SOUTH AFRICA COMMEMORATES WORLD DAY TO COMBAT DESERTIFICATION

17 June 2008
Media Statement
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
TUESDAY, 17 JUNE 2008: Today, June 17, marks the United Nations “World Day to Combat Desertification”. An event aimed at highlighting the fight against land degradation/desertification in the world’s driest places. Desertification threatens not only our ecological integrity but also the well being of our people especially the poorest of the poor.

Land degradation is a threat to sustainable rural development and some of the underlying causes of degradation/desertification in South Africa, originated from the past land and agricultural policies. Desertification is mainly a problem in the former homeland areas and has been as a result of among others, over harvesting of natural resources, unsustainable agricultural practices and mining activities.

This year’s theme “Combating Land Degradation for Sustainable Agriculture” highlights the importance of sustainable agriculture in preserving biodiversity and the well being of our citizens. It gives cognizance to soaring food prices and the recent discussions at the 16th session of the Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD16), which were aimed at helping Africa manage its natural resources to boost agricultural productivity, rural development and the fight against drought and desertification through sustainable land use.

Addressing delegates Deputy Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Honorable Rejoice Mabudafhasi said government needed to collaborate with different stakeholders in order to create awareness in the fight against desertification through environmental and developmental programmes. She added that non- governmental organizations have strong links with communities especially at grass roots level and communities trust them. They can play a more effective role in assisting and delivering on project implementation.

She also indicated that rural communities especially women and youth need to be educated on sustainable and efficient agricultural techniques. It will help them fight poverty in their families in a sustainable way that will not harm the environment.

This year’s commemoration of WDCD is a collaboration between government (Environmental Affairs and Tourism and Agriculture) and the Environmental Monitoring Group, a member of Drynet which is an international network supported by the European Commission whose focus in on strengthening the role of civil society in addressing problems of desertification through sustainable land management.
Media enquiries can be directed to:
Mava Scott (Acting Chief Director: Communications)
Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

+ More

R4.5 Million Prizes Awarded to Cleanest Town Competition Winners

20 June 2008 - Media Statement - Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism - FRIDAY, 20 JUNE 2008: Ethekwini Metropolitan Municipality and Swartland Local Municipality were recently announced as R1 Million winners of the Cleanest Town Competition for metropolitan and local categories respectively at a gala dinner held at Birchwood Hotel in Boksburg. City of Cape Town and Nelson Mandela Bay walked away with 2nd and 1st Runners-Up prizes (R500 000 and R1000 000) respectively in the Metropolitan Category whilst Govan Mbeki and Greater Tzaneen municipalities received similar awards in the Local Municipality Category.

Gauteng MEC for Agriculture, Environment and Tourism, Mr. Khabisi Mosunkutu delivered a keynote address and announced the winners. Also in attendance to witness the prize-giving ceremony was the Free State MEC for Economic, Environment Affairs and Tourism, Mr. Neo Masithela.

The Cleanest Town Competition was introduced in 2001 as an annual multi-stakeholder event and has been running successfully since its inception. The competition aims to raise awareness amongst municipalities and their respective communities on responsible waste management practices addressing the waste management problems that beset their respective environments. Through the competition rewards are provided in the form of prize money in order to support and reinforce proper waste management practices. The prize money awarded to winning municipalities is tied to implementation of waste management related projects.

This competition has been implemented as part of the National Waste Management Strategy, which in the long term aims to reduce waste generation and disposal by 50% and 25% respectively by 2012 and to develop a plan for Zero Tolerance by 2022. The expected spin offs thereof are creation of a cleaner and safer environment to live in, create job opportunities (both short and long term) and business opportunities through setting up waste Buy-Back Centers in municipalities and capacity building on waste management at a local and implementation level.
Kgomoto Mokgoko (Acting Director: Education & Outreach)

+ More

Deputy Minister’s 2008 Commemoration Address for World Day To Combat Desertification

Deputy Minister of Agriculture
MEC of Gauteng Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Environment
Mayor
Distinguished Guests
Members of the media
Ladies and gentlemen

Introduction
Today we gathered to celebrate the important day, June 17 which was declared by the United Nations General Assembly in 1994 to the World Day to Combat Desertification and the effects of Drought. This day was set aside for all of us to reflect on the effects of desertification and promote public awareness and the implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) in those Countries experiencing serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa.
It is fitting to address this commemoration of World Day to Combat Desertification just after we have concluded the 12th Meeting of African Environment Ministers, which was held in Johannesburg last week. The meeting of African Ministers reaffirmed that poverty; land degradation and desertification and climate change are some of the greatest challenges facing Africa.
The meeting also emphasized the need for Africa to move from dialogue and policy development to implementation. Strengthening collaboration among different government departments, non-governmental organizations, institutions and community-based organizations was also emphasized by the meeting.

It is therefore promising to see this celebration being organized in collaboration with other government departments and non-governmental organization-Environmental Monitoring Group (EMG)

We are meeting here on this World Day to Combat Desertification and Drought at the time when issues of food security, rising food and fuel prices and use of biofuels are confronting us at national, regional and global level. It is therefore clear that these challenges require our joint efforts.

This year’s theme: “Combating land degradation for sustainable Agriculture” is therefore appropriate”. The theme challenges us to minimise land degradation and implement our international obligations such as the three Rio Conventions of Convention on Biological Diversity, UNCCD and Climate Change and their associated national action programs and strategies.
Desertification and or land degradation, if not attended to, causes more harm than good. Land degradation weakens the soil’s fertility, disrupts the balance of the water cycle and contributes to food insecurity, famine and poverty as well as forced migration.
For South Africa to be able to address the challenges posed by desertification and climate change there is a need for government to join forces with non governmental organizations, communities, members of the academia and research institutions, private sector, parastatals and civil society.
It is very important for practitioners to marry the aspect of science and indigenous knowledge in the fight against desertification and or land degradation. Scientific research must be integrated with proven policies and strategies aimed at sustainable development and appropriate capacity building. Local knowledge needs to be identified, preserved and shared while respecting the rights of the owners of such knowledge, as men and women living on the land often have long developed and implemented sustainable practices of reducing land degradation and the associated risks.
International Commitment
The theme also reminds us of our WSSD commitment. In paragraph 7(1) of the Plan of Implementation adopted by the WSSD, the UNCCD is acknowledged as one of the tools for poverty eradication. The implementation of the Convention is also viewed as important in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

The plan of Implementation states the need for action at all levels to combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought and floods through such measures as improved use of climate and weather information and forecasts, early warning systems, land and natural resource management and agricultural practices and ecosystem conservation in order to reverse the current trends and minimize degradation of land and water resources, including through the provision of adequate and predictable financial resources to implement the UNCCD.

CHALLENGES
According to the 2003 World Development Report, the environmental problems of the coming century will almost certainly arise from the worsening of current problems that are not receiving adequate attention. Some scientists rank desertification and deforestation third among environmental issues requiring attention, after climate change and water resources.

As we all know now, Africa will be extremely hard hit by climate change and land degradation and drought will exacerbate Africa’s vulnerability; our economies are particularly vulnerable because of reliance on agriculture and natural resources. The rural poor whose livelihood depends on agriculture are most at risk. Land degradation Desertification and climate change, are likely to affect our ability to achieve the Millennium Development Goals of eradicating poverty and ensuring environmental sustainability.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment confirmed that drylands are most affected – each year 120 600 square kilometers are lost through desertification. Both desertification and deforestation have triggered ecosystem destruction and large-scale population movements, disrupted economic development prospects, aggravated regional conflicts and instability and threatened the lives of people living in affected areas. Climate change is projected to increase the number of droughts and floods. Coupled with sea level rise, this will affect food security, the productivity o commercial agriculture, commodity exports, health and energy. Hundred of millions more people will suffer from increased risk of floods. Crop production will be seriously affected with yields falling in most parts of Africa. Diseases such as Malaria will become more widespread. People will lose their livelihoods and communities particularly in Africa will suffer.

ACTION
Implementation of NEPAD
The New Partnership for African Development, NEPAD, has prioritised land degradation as part of Africa’s collective response to address these challenges. NEPAD’s Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP) and NEPAD Action Plan for Environment provide us with a framework for collaboration and implementation of programs to combat desertification and address poverty. The implementation of Sustainable Land Management projects are critical in addressing the challenge and South Africa is lagging behind in grabbing the opportunities and resources provided through Global Environment Facility and TerrAfrica Initiative.

To increase the level of awareness, it is important that we promote collaboration among different actors in environment and development programmes.
NGOs with their strong grass-root links and a long history of project involvement and a trust relationship with communities enable them to play a more effective local role than some organs of state. As such, they can play an important role in assisting and delivering project implementation.

Implementation of National Action Programs (NAP)
The UNCCD calls upon Parties to develop National Action Programme (NAP) as key instrument to combat land degradation and poverty. NAPs provides framework of partnerships that calls for all government structures, communities NGOs and private sector to work together and for the international community to provide the necessary technology, capacity development and financial resources. The UNCCD National Action Programmes, properly supported and implemented can address the challenges of land degradation and climate change.
Conclusion
Ladies and gentlemen, this event will be followed by a two day
workshop where South African civil society organizations including
government officials and other relevant stakeholders will engage in
issues of land degradation, agriculture desertification and sustainable
land and water management. The workshop came at a right time when South Africa, through the DEAT, is in the process of developing the UNCCD fourth Country Report which is due for submission this
year. The report after completion will be submitted to the UNCCD Secretariat.
I look forward to continued collaborative efforts and working together to combat desertification and the effects of drought and in the process alleviate poverty in our resolve to attain a better life for all.
I thank you

+ More

Ministry of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

For immediate release

STATEMENT BY THE OFFICE OF MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS & TOURISM, ON 19 JUNE 2008

APPEALS DECISION: CHAPMAN’S PEAK DRIVE (CPD) TOLLING INFRASTRUCTURE

The Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Mr. Marthinus van Schalkwyk, has considered the appeals lodged against the Department’s Record of Decision for the Chapman’s Peak Drive tolling infrastructure.

After evaluating all the appeals and relevant information submitted to him, the Minister has come to a decision, a copy of which is attached hereto.

APPEAL DECISION

APPEALS AGAINST THE CHAPMAN’S PEAK DRIVE (CPD) TOLLING INFRA-STRUCTURE: PROJECT REFERENCE: 12/12/20/610/3/8

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 In terms of section 22 of the Environment Conservation Act, No. 73 of 1989 ("ECA"), read with the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations published in Government Notice No. R. 1183 of 5 September 1997, the Director-General of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism ("the DEAT") issued a Record of Decision ("RoD") for the Chapman’s Peak Drive ("CPD") tolling infrastructure on 3 July 2005. The decision was subsequently appealed against and the Appellants have requested that the original decision be reconsidered and set aside.

1.2 Notwithstanding the repeal of relevant sections of ECA by the National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998 ("NEMA"), section 50(3) of NEMA provides that applications made in terms of sections 21, 22 or 26 of ECA that had been submitted but not finalised when those sections were repealed, have to be finalised as if those sections had not been repealed.

2. BACKGROUND

2.1 The development that is the subject of the various appeals essentially involves the erection of a tolling infrastructure on CPD that will have two toll plazas at Koeëlbaai and Noordhoek, respectively.

2.2 CPD was declared a toll road in terms of the Western Cape Toll Roads Act, No. 11 of 1999, on 30 September 2002. The decision to toll and to have two tolling plazas was taken in 2003, after completion of all the relevant statutory processes, including an extensive public participation process. Although objections have been raised in respect thereof, the decision to toll is not a listed activity which would require an environmental impact assessment ("EIA") or environmental authorization. The EIA application was referred to DEAT because the proposed site of the tolling plaza at the Koëlbaai end encroaches slightly on the Table Mountain National Park.

2.3 The listed activities that relate to this matter are -

(a) the construction of the structures associated with the CPD road {item 1(d)} of Schedule 1 to Government Notice No. R1182 of 5 September 1997 (as amended), issued under ECA; and

(b) the change of land use from use for nature conservation to use as part of a road (item 2(e) of Schedule 1 to GN No. R1182).

2.4 Consequent upon the positive RoD issued to the Proponent by the Director-General, several Appellants appealed the decision made by the Director-General and submitted appeals in terms of section 35(3) of ECA.

3. APPEALS

3.1 My office initially received several appeals from various persons, some in their personal capacities and others representing various organisations, namely:

L Morris on behalf of (obo) Misty Cliffs Village Association; T Amira obo Kenridge The Hills Ratepayers Association; Dr J Parker obo Bishopscourt Village Residents Association; R Ramsden; L Ramsden; Mr & Mrs P. Tingley; N van der Spuy obo Llandudno Civic Association; G R Bond and others obo Noordhoek Environmental Action Group; U Sturmann obo Orgatec Business Services CC; R Timms obo Hout Bay and Llandudno Environmental Conservation Group; P Koning; P Calitz, G T Robertson; C Cullinan (of Winstanley and Cullinan) obo the South African Property Owner’s Association (SAPOA); K Fawcett obo the Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance and various other civic organizations and individual persons.

3.2 In the appeal submitted on its behalf by Winstanley & Cullinan, SAPOA reserved the right to supplement its appeal with regard to traffic flow rates, as soon as it had obtained the relevant data. Although acceptance of the further supplementary appeal was initially refused by DEAT, it was subsequently accepted and considered.

3.3 Representations were also made by Mallinicks Attorneys (now Webber Wentzel), inter alia, to the effect that inadequate consultation had taken place with their client, Serina Investments (Pty) Ltd, in particular during the EIA process. I resolved to take those representations into account and have done so. In addition, in an attempt to resolve the dispute with Serina Investments, I requested on 17 May 2006 that the Western Cape MEC for Transport and Public Works facilitate a meeting between representatives from Serina Investments, the toll operator and its environmental team to discuss their concerns and engage on proposed alternatives. The outcome of that meeting was included in the relevant documentation before me, even though the dispute could not be resolved.

3.4 Several grounds of appeal emerged from the above appeals that can broadly be categorised, inter alia, as follows:

(a) Dissatisfaction with the EIA process, most notably with the public participation process;
(b) Opposition to tolling of CPD and the declaration of CPD as a toll road;
(c) Opposition to the consequences of tolling, including the limitation of access to the picnic sites and hiking trails and the fear that tourists would be discouraged from visiting the area due to tolling of one of the access routes to the area;
(d) Inadequacies in terms of the consideration of alternatives, both in terms of the siting of the toll plazas, with regard to traffic congestion and danger to traffic as well as the methods of collecting toll;
(e) Devaluation of property and encroachment on property as well as impact on existing houses;
(f) Environmental impacts associated with the tolling infrastructure, including but not limited to destruction of natural vegetation, visual impact, noise, lighting and fumes;
(g) Excessively large toll plazas, particularly given the actual traffic flow;
(h) The adequacy of one toll plaza at the Hout Bay end of CPD;
(i) The impact on residents who make use of recreational areas along CPD;
(j) Certain information had not been made available to the public at large for comment.

3.5 I considered the appeal documentation and was concerned by the fact that some of the Appellants claimed that certain "additional information", including certain traffic statistics that were collected since the temporary toll plaza was opened, was not made available for public comment. It was also apparent that the dispute as to whether or not the proposed toll plaza on the Noordhoek end of CPD encroached on the property of Serina Investments had not been resolved.

3.6 I accordingly decided that the additional information had to be placed in the public domain and that an opportunity had to be given for comment to be made in respect thereof.

3.7 Subsequent thereto, two volumes of additional information were compiled in order to give the public an opportunity to comment thereon from 31 August 2007 to 1 October 2007. The cut-off date was later extended to 29 October 2007. Arising from this second public participation process, a number of individuals and organisations submitted comments, some of which emanated from objectors who had not previously appealed against the Director-General’s decision. Comments were submitted by K Dixon; C J van der Spuy on behalf of the Llandudno Civic Association; B A Bird; C de Villiers of Mallinicks Inc on behalf of Serina Investments and certain others, mostly land owners in the vicinity; K Fawcett on behalf of Greater Cape Town Civic Alliance and various other civic organisations and individual persons; and C J & R A T Sutton.

3.8 These comments and additional comments were taken into account as if they were appeals or supplemented original appeals. Although the original appeal lodged by Serina Investments was received out of time, I had regard both to the appeal and the supplementary submissions submitted on behalf of Serina Investments and others. Subsequent thereto Webber Wentzel (incorporating Mallinicks), in a letter dated 24 April 2008 on behalf of Serina Investments, advised that they were seeking counsel’s advice and would be lodging “further submissions” on appeal by 30 April 2008. These submissions were duly lodged on that day. There was no entitlement on the part of Serina Investments to lodge further representations given that the deadline for submissions had already expired. Although I was therefore under no obligation to have regard to such further submissions, and the submissions raised a number of aspects which I had already had regard to, I nevertheless took them into account.

3.9 As a consequence of both the first and second public participation process, I consider that the public at large has had more than adequate opportunity to formulate appeal grounds and to place them before me in order that they may be taken into account during the appeal process.

3.10 Among the concerns expressed by the persons and organisations who commented subsequent to the additional information having been made public, were the following (some of which had already been raised in the initial process):

(a) Issues relating to the size of and necessity for the tolling facilities:
(i) The temporary tolling structure (on the Koeëlbaai side of CPD) is sufficient.
(ii) There is no need for elaborate toll plazas.
(iii) The traffic volumes do not justify "excessive" toll plazas.
(iv) No delays had been experienced.
(v) Tolling can be done by automatic number plate recognition.

(b) Procedural unfairness, inter alia, in that landowners were not given adequate notice of the EIA and for that reason did not participate in the EIA process.

(c) There was a failure during the EIA phase to consider the impact of the toll plaza on the Noordhoek side of the CPD on the property of Serina Investments and other landowners, mainly as regards visual and noise impact. Although the property of Serina Investments is currently a working kaolin mine, it submitted that visual and noise impact should have been assessed as the property was allegedly "earmarked for future residential development on the relevant structure plan adopted for the area". The Appellant further repeated its allegation that the toll plaza on the Noordhoek side encroaches on its property. In the event Mallinicks Inc. suggested on behalf of Serina Investments (and their other clients) that if I were to find that there is no sufficient basis to set aside and/or vary the RoD, I should, in the further alternative -

(i) appoint an advisory panel of independent experts to advise me in respect of the issues raised on appeal;

(ii) obtain independent expert evidence in respect of all the issues raised by their clients on appeal; and

(iii) grant their clients an opportunity to respond to such expert evidence before making a final determination on appeal.

(d) The EIA process failed to consider alternative sites for the Noordhoek plaza.

(e) The EIA process failed to justify the need for the Noordhoek plaza.

(f) The operational and financial justifications offered by the Proponent are so fundamentally flawed that they do not justify or outweigh any impact on the environment.

(g) The Consultant failed to consider road safety issues.

4. DECISION

4.1 In terms of section 35(4) of ECA, I have the authority, after considering appeals, to confirm, set aside or vary the decision of, in this case, the Director-General.

4.2 In the event, and after having considered all the information available to me, I have decided not to set aside the Director-General's decision, but to vary it by, inter alia, the insertion of a further condition that the toll plaza at the Noordhoek end of CPD be constructed entirely within the road reserve of CPD and may not encroach on the adjacent land owned by Serina Investments. It follows that I have decided to dismiss the appeals lodged against the decision to allow for the building of tolling infrastructure on CPD at Koeëlbaai and Noordhoek to the extent that those appeals seek the setting aside of the Director-General's RoD, since I have formed the view that the information placed before me does not justify such setting aside of the original RoD.

4.3 In reaching my decision, I have considered the information contained in the following documents:

(a) The Project file, reference number 12/12/20/610/3/8, dated 3 July 2005, and other documents associated therewith.
(b) Provincial Gazette Extraordinary 5706, 4 May 2001; Provincial Gazette Extraordinary 5930, 20 September 2002
(c) The respective appeals.
(d) The Proponent’s comments.
(e) The Appellants’ response to the Proponent’s comments.
(f) Supplementary submissions by or on behalf of the Appellants.
(g) Additional expert reports submitted by certain Appellants.
(h) Additional information that had been put in the public domain on my direction, the comments thereon by the Appellants as well as others and the response thereto by the Consultant.

4.4 The reasons for my decision are, inter alia, as follows:

(a) The DEAT is required to primarily consider the environmental impact occasioned by the proposed development. The decision regarding tolling as such falls, strictly speaking, within the mandate of another Department although the objections raised in this regard have been noted.

I am satisfied that the socio-economic considerations associated with tolling were adequately considered during the separate process followed by the responsible Department. Notwithstanding, I am also cognisant of my duty in terms of relevant legislation to take into account various factors such as the environmental, social and economic sustainability of the development when making a decision. I have applied my mind to these issues with particular regard to the plazas contemplated, the potential environmental impacts, the desirability of the development and my opinion is that these factors have been adequately considered and do not justify the setting aside of the RoD.

(b) The EIA complied with the requirements of the EIA regulations in force at the time when the RoD was made. From the information available, it is apparent that there was an extensive public participation and awareness process in the form of advertisements in several national, regional and local papers, letters to interested and affected parties, as well as posters and telephonic notifications. The public was given every opportunity to participate.

(c) I disagree with the contention by some appellants that tourism in the area will suffer and that access to picnic sites and hiking will be unduly restricted and that access will not be possible, and support the view that safe, organised thoroughfare will encourage visitors and in all probability enhance and promote tourism in the area.

(d) I have considered the environmental impact of the proposed development and I am satisfied that the issues raised with regard to, inter alia, damage to natural vegetation, light pollution, traffic noise, traffic fumes and visual impact have been adequately addressed, including having regard to the impact on the property owned by Serina Investments. The negative environmental impact associated with the project can be sufficiently mitigated, provided the conditions contained in the RoD are implemented and adhered to. I am furthermore satisfied that various alternative plausible sites were considered by a technical team during the process and that the decision taken is indeed the right one as the most technically feasible site had been selected as the appropriate site. The proposed sites provide the best compromise of technical, financial and environmental considerations and do not impede traffic visibility nor are they too close to any other traffic junction. I am satisfied that the best possible placement had been considered. I am also satisfied that the EIA had indeed been conducted in respect of the site on which the Noordhoek toll plaza is intended to be constructed, albeit that the longitudinal coordinates as reflected in the RoD were erroneous. The contemplated plaza extends over a linear distance of 120m and will be located in front of property owned by Serina Investments as reflected in the Final Environmental Impact Report. To inform my assessment of this matter, I conducted an in loco inspection.

(e) With regard to the specific averments of Serina Investments that the visual and noise impact on its property was not taken into account, I had regard to the expert reports provided by it. I have subsequently also obtained information from the City of Cape Town confirming that Serina Investment's application for the amendment to the structure plan on which it relies for the purpose of a residential development of the property was only submitted on 17 September 2007, after the EIA process had already been completed and has not yet been finalised. It is therefore clear that Serina Investments does not yet have any development rights and did not have any at the time of the EIA process. Taking the aforegoing into account, I am of the view that there is insufficient reason to uphold the appeals put up by Mallinicks Inc. on its behalf as well as to accede to any of its alternative proposals. I am similarly of the view that there is insufficient reason to uphold the appeals of the other parties represented by Mallinicks Inc. On the encroachment issue raised by Serina Investments, I am satisfied that its concern in this regard will be adequately addressed by the inclusion in the RoD of the condition referred to in clause 4.2 above.

(f) I have also considered the substantial submission made by the Appellant, Mr K Fawcett, regarding the traffic statistics, in which he argues that the figures relied on by the developer are 33% too high, resulting in an excessive footprint of the toll facilities. However, after considering the response of the Consultant for the Developer, dated 17 January 2008, as amplified in its further response of 8 April 2008, I am satisfied that there are various factors and considerations which necessitate the size of the toll plazas as proposed and that they will not be excessive. I am also satisfied that the Proponent is justified in seeking two toll plazas, inter alia, for purposes of preventing any avoidance of payment of the toll in order to recoup the significant financial investment associated with the maintenance of CPD. The purpose of the dual toll plaza does not only serve the purpose of toll collection. Historically, this road has been affected by safety concerns and incidents of rockfalls exacerbated by seasonal fires. A dual toll thus has the additional advantage that, in the event of an emergency, CPD may expeditiously be closed at both ends. Given the potential for dangers to arise on the CPD at relatively short notice, it seems to me important that the CPD should be capable of being closed at both ends with relative ease and under adequate supervision. It is thus in my view not correct that the Noordhoek toll plaza serves only the function of collecting tolls. All these considerations, taken together, outweigh, in my opinion, those that have been invoked on appeal, such as the allegedly insignificant loss of income if no tolling plaza were to be constructed at the Noordhoek end of CPD.

(g) The proposed permanent toll plazas will blend aesthetically with the surrounding environment and there is no basis to contend that they (particularly the toll plaza at the Noordhoek end of CPD) will devalue property in the surrounding area or impact unduly on housing in the area. On the contrary, the plazas are socially, environmentally and economically sustainable.

(h) I have weighed the cumulative effect of objections which I consider to carry some weight and am satisfied that, taken together, they do not justify setting aside the RoD.

4.5 The reasons set out above are not exhaustive and should not be construed as such and I reserve the right to provide comprehensive reasons for my decision should this become necessary.

4.6 The conditions enclosed in the attached Record of Decision are deemed adequate to mitigate the identified impacts to acceptable levels.

+ More

MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MP
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM

RECORD OF DECISION

BY
THE MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
ON APPEALS AGAINST THE ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORISATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF TOLL INFRASTRUCTURE ON CHAPMAN’S PEAK DRIVE, CAPE TOWN (PROJECT REFERENCE 12/12/20/610/3/8)

I, Marthinus van Schalkwyk hereby, in terms of section 22(3) read with section 35(4) of the Environment Conservation Act, (Act 73 of 1989) (“the Act”), authorise the Department of Transport and Public Works of the Provincial Government of the Western Cape to undertake the activity specified/ detailed below subject to the indicated conditions.

1. DESCRIPTION, EXTENT AND LOCATION OF THE ACTIVITY:

The proposed project entails the construction of tolling structures required to facilitate the functioning of Chapman’s Peak Drive as a toll road between Hout Bay and Noordhoek in Cape Town. This includes one toll plaza with four lanes and associated control building at the Koeëlbaai site on the Hout Bay section of the drive, and a toll plaza at the Noordhoek site with 4 lanes and associated structures (Option 4B in the Final Environmental Impact Report dated December 2003).

The proposed activity will be located in the Western Cape Province in the Magisterial District Wynberg, near Hout Bay, Noordhoek, Cape Town. The GPS coordinates are approximately: Latitude: 34° 03.766” S and Longitude: 18° 22.303” E (Koeëlbaai site).
Latitude: 34° 05.783” S and Longitude: 18°21.993” E (Noordhoek site)

The sites are indicated in Fig. 2.5 (Koeëlbaai) and Fig. 2.7 (Noordhoek) between pages 15 and 21 of the Final Environmental Impact Report of December 2003.

The project falls within the ambit of Item 1(d) of Schedule 1 to Government Notice R.1182 (as amended) promulgated under sections 21 of the Act.

2. KEY FACTORS INFORMING THE DECISION:

2.1 In reaching my decision to dismiss the appeals submitted against the environmental authorisation of the project, and to issue this record of decision I have taken, inter alia, the following information/aspects into consideration:

(a) The Project file, reference number 12/12/20/610/3/8, dated 3 July 2005, and other documents associated therewith.
(b) Provincial Gazette Extraordinary 5706, 4 May 2001; Provincial Gazette Extraordinary 5930, 20 September 2002
(c) The respective appeals.
(d) The Proponent’s comments.
(e) The Appellants’ response to the Proponent’s comments.
(f) Supplementary submissions by or on behalf of the Appellants.
(g) Additional expert reports submitted by certain Appellants.
(h) Additional information that had been put in the public domain on my direction, the comments thereon by the Appellants as well as others and the response thereto by the Consultant.

2.2 The reasons for my decision are set out in my Appeals Decision dated 18 June 2008.

2.3 Based on the above, I support the opinion of the Department in paragraph 2.3 of the record of decision dated 3 July 2005 that the tolling structures on Chapman’s Peak Drive will have the effects mentioned in that paragraph. I furthermore agree with the Department’s conclusion in paragraph 2.4 of that record of decision, that this activity will not lead to substantial detrimental impact on the environment, that potential detrimental impacts resulting from this activity can be mitigated to acceptable levels and that the principles contained in section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (Act No 107 of 1998-NEMA) can be upheld.

2.4 I have accordingly decided to uphold the authorisation issued to the Western Cape Department of Transport and Public Works (DTPW) as contained in the record of decision dated 3 July 2005, subject to the conditions and provisions listed below.

2.5 The relevant and applicable conditions stipulated in the record of decision dated 3 July 2005 as well as the applicable and relevant mitigation/rehabilitation measures and recommendations in the documents as mentioned in paragraph 2.1 of the said record of decision, as amended by this record of decision, shall be a legally binding component of any contract and shall therefore be legally enforceable.

3. CONDITIONS

3.1 Description and extent of the activity

The authorisation applies in respect of:

- The construction of tolling structures required to facilitate the functioning of Chapman’s Peak Drive as a toll road in Cape Town.
- This includes:

- One toll plaza with four lanes and associated control building at the Koeëlbaai site on the Hout Bay section of the drive; and
- One toll plaza at the Noordhoek site with 4 lanes and associated structures as indicated on the map and sketches contained in the documents reviewed under point 2.1 of the record of decision dated 3 July 2005.

3.2 Specific conditions

3.2.1 The relevant and applicable recommendations and mitigation/rehabilitation measures contained in the documents mentioned in paragraph 2.1 of the record of decision dated 3 July 2005 as amended by this record of decision must be adhered to.

3.2.2 The current environmental management plan (EMP) must be followed strictly.

3.2.3 Site development plans must be submitted to the Department and the relevant provincial environmental department for acceptance prior to commencing of construction. The site development plans must, amongst other things, contain the maximum width of the lanes and the maximum width of the platforms to ensure that the level of disturbance is limited to only what is needed and that it is defined prior to the commencement of construction. In particular, the toll plaza on the Noordhoek side must be constructed entirely within the width of the road reserve of the Chapman’s Peak Drive so as to obviate any encroachment on the property of Serina Investments (Pty) Ltd, described as Portion 5 of Cape Farm 1387 Noordhoek.

3.2.4 Both the EMP and the site development plans are living documents and may be altered where practical implications or independent monitoring and auditing of the project show this to be beneficial. Any alterations to the EMP and site development plans must be submitted to and be subject to acceptance by the relevant authorities after comments have been obtained from the environmental monitoring committee (EMC).

3.2.5 Disturbance to vegetation must be restricted to the absolute minimum and areas disturbed as a result of construction activities must be rehabilitated as soon as possible to the satisfaction of the environmental control officer (ECO), the provincial environmental department, SANParks and the Department.

3.2.6 Soil erosion must be prevented during construction activities. Land degraded as a result of the above shall be rehabilitated as soon as possible to the satisfaction of the ECO, the provincial environmental department, SANParks and the Department.

3.2.7 Should any cultural, historical and/or archaeological artefacts be discovered on site during the construction phase, work at the site must cease immediately. The ECO, the provincial environmental department, the Western Cape Cultural and Heritage department and the Department must be notified within 24 hours where after the relevant department will issue instructions on the way forward.

3.2.8 Appropriate safety measures must be taken to ensure the safety of construction personnel.

3.2.9 Every effort must be made to optimise the benefits of the tolling structures through maximising the number of local people employed during the construction phase, maximising the transfer of skills and sharing knowledge acquired during the implementation and operational phases.

3.2.10 Power-lines and telecommunication lines must be placed underground (trenched).

3.2.11 As part of the rehabilitation process, a nursery must be establish to assist in the rescue operations for vegetation and seeds that could be used during the rehabilitation process of the cut and fill areas as well as for the re-vegetation process of the berms.

3.2.12 The berms must be constructed in such a way and to such an extent that it would be functional to mitigate visual impact. Their final design and re-vegetation must however be finalised in conjunction with a landscape specialist and must be included in the site development plans.

3.2.13 The re-vegetated canopy roofs must slope down towards the seaside with the highest point being closest to the cut slope. The maximum height measured from the under side of the canopy should be approximately 5,2m to accommodate busses in this lane.

3.2.14 Building materials and finishes must blend in with the surrounding environment.

3.2.15 Down lighting and screened lighting should be used as far as possible in order to limit the visual impact. The details of this must also be included in the site development plans.

3.2.16 The amount of signage and the size thereof should be limited to the minimum required legally as not to unnecessarily impact visually, or otherwise, on the sense of place and the integrity of the landscape. This must be discussed in close cooperation with the Western Cape Heritage Authority, SANParks and DTPW.

3.2.17 Effective protection measures around drainage infrastructure (e.g. erosion protection measures such as gabions to protect natural watercourses, installation of litter traps, as well as sediment, grease and sand traps before water enters natural streams) must be implemented. The detail must form part of the site development plans.

3.2.18 The use of soft engineering options to facilitate water infiltration and reduce runoff from hard surfaces should always be the preferred option. The detail of this must form part of the site development plans.

3.3. Monitoring and auditing

3.3.1 The applicant must appoint an environmental manager (EM) and an environmental control officer (ECO) for the construction and operation phase of the project. The EM must be an independent consultant and support and assist the ECO. The qualifications, experience and terms of reference of the EM and ECO must include amongst other things, the following:

Qualifications and experience:
- A tertiary qualification in the natural sciences.
- A proven track record in contract management and environmental management.

Terms of reference:
- Conduct regular site visits during the period of construction.
- Review method statements prepared by the applicant or his/her contractor, in compliance with the construction EMP, and ensure these are sufficient to meet the outcomes that are required.
- Preparation of monthly monitoring reports.
- Engage in regular discussions with the relevant authorities on any significant non-compliance by the applicant and the steps to be taken to rectify this.
- Interact and assist with the environmental auditor to complete tasks required for the independent audits.
- Convene and make the necessary arrangements to facilitate environmental monitoring committee (EMC) meetings and ensure that there is effective communication between the project team, the authorities, the EMC and all the relevant stakeholders during the construction phase and operation phase.
- The ECO must report to the EMC and the relevant authorities on a regular basis as decided by these parties in the form of an environmental management compliance report.

3.3.2 The applicant shall ensure that the EM and the ECO are on site at any time when construction takes place that could pose an environmental risk.

3.3.3 The name and contact details of the EM and ECO must be announced and forwarded to the Department and the relevant provincial environmental department before construction commences.

3.3.4 A monitoring and auditing programme must be implemented to assess compliance with the conditions stipulated in this record of decision.

3.3.5 The Department reserves the right to monitor and audit the development throughout its full life cycle to ensure that it complies with the conditions of this record of decision and other relevant and applicable provisions. Records of monitoring and/or auditing must be made available for inspection to any relevant authority inspecting the development.

3.3.6 Independent specialist consultants must be called upon when, in the opinion of the EM, the ECO or the Department, there is a need for expert opinion during the monitoring of the construction and operation phases.

3.3.7 A post construction environmental audit must be conducted and the audit report must be submitted to the Department and the relevant authorities within 30 days after completion of the said audit. This audit must, as a minimum, evaluate adherence to the relevant conditions contained in this ROD and other provisions. After completion of the construction, the audit must be repeated annually. If the audits show no significant problems, they may be discontinued at the discretion of the Department, or may be limited to specific timeframes.

3.4. Environmental monitoring committee

3.4.1 The existing environmental monitoring committee (EMC) may be reconstituted to serve as an EMC for the duration of the construction phase and operation phase of this project. The committee should be responsible for monitoring compliance by the applicant with the requirements of this ROD. The committee will further be responsible for communicating environmental aspects to their constituencies and to communicate with the applicant on behalf of their constituency. The committee will fulfil an environmental monitoring function to alert the relevant authorities should it be necessary.

3.4.2 Details of the chairperson and members of the existing EMC must be forwarded to the Department and the relevant provincial department for acceptance. Should the Department or the relevant provincial department requires any alterations to the existing EMC, the applicant must effect the alterations within an agreed time frame.

3.5. General conditions

3.5.1 Authorisation for the activity is granted only in terms of section 22 of the Act and does not exempt the holder thereof from compliance with any other relevant legislation.

3.5.2 This authorisation refers only to the activity as specified and described in the environmental impact report and the additional information dated December 2003 and July 2004.

3.5.3 This authorisation is subject to the approval of the relevant local authorities in terms of any legislation administered by those authorities.

3.5.4 One week’s written notice must be given to the Department before commencement of construction activities. Such notice shall make clear reference to the site location details and reference number given above.

3.5.5 One week’s written notice must be given to the Department before commencement of operation activities. Such notice shall make clear reference to the site location details and reference number given above.

3.5.6 The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions contained in this record of decision by any person acting on its behalf, including but not limited to, an agent, servant, or employee or any person rendering a service to the applicant in respect of the activity, including but not limited to, contractors and consultants.

3.5.7 The applicant must notify the Department in writing, within 24 (twenty four) hours if any condition of this authorisation cannot, or is not, adhered to. The notification must be supplemented with reasons for non-compliance.

3.5.8 A copy of this record of decision shall be available on site during construction and all staff, contractors and sub-contractors shall be familiar with or be made aware of the contents of this authorisation and ROD.

3.5.9 Compliance/non-compliance records must be kept and shall be made available on request from the authorities within five days of receipt of the request.

3.5.10 Any changes to, or deviations from, the project description set out in this record of decision must be approved, in writing, by the Department before such changes or deviations may be effected. In assessing whether to grant such approval or not, the Department may request such information as it deems necessary to evaluate the significance and impacts of such changes or deviations.

3.5.11 The Minister may review the conditions contained in this record of decision from time to time and may, in accordance with Part 2 of Chapter 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006 amend, add or remove a condition.

3.5.12 In the event that the predicted impacts exceed the significance as predicted by the independent consultant’s in the final scoping report dated 2004 and supporting documentation, the authorisation may be withdrawn in accordance with Part 3 of Chapter 4 of the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations, 2006..

3.5.13 In the event of any dispute concerning the significance of a particular impact, the opinion of the Minister in respect of its significance will prevail.

3.5.14 The applicant must notify the Department, in writing, at least 10 (ten) days prior to the change of ownership, project developer or the alienation of any similar rights for the activity described in this letter. The applicant must furnish a copy of this document to the new owner, developer or person to whom the rights accrue and inform the new owner, developer or person to whom the rights accrue that the conditions contained herein are binding on them.

3.5.15 Where any of the applicant’s contact details change, including the name of the responsible person, the physical or postal address and/ or telephonic details, the applicant must notify the Department as soon as the new details become known to the applicant.

3.5.16 National government, provincial government, local authorities or committees appointed in terms of the conditions of this record of decision or any other public authority or organisation shall not be held responsible for any damages or losses suffered by the applicant or its successor in title in any instance where construction or operation subsequent to construction be temporarily or permanently stopped for reasons of non-compliance by the applicant with the conditions of approval as set out in this document or any other subsequent document emanating from these conditions of approval.

3.5.17 If any condition imposed in terms of this authorisation is not complied with, the authorisation may be withdrawn.

3.5.18 Failure to comply with any of these conditions constitutes an offence.

3.5.19 The applicant shall be responsible for all costs necessary to comply with the above conditions unless otherwise specified.

3.5.20 Any complaint from the public during construction must be attended to as soon as possible to the satisfaction of the parties concerned. A complaints register must be kept up to date and shall be produced upon request.

3.5.21 Departmental officials shall be given access to the property referred to in paragraph 3.1 above for the purpose of assessing and/ or monitoring compliance with the conditions contained in this document at all reasonable times.

3.5.22 All outdoor advertising associated with this activity, whether on or off the property concerned, must comply with the South African Manual for Outdoor Advertising Control (SAMOAC) available from the Department.

3.6. Duration of authorisation

If the activity authorised by this letter does not commence within 4 (four) years from the date of signature of this record of decision, the authorisation will lapse and the applicant will need to reapply for exemption or authorisation in terms of NEMA or any amendments thereto.

4. CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE

The applicant must comply with the conditions set out in this record of decision. Failure to comply with any of the above conditions may result in, inter alia, the Minister withdrawing the authorisation, issuing directives to address the non-compliance - including an order to cease the activity - as well as instituting criminal and/or civil proceedings to enforce compliance.

+ More

MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM

Launch of MoU Between the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and the South African National Accreditation System (SANAS)

20 Jine 2008 - Media Statement - Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
FRIDAY, 20 JUNE 2008: The promulgation of the Air Quality Act in 2005 ushered in a new regime of air quality management and governance in South Africa. This entails managing air quality in accordance with international best practice. To this end, a Memorandum of Understanding between the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and the South African National Accreditation System (SANAS) was officially launched today, 20 June 2008 in Pretoria.

The launch formally acknowledges the important role SANAS will play in the DEAT’s ambient and emission monitoring processes to ensure that information generated complies with the international standards, and to add value to the informed decision-making around air quality. The MoU was signed by DEAT and SANAS during November and December 2007 respectively.

The SANAS was established as the single national accreditation authority for the accreditation of laboratories, inspection and certification bodies. DEAT has therefore identified the SANAS as the service provider for the accreditation of technical infrastructure of the South African Air Quality Information System (SAAQIS).

One area that is critical in this regard is the monitoring of ambient air and source emissions in such a manner that ensures that data and information obtained from monitoring stations is scientifically beyond reproach. This MOU with SANAS takes the department closer to that as SANAS is an internationally recognized accreditation body.

In line with the MOU the department and SANAS are working together to ensure that new owners of ambient air quality monitoring stations understand the requirements and procedures for obtaining accreditation. The department and SANAS are also embarking on a process to develop an accreditation programme for source emissions monitoring which may assist in ensuring the effective enforcement of non-compliance with license conditions.
Roopa Singh

+ More

Community Choir Takes Boundless Southern Africa to the World

23 June 2008 - Media Statement - Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
MONDAY, 23 JUNE 2008: The community choir of the Matsamo/Mantenga cultural parks between Swaziland and South Africa will be taking the newly established transfrontier conservation brand “Boundless Southern Africa” on a six week tour of Europe. This forms part of an initiative to promote cultural activities and tourism related products within transfrontier conservation areas.

The Boundless Southern Africa brand was established as an outcome of the Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA)* 2010 Strategy which was endorsed by the nine Ministers responsible for tourism in Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Zambia and Zimbabwe, in 2005.

The strategy focuses on promoting transfrontier conservation areas straddling the borders of these nine countries, as prime tourist attractions. In addition the transfrontier conservation areas are promoted as areas ideal for infrastructure development, especially in the neighbouring countries as infrastructure on the South African side of these TFCAs is relatively well developed. The strategy resides under one of the six legacy programmes for the 2010 Soccer World Cup whereby the soccer event is meant to have a lasting legacy on Africa.

The key focus for transfrontier conservation areas for many years has been that of promoting the concept of wildlife. This initiative aims to also promote the rich cultural heritage available in transfrontier conservation areas such as the Nama and San communities in Ai-Ais Richtersveld Transfrontier Park and the story of the golden rhino in Limpopo Shashe Transfrontier Park.

The Matsamo/Mantenga Cultural parks between South Africa and Swaziland and within the Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area, are excellent examples of cross-border community cultural attractions. The Matsamo/Mantenga Cultural parks, community owned projects, receive on average of 500 tourists per day and provide permanent jobs to 150 people.

Boundless Southern Africa aims to develop more of these cultural and community partnerships within transfrontier conservation areas as an outcome of the implementation of the TFCA 2010 Development Strategy.

The Matsamo/Mantenga Community Choir will perform at a large number of cultural events that will be attended by hundreds and thousands of people throughout Europe during June and July. An audio brand, in the form of the song “Boundless Southern Africa” was established in partnership with the Matsamo/Mantenga Community Choirs and will form part of the choir’s repertoire while performing in Europe. As such the choir will act as ambassadors for Boundless Southern Africa. The 33 member group comprises of 14 male and 20 female artists.

It is a partnership between the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism who is responsible for the implementation of the TFCA 2010 Development Strategy, and the Matsamo/Mantenga Cultural parks. The tour is sponsored by Mr Jan Lombard, stakeholder in Matsamo/Mantenga and Haley Sharpe Southern Africa.

The choir will be showcasing their unique talents during the international tour at the :

World Folklore Olympiad of Brunssum in the Netherlands which is held every 4 years;
the 50th edition of the World festival of Schoten in Belgium which is a very special occasion; and
the prestigious international festival Op Roakeldais in Warffum, Netherlands
The three festivals will see participants from more than 50 countries perform to several hundreds of thousands of spectators. The choir will depart from OR Tambo on 23 June 2008 and return to South Africa on 20 July 2008.

Similar events will be taking place later this year and will continue to take place right up to the Soccer World Cup in 2010. It is believed that by “using culture to promote culture” the cultural attractions within TFCAs will receive the necessary awareness and will attract the required number of tourists in order to make these products sustainable both from an economic point of view as well as from a cultural heritage conservation view point.

* A TFCA is an area straddling across two or more international borders where the natural and cultural resources are collaboratively managed by the governments/authorities involved
Roopa Singh