperson of Oppenheimer Generations. (Photo: Supplied)

Magome quoted from a study by the Endangered Wildlife Trust and the Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa (on whose board he serves).

The study published earlier this year highlighted the many difficulties facing the parks. These included a lack of funds, which meant four-fifths of budgets was spent on staff salaries; a dearth of conservation knowledge among senior staff; and political interference to the extent that it amounted to a “political takeover”.

Excluding SANParks and Cape Nature, he warned that “without good tourism income, many provincial parks will collapse”.

Read more on Daily Maverick: More money, better leadership, trained staff: How to prevent SA’s provincial wildlife gems from sliding into ruin

However, there was hope for those provincial parks with strong tourism concessions, such as the Madikwe and Pilanesberg reserves, in North West.

Lessons from Africa

Magome said a number of the provinces were “keen to have the African Parks model” and needed support to achieve this and to establish partnerships with NGOs and the private sector. “We can work with the government and come up with some solutions.”

Johannesburg-headquartered NGO African Parks manages 22 parks and protected areas in 12 African countries. African Parks was co-founded by Mavuso Msimang, Magome’s former boss at SanParks, an ANC grandee, and a speaker at last year’s Oppenheimer Generations Conference.

Magome said the conservation models in practice in Malawi (where he worked for 18 months) and notably Namibia were worth emulating; however, he acknowledged both had their limitations.

Sustained engagement with communities, particularly those living near parks was a strong suit of the Namibian model, he said.

“There is no such thing as capacity-building of communities for three or five years, as many donor agencies would like … and then you leave. You want conservation to work with communities, you must be there for the long haul.”

He said Namibia worked well because NGOs and not-for-profits seemed “bonded forever” with communities.

On the other hand, in Botswana: “We have seen community programmes fail because the government was not interested in it. In fact, in one year, the government said, ‘Sorry, we don’t want them’. And that was about that.”

Conservation in Malawi had been in a parlous condition, but then the “state admitted failure”, that it had no money, and showed wisdom to let NGOs and not-for-profits in as partners.

“Malawi was the capital of ivory trafficking and rhino horn trafficking. And within four years, it became a country of interest. We worked with the police to help them pick up the evidence. And we helped them go to court. And when somebody was convicted, there was a programme to manage and to monitor that they are doing time,” Magome said.

He contrasted this with the South African experience to its discredit.

“I’m involved in Madikwe Game Reserve. We arrest poachers; the next day they are out smiling, because there are no follow-up teams to go after international consumers and the big exporters. We don’t have a John Wick to get the bogeyman,” he said in reference to the fictional globe-trotting assassin.

He said the Department of Fisheries, Forestry and the Environment, trumpeted the arrests of low-level figures in the poaching pyramid – which “does not change anything; they are easily replaceable”.

In the absence of a longer-reaching and more effective criminal justice system, he suggested a shift in emphasis to helping rhinos breed, including in captivity, and he shared with the conference a picture of a rhino and her calf gambolling on a sun-dappled hillside … at the San Diego Zoo.

Magome was energised by the potential for civic action and spoke about how private prosecutions could change the conservation landscape. He referred to a long-running case brought against BP by an advocacy group.

The Johannesburg High Court in April ruled that the petroleum company had built or upgraded 17 service stations in Gauteng without first obtaining the necessary environmental approvals.

The count is due to sit again from 6 to 8 November to consider sentencing.


Hector Magome, the former head of conservation at South African National Parks, sounds a warning that some provincial parks risk collapse. (Photo: Supplied)

Magome said he hoped a hefty fine would be imposed, with the prospect of 25% of it made available to fund conservation.

Approached for comment, Hamlet Morule, BP Southern Africa’s executive for communications and external affairs, said: “Given that this is an ongoing legal process, we cannot at this time comment on that hearing or the case.”

Carl Jones and the case for saving species

At the start of his talk Magome paid tribute to the leadership shown by Carl Jones, who had spoken earlier in the proceedings.

Also a proponent of breeding critically endangered animals in captivity, Jones told the conference about successful programmes he had helped establish in Mauritius which brought several critically endangered birds back from the brink of extinction.

Jones, of the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, reminded delegates how Mauritius was a paradise before it was settled in the late 16th century.

He shared an early woodcut showing the rich flora and fauna diversity of the island – as well as how energetically the settlers set about exploiting it. Most infamously, the flightless dodo was hunted into extinction, and many other species followed suit as eventually 98% of Mauritius’ natural forest cover was cleared.

Jones began work on the island in 1979 and has retained a conviction in the power of individual action and that “all species are savable”.

He detailed some of the painstaking work – and initial slow progress (“there are no quick fixes”) – he and his colleagues, including Mauritian volunteers, made over the years. This included saving the Mauritius kestrel, pink pigeon and Mauritius parakeet.

He acknowledged the effect of the world’s growing human population, the continuing onslaught of habitat loss, increasing pollution and threat of climate change to conservation efforts, but called on delegates to “embrace the challenge and move forward”.

“We cannot turn the clock back, but we can look forward to a sustainable and diverse world.

“You may say, ‘You are saving the odd species’. But we have a massive crisis that results in the destruction of ecosystems. We find that species work saves ecosystems,” Jones said.

He spoke about his part in the heroic and continuing efforts to restore Round Island, part of the Mauritius Islands group.

Over many years, these efforts have involved everything from establishing plant nurseries in a dry landscape, to killing the alien rabbits, which along with goats, had denuded the island, to introducing exotic tortoises to control exotic grasses and seed natural vegetation with their droppings.

“We are still in the early stages, but we’re seeing the recovery of a wonderful island. This is a wonderful approach. And we believe in the future we can start rebuilding once-lost systems using ecological replacement in some cases. Yes, we can’t bring back the dodo. But we can bring back equivalents for other species.”

Jones called on scientists and conservationists to be creative.

“There are solutions, there is great hope. We need to look to the future. And we need to think about what we can achieve. Conservation works. And we can all make a difference.”


Carl Jones of the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust, who has, over a long career helping to save endangered Mauritian birds, drawn sustenance from his conviction in the power of individual action and that ‘all species are saveable’. (Photo: Supplied)

Protecting and restoring biodiversity

Jane Goodall, spoke about the critical importance of healthy ecosystems on which we all depended, and the reality that as “one species after another disappears, it will eventually collapse”. She challenged the “crazy belief” that economic development can continue despite finite resources, pollution and climate change.

“We are already in the sixth great extinction,” she said, telling how the Gombe forest, a once vast area when she had first arrived to study chimpanzees, had been reduced to a “small island”, surrounded by barren hillsides.

This was as a consequence of population growth and poverty, she said, touching on a number of initiatives the Jane Goodall Institute and the Roots & Shoots programme were involved in to encourage sustainable farming and businesses, build schools and clinics and offer family planning.

She said they were listening to indigenous people, who “understand that protecting the environment is not just for wildlife but for saving the planet”.

Progress was being made, but we can’t afford to be complacent, Goodall said.

“We need to do much more. We need to collaborate and form partnerships. So that together, we can be even more effective in creating positive change.”

Call for practical solutions

Nicky Oppenheimer, welcoming delegates on behalf of non-profit organisation Oppenheimer Generations Research and Conservation, echoed Jane Goodall’s “clarion call” for everyone, including researchers and conservationists across disciplines and sectors, to play a role in developing urgent and necessary solutions.

Minister Pandor warned that climate change, the loss of biodiversity and escalating pollution had put humanity on a precipice.

“In Africa, we urgently need to curb this threat … The challenges we face range from the poaching of iconic species, rare plants and threatened reptiles to the poorly regulated fisheries. We lack the resources, not only financial but the knowledge and capacity, to adequately protect the vast but threatened areas by land and sea.”

She praised the efforts of researchers who were helping to inform the government’s policies including the White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity.

“The white paper emphasises the importance of research, science and partnerships and highlights the value of indigenous and traditional knowledge and practices providing localised solutions to biodiversity conservation and sustainable use,” she said, encouraging scholars to make such work a priority.

Turning to international relations, Pandor called on the scientific community to provide evidence for policy options and “swift, actionable solutions for decision makers”.

“Policy makers need detailed, rigorous, and practical answers on how we can mitigate and adapt to climate change,” she said. DM

Matthew Hattingh writes for Roving Reporters. This article was commissioned by Jive Media Africa, science communication partner to Oppenheimer Generations Research and Conservation.

[Lisbeth]

Conservation of South Africa’s protected areas is tenuous as long as the law is weak

By Kate Handley | 26 Nov 2023
Kate Handley is an environmental attorney and co-founder of the Biodiversity Law Centre, a non-profit organisation that seeks to use the law to reverse the catastrophic decline of biological diversity in southern Africa.

South Africa’s limited protected-area estate is increasingly coming under threat from mining. This is facilitated by an enabling regulatory environment that permits mining and related activities within certain protected areas.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
We are truly fortunate to live in a country with exceptional biodiversity. South Africa is one of only 17 megadiverse countries, a group of countries that comprise only 10% of Earth’s surface, yet host 70% of its fauna and flora.

Our unique biomes, from fynbos to grasslands, host a remarkable diversity of species. We should be proud of and nurture our rich natural heritage, which brings an array of benefits for people and the economy.

Yet we aren’t faring all that well when it comes to conserving South Africa’s unique and threatened biodiversity. Despite the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act enabling the creation of protected areas, to date just more than 9% of our terrestrial landscape is formally protected, mostly in national parks and nature reserves.

This figure is more than a little worrying given our recent commitments to ensure that by 2030 we conserve at least 30% of terrestrial, inland water and coastal and marine areas. An ambitious and daunting task!

We have a long way to go before we reach this 30×30 target, and yet South Africa’s limited protected-area estate is increasingly coming under threat from mining. This is facilitated by an enabling regulatory environment that permits mining and related activities within certain protected areas.

The act makes provision for several types of protected areas, ranging from national parks (afforded the most stringent protection) to protected environments. Protected environments, declared for (among other reasons) the conservation of biodiversity, make up a third of the country’s protected-area estate.

But alarmingly, the act also empowers the minister of forestry, fisheries and the environment to permit mining in a protected environment.

These controversial provisions have been the subject of judicial scrutiny in the Mabola case. The Mabola Protected Environment was declared in 2014 to conserve grasslands and wetlands comprising “irreplaceable” and “optimal” critical biodiversity areas. It also formed part of the Enkangala-Drakensberg Strategic Water Source Area (one of 22 Strategic Water Source Areas which produce 50% of South Africa’s freshwater).

The minister granted permission to mine for coal in Mabola, a decision challenged by a coalition of eight civil society organisations represented by the Centre for Environmental Rights. The case was eventually won (although a second case which challenges the MEC’s decision to revoke the protected environment status in order to permit mining is still pending before the high court).

Mabola is by no means the only example of an attempt to mine in a protected environment. The problem is becoming increasingly persistent.

Most recently, we have seen an application to mine tungsten in the Moutonshoek Protected Environment on the West Coast. Moutonshoek not only protects endangered ecosystems and species but serves as the catchment for the primary tributary to the Verlorenvlei Estuary, a Ramsar wetland of international importance and important bird and biodiversity area.

The area stands to suffer significantly from the proposed tungsten mine, which threatens the site’s unique biodiversity as well as its water resources.

One would be forgiven for failing to understand how mining, an inherently destructive and environmentally damaging activity, can ever be accommodated within an area that has been formally protected to conserve ecosystems and species.

Yet section 48 of the act enables this. The section was revised in June to outline specific considerations for the minister when granting permission, such as assessing the ecological integrity of the protected environment. While these changes enhance environmental scrutiny, they fall short of eliminating the option of mining in protected environments, a step that should have been taken.

The section is permissive. It facilitates the erosion of the country’s protected area estate, undermining commitments the government has made to conserve biodiversity in terms of the recently published White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity and the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy.

It is also inconsistent with the objective of the act, namely, to create a network of protected areas as part of the government’s strategy to conserve South Africa’s biodiversity. Mining is, by its nature, environmentally damaging. One only needs to look at the havoc that has been wreaked in Mpumalanga by a legacy of coal mining to understand that mining is inimical to any efforts to protect the environment.

But section 24 of the Constitution guarantees the right to have the environment protected. The primacy of environmental protection was aptly articulated by Justice Sandile Ngcobo in the landmark Fuel Retailers case:

• “Development cannot subsist upon a deteriorating environmental base. Unlimited development is detrimental to the environment and the destruction of the environment is detrimental to development. Promotion of development requires protection of the environment. Yet the environment cannot be protected if development does not pay attention to the costs of environmental destruction.”

Development therefore must be justified in the context of measures that protect the environment.

What does all this mean? That mining undermines environmental protection is hardly arguable. Permitting mining in a protected environment is consequently inconsistent with the purpose of declaring a protected environment (to protect biodiversity), the objectives of the act, and the constitutional duty to protect the environment.

While this deleterious provision stands, we are not doing enough to protect our protected areas. We have made commitments both domestically and internationally to expand, not erode, our protected areas.

If we stand any chance of meaningfully reaching the target of 30% of terrestrial land effectively protected by 2030, we need to ensure that activities that undermine efforts to safeguard biodiversity are prevented, and our rich biodiversity conserved. DM

[Lisbeth]

DURBAN’S VIRGINIA BUSH NATURE RESERVE

BLF acolyte drives plan to turn ‘vacant’ eThekwini nature reserve into elite eco-estate


The Virginia Bush Nature Reserve is a sanctuary for wildlife in the heart of Durban North/La Lucia. It’s home to more than 170 species of trees and other natural vegetation, small antelope species, genets and numerous birds. (Photo: Tony Carnie)

By Tony Carnie | 17 Mar 2024 [/size]

A consortium of local entrepreneurs is pressing three levels of government to sanction the development of more than 200 luxury homes and apartments in the middle of Durban’s Virginia Bush Nature Reserve.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The plan to build elite homes and three five-storey high tower blocks within a gated private estate is being driven by ZC “Zah” Dlamini, a Durban businessman, partner in an undertakers firm and KwaZulu-Natal provincial chair of the Black First Land First (BLF) political group that recently allied itself with Jacob Zuma’s breakaway MK party.

Dlamini, with 15 or so unnamed partners, is promoting the plan as a “low impact, eco-conscious” residential development that would impact only “about 10%” of the reserve – but a brochure leaked on social media by local activist Pete Graham tells a very different story.


Architect impressions of the proposed Northwoods ‘eco-estate’ development, which includes three five-storey tower blocks. (Photo: Northwoods brochure )


Architect impressions of the proposed Northwoods ‘eco-estate’ development, which includes three five-storey tower blocks. (Photo: Northwoods brochure )


Architect impressions of the proposed Northwoods ‘eco-estate’ development, which includes three five-storey tower blocks. (Photo: Northwoods brochure )


An aerial view of the Virginia Bush Nature Reserve, a haven for wildlife surrounded by suburban housing in the Durban North/La Lucia area. (Photo: Supplied )

This document lays out plans to cram 100 “luxury houses” and a further 130 townhouses into a 38ha section of the proclaimed nature reserve in Durban North, along with a clubhouse, restaurant, swimming pool, sports field, tennis courts, putting green, gym and other facilities – with residual space for a “wildlife sanctuary” with small antelope species, birds and fish.

But eThekwini council officials, who have rejected Dlamini’s application, note that the Virginia forest and nature reserve is an integral part of the city’s open-space network and suggest that the housing plan could destroy or degrade up to 70% of the reserve’s protected natural habitat.


Proclaimed officially as a nature reserve in 2018, Virginia Bush has been managed as a wildlife sanctuary for decades and features several hiking trails, a public picnic site and a bird hide. (Photo: Tony Carnie)

Dlamini, a senior partner of the Durban-based Ikhaya Funeral Home business, does not appear to have any prior experience in property development, but is hoping to sell “executive houses” in the proposed Northwoods estate for up to R8-million each.

He appears to view the proclaimed nature reserve as “vacant land”, ripe for private development. But the plan, germinating behind the scenes since 2019, has now prompted opposition from numerous residents and raised concern about political pressures that could jeopardise the future of other urban nature reserves in Durban and elsewhere.

The concern is that Dlamini and his partners are intent upon “leapfrogging” the standard development approval process by city planners by putting pressure on more senior local, provincial or national government officials to back the project on the basis that it would create jobs, spur economic development and swell municipal rates coffers.

Although eThekwini’s real estate department and other branches rejected the plan in writing in March 2023, Daily Maverick has confirmed that there have been further engagements between Dlamini and eThekwini officials as recently as last month – apparently after interventions by the provincial and national government.

Last year, Dlamini wrote to national Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) Minister Barbara Creecy to voice his “frustration” about the rejection of his application. Creecy wrote back to Dlamini in August, indicating that developments within a nature reserve “are not necessarily prohibited”, but such developments had to be undertaken with the necessary approvals and in compliance with legal requirements.

Minister Barbara Creecy's letter

In response to our queries, Creecy’s office said Dlamini wrote to her department seeking to “understand the procedures and processes used by other developers who had managed to build houses in similar protected areas”.

As the declaration of protected areas was a concurrent function of provincial and municipal government, he was advised to approach the relevant authorities, “specifically the KwaZulu-Natal MEC as well as the eThekwini Municipality on the matter, as the DFFE has no direct jurisdiction on property development matters”.

Now Dlamini claims to have received support for his plans from Siboniso Duma, the KwaZulu-Natal MEC for the Department of Economic Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (Edtea).

Duma, who is also provincial chair of the ANC, has a dual mandate as MEC to promote economic development, while also safeguarding the environment.

“We had a meeting with the MEC [Duma] in December and, luckily, he understands things better. I explained everything to the MEC and he supported our project,” Dlamini claimed.


Officially proclaimed as a nature reserve in 2018, Virginia Bush has been managed as a wildlife sanctuary for decades and features several hiking trails, a public picnic site and bird hide. (Photo: Tony Carnie)

In response to queries from Daily Maverick, Duma’s spokesperson, Ndabe Sibiya, confirmed that the MEC had “advised both Mr Dlamini and eThekwini Metro to further engage on the matter”.

“It is worthy to note that the MEC’s intervention was a result of the correspondence which came from Minister Barbara Creecy on this matter. We are obliged to guide all entrepreneurs as it is our responsibility. Edtea is facilitating the engagements between Mr Dlamini and eThekwini Metro. Edtea does acknowledge that the matter falls within the mandate of eThekwini Metro.”

Dlamini is no stranger to elevating complaints to higher authority. Rather than instituting civil court proceedings, he lodged a complaint in 2017 with newly appointed Public Protector Busisiwe Mkhwebane over apparent delays by the Road Accident Fund (RAF) in reimbursing Ikhaya Funeral Home for claims involving the burial of indigent road crash victims.

Seemingly dissatisfied with the outcome of this complaint, he later wrote to the National Assembly’s portfolio committee on transport, urging members to “intervene on my RAF matter”.

“It is disappointing to have such government, especially parliamentary members, ignoring a South African instead of assisting. I still need assistance from all of you,” he wrote.

In response to the current backlash over the Virginia property development plan, Dlamini claims that opposition is due to “racism”.

“That land is owned by the government … It’s vacant. These bushes are all over the province of KZN,” he told Daily Maverick.

“They were used as boundaries [between white and black suburbs] … Now people are saying these bushes are giving them clean air. But we don’t have such things in our farms and locations … People must understand that there must be transformation. People must adjust. This is about race because nobody said anything when there was a white guy with us. Immediately after he left [in February] we are getting attacked.”


On paper, the Durban Metropolitan Open Space System (D’MOSS) covers almost a third of the Ethekwini municipal area, but only about 3% of that area enjoys effective conservation protection. This includes urban nature reserves such as Virginia Bush, Pigeon Valley, Burman Bush, Palmiet, New Germany, Kenneth Stainbank, Krantzkloof and Springside. (Photo: Tony Carnie)

How does he explain assertions that up to 230 new houses and allied developments can co-exist with a nature reserve?

“Yes, they can. But what species are protected? The municipality has failed to say. Is it a tree, or a cat, or a mouse? That land is zoned as open space. Why must areas be vacant while we are packed in our locations?

“We are going to explain all this … I am not even a member of the ANC so I don’t understand why they [objectors] are thinking that we are corrupt with Duma. Of course, you are correct [in your questions] that I am a member of Black First Land First.

“The government must close it down [Virginia]. People must just sit down and engage. These people are treating us like we are corrupt.”

Asked to clarify whether the project was to benefit poor or rich families, Dlamini said: “It doesn’t matter. We all want to be rich. We are not stealing … They are supposed to listen to us. But there are also people who are supporting this and want to be part of the project.

“We are still going to talk to the government. Elections are in two months. There will be a time when they have to choose. Low-cost houses will be built.

“We will deal with this Pete [Graham] politically. He must call us in a hall and we will explain. That place [Virginia Bush] will not be there too long. These nature reserves must be reassessed on why they are nature reserves. This is not our system. Before 1652 the whole of the country was a nature reserve. Why are they undermining us – because we are black!”

But, he suggested, “if you look at the houses, we don’t want to use the whole nature reserve – only about 10%. The whole nature reserve will be a private nature reserve that will be managed better in partnership with the government. We are talking to government as black people in poverty and in business – that open land must be given to us. We’ve been waiting too long.”

On whether his group would conduct an environmental impact assessment and public consultation process, Dlamini said: “We are still explaining to government how this will help the community and that people will get jobs for five to seven years.

“Then there will be a time when people will be called. We will give them time to think about it and then we can agree. But they must not claim that because they are rich there can be no development and that their word is final.”

Property development experience

Asked about his experience in property development, he said: “That’s just a fancy name. We want to build houses. I’ve built a house before. But we are working with people who are specialists in environment and estates. There’s a team. There are about 15 of us, but I put everyone together.

“Unfortunately, the white guy is no longer with us. But we will consider other people in the area. I won’t mention their names … [but] white guys are interested and it’s better that way. I don’t like people who are using racism.”

Asked to comment on claims that he had “elevated” his dispute to the Presidency, he said: “No. That’s not correct. But what we’ve done is that we have written to the president to speak to the provincial government to release land. But we never got any response.

“We are talking about only land owned by the government. They are custodians. They have been promising us. Land is everything. It can liberate us. If government wants to make sure that we are part of the economy they must start by giving us land.”

In response to Daily Maverick’s queries, the eThekwini Municipality confirmed that it received a long-term lease application for residential development at Virginia in January 2019.

“On the basis of the site choice, the submission was not supported and the applicant at the time was not in a position to furnish the municipality with his relevant details. The name and contact details of the applicant are known to the municipality, however, such details are subject to the Popi [Protection of Personal Information] Act, and the decision whether to make such details known may be subject to Paia [Promotion of Access to Information Act] application process.”

Subsequently, in February 2023, the relevant departments provided their final input on the application, which was used by eThekwini’s real estate department to decide on the application.

Application denied

The applicant was advised that the lease application was not supported for a number of reasons. These included the fact that Virginia Bush was a proclaimed nature reserve and had been a core component of the Durban Metropolitan Open Space System since 1999.

The municipality was concerned that the proposed Northwood development would have a significant negative impact on the Virginia Bush Nature Reserve, one of the few remaining natural green spaces in the Durban North area.

City spokesperson Gugu Sisilana said the municipality had made its position clear and did not wish to be drawn into further debate about Dlamini’s approach to Creecy.

On whether the city had received any communications or instructions from Duma, the city said:

“The application, including the position of the municipality from an environmental perspective, was discussed in December 2023. The MEC is the delegated authority to NEMPAA [National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act] for proclamations in KZN even though the municipality is the designated management authority. The proclamation of Virginia Bush Nature Reserve and others was gazetted by the MEC. In that regard, the municipal officials were requested to provide guidance to the applicant on the application.”

Asked to comment on perceptions that attempts were being made to “bully” the city into revising its decision, Sisilana said: “Officials of the municipality are obligated to serve all members of the public and when requests for meetings are submitted then these are accepted.

“During any engagement the officials carry out their responsibility in a fair, firm and professional manner. The assertion that the municipality has gone to extraordinary lengths – more than it would with other applicants – is not true and is rejected.”

Press Statement from eThekwini Municipality

Jane Troughton, chair of the Durban North Conservancy and member of the Enviro Fixers group, expressed concern that developers were “seeking to destroy our city’s beloved Virginia Bush for narrow private gain.”

As a proclaimed nature reserve, it was legally protected from any commercial activities, she said.

“The fact that Minister Creecy herself is corresponding with the developer raises suspicion of political involvement. We wish to raise the alarm for all South Africans – if this goes ahead, it sets a precedent for the private embezzlement and destruction of all our green spaces. What’s next? Krantzkloof Nature Reserve, iMfolozi, Kruger National Park?

“We intend to do whatever is necessary to save this space for the people of Durban. We are taking legal advice which we will action if necessary.”

Heinz de Boer, the Democratic Alliance spokesperson on environmental affairs in KZN, said Virginia Bush had served as a safe refuge for small mammals and remnant coastal forest for decades and hosted hikers and nature enthusiasts daily.

“How developers expect to procure, develop and gain environmental authorisation is beyond comprehension,” he said. DM