The independent panel noted that no significant harm occurred and has recommended that breaching can continue in exceptional circumstances. (Photo by Leisa Tyler/LightRocket via Getty Images)
The artificial breaching of the mouth of Lake St Lucia’s estuary by the iSimangaliso Park Authority in January last year did not contravene the recommendations of its maintenance management plan (MMP).
But it did go against the recommendations of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), an expert panel that reviewed the scientific basis for the decision.
The estuary, South Africa’s largest, is in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park, a Unesco World Heritage Site and Ramsar Wetland of International Importance.
The report by the independent panel, which was released in April, stated that the breach did not appear to have a significant effect on the ecology. It was found that the circumstances necessitating a breach were largely undefined.
“‘Exceptional circumstances’ and ‘ecological circumstances’ need to be explicitly stated to assist authorities with such decisions,” the report stated. “To improve accuracy of these descriptions, key documents and studies must be considered and incorporated into future management plans.”
Opposition to artificial breaching
The report describes how, in 2015, a group of researchers funded by the GEF produced a comprehensive report of the system and advised that human interference regarding management of the lake should be minimised. “To facilitate this, removal of previous dredge spoil as well as relinkage of the St Lucia system to one of its major feeder rivers, the uMfolozi River, was carried out under the GEF project.”
In 2018, the high court ruled that the mouth of the uMfolozi could no longer be artificially breached to alleviate back-flooding in nearby affected farmlands. Then, in October 2020, a multistakeholder symposium was held to determine the best method to breach St Lucia Lake, which had now been closed to the marine environment since 2014. The main objectives were to restore the nursery function of the system and to flush out the accumulated silt load originating from the uMfolozi River and its catchments.
Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Barbara Creecy appointed the independent panel after an open letter was sent to her by scientists following the breaching, requesting her to “source and provide an explanation regarding this deviation from scientific, evidence-based management decisions by the iSimangaliso Authority”.
Ecological reasons justified the breach
Creecy said the panel had found there were many ecological reasons that would justify the breach including the prolonged closure of the system from the sea; concern over accumulated sediment in the system; the presence of alien invasive species; a decrease in biodiversity in the system; and a decrease in the nursery function of the estuary.
Importantly, she said, the review is critical of the fact that the estuarine management plan makes no mention of socioeconomic factors in its definition of exceptional circumstances, despite several social and economic concerns associated with a prolonged closed mouth state.
“The review adds that non-consideration of these factors contributes to community–conservation conflict in relation to the management of the mouth as most stakeholder groups seem to require the St Lucia system to function in one specific state,” she said. “However, it is important to note that St Lucia as a dynamic system cannot and should not be confined to one ideal state.”
Panel’s recommendations
In accordance with the park’s maintenance management plan, the panel recommended that maintenance breaching could continue in exceptional circumstances.
“However, the exceptional circumstances — ecological or social — for future maintenance breaching must be clearly defined before any further action,” Creecy said. “While it is clearly understood that the GEF report advises against breaching, it is practical and necessary to consider the effects of allowing the mouth to remain closed.”
The panel’s report described how “breaching clearly sets a precedent and must be carefully considered, planned for, and monitored if carried out”.
The panel recommended that iSimangaliso must develop and intensify an in-house monitoring plan and build capacity to collect monitoring data, including both biodiversity monitoring and socioeconomic data on effects of the system function.
To assist with relief to farmers in the uMfolozi-Msunduzi floodplain as a result of back-flooding, the report recommends clearing the Msunduzi River and beach channel of vegetation and sediment to allow water to flow freely from the floodplain to the mouth. Dune maintenance to limit encroachment of vegetation is recommended.
The panel, too, recommends urgent improvement in communication between the management of Isimangaliso and stakeholders, including people who live in the area, with the aim of allowing them to better understand management decisions. This includes the translation of technical documents into an easily understandable format.
Creecy: Opening appeared to have a positive effect
Creecy said the review found that the opening of the mouth seemed to have a positive effect on the restoration of the nursery function of the system and that a number of marine fish for tourism and recreational fishing had been reintroduced. “Other positive results included the return of megafauna to the mouth area and the shift from fresh to brackish water in the lake.”
There was no observed or measured change in the removal of sediment, of common reeds and alien invasive species, no change in the loss of mangroves or in relief to small- and large-scale farmers from back-flooding.
Lake St Lucia has a long history of human intervention, including canalisation of some feeder rivers, artificial breaching and maintenance of an opened mouth, water abstraction, dredging and changes in protection status and management authorities, the report said.
“The increased attention around the St Lucia system heralds optimism for its ecological well-being and for the subsequent well-being of all interested and affected stakeholders. Equally, this increased attention brings to the fore the contrasting realities of rich natural resources that coexist with economic marginalisation of local communities,” according to the report.
“With careful planning, ongoing monitoring and improved multi-stakeholder liaison, there is opportunity for collaboration and co-production of knowledge so that varied inputs can be included in policy decision-making and all may benefit equitably from the ecosystem services of this system.”
[/membership]