South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings:...

8
South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings: Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry : 22 October 2008, Cape Town Freek Venter GM: Conservation Management KRUGER NATIONAL PARK Cell: 082 9082687 Email: [email protected] Web: www.sanparks.org

Transcript of South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings:...

Page 1: South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings: Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry : 22.

South African National ParksOur view of the National Water

Act, as at present

Public Hearings: Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry : 22 October 2008, Cape Town

Freek Venter GM: Conservation Management

KRUGER NATIONAL PARK Cell: 082 9082687

Email: [email protected] Web: www.sanparks.org

Page 2: South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings: Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry : 22.

Problem Statement• SANParks mission - biodiversity conservation in a

representative set of parks for national interest– biodiversity of rivers strongly connected to social benefits – Indirect biodiversity benefits of the tourist economy particular

significance for the country • Parks are part of the wider landscape, as exemplified by

rivers• River management is mainly a DWAF mandate: in Parks

social process. We are dependant on and constantly have to engage other departments and water user sectors to achieve our goals

• Kruger Nat Park Rivers Programme in 1990s contributed to these goals.

• Currently involved in all initiatives (CMA’s, WRC & CSIR projects, Bilateral with DWAF at Sen. Management and Operational levels), trying to play our role as responsible partners

Page 3: South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings: Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry : 22.

National Water Act BackdropWe endorse and emphasize the following

• Initial principles (social + economic + environmental sustainability of societal well-being)

• The Environmental Reserve sustainability for human use of many kinds, through ecosystem services. Only achievable if social, econ, environ are ALL met

• The Reserve was determined through a rigorous, sound scientific & participative process

• We take note of the progress in incorporating aquifers and estuaries

• We also recognize some significant successes, e.g. Letaba River doesn’t stop flowing every March as in past!

• ‘‘Some for all for ever’Some for all for ever’

Page 4: South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings: Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry : 22.

MONTH1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Base flow

Hypothetical “building block” hydrological year

Flood

Spawning flow

Sediment flushing flow

Channel maintenance flow

Seedling establishment flows

Page 5: South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings: Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry : 22.

Some problems with the NWA

• We recognize that the goals in the Act are long-term, and that quality is generally linked to flows, our view is:

– there are some improvements in some rivers (moving towards achievement of the Environmental Reserve)

– but, contrary to the intention of the Act, most rivers are deteriorating (getting further from the Environmental Reserve)

• We recognize moves to include water quality in the Reserve but wish to underline difficulties around e.g. slowly-accumulating persistent organics (in principle the Act says any long-term accumulation should not be allowed)

Page 6: South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings: Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry : 22.

• The reach of the Act in terms of inappropriate land-use is important (“land-use will be considered” is vague – closer cooperation with Dept Agric, DEAT, etc.)

• Alien invasive aquatic plants partly covered by Working for Water, but almost no control of alien invasive fish, some highly threatening

• International issues - impacts on neighboring countries e.g. Mozambique and vice versa (e.g. damming with back flooding into KNP gorges)

Some problems with the NWA

Page 7: South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings: Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry : 22.

Conclusions• Commitment and support by DWAF appreciated, but

slow implementation shackles SANParks’ mandate. We see this as mainly related to:

• technical complexity e.g. of the river classification process, licensing – human capacity limitations – slow building of collaborative networks (e.g. CMA’s) and the

appropriate resulting ethos

• SANParks involved in further activities, e.g. Water Research Commission projects on shared learning with other stakeholders in adaptive catchment management, and on institutional arrangements to achieve this

• We hope these research initiatives help mainstream the success of the most progressive Water Act in the world

Page 8: South African National Parks Our view of the National Water Act, as at present Public Hearings: Portfolio Committee on Water Affairs and Forestry : 22.

Recommendations

• Foundation of NWA: Initial principles (soc + econ + environ sustainability) = sound and well though through! – stick to them

• Stronger cooperation between sister departments (Agric, DEAT)

• More emphasis on the ER – our perception is that present implementation lean towards economic and social

• Fast track implementation in critical areas – in Kruger in Kruger Park we have a crisis! Park we have a crisis! Maybe a specific strong body needs to be put in place to push this hard.

• Focus on key deliverables (e.g. River Classification) to get the old momentum back

• Need Big Imbizo