South African National Parks

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 October 2008, Cape Town Freek Venter GM: Conservation Management KRUGER NATIONAL PARK Cell: 082 9082687 Email: freekv@sanparks.org Web: www.sanparks.org

2. 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

3. National Water Act Backdrop We 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�

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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 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