The current situation within the Greater St. Lucia Wetlands Park is not one that folks want to hear about, as it is both depressing and infuriating at the same time. The main issue is that the IWPA or iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority have been mandated to manage the iSimangaliso Wetland Park World Heritage Site, in terms of the WHCA ( World Heritage Convention Act ) and associated legislations, but have failed to take local communities into consideration, causing many strange problems, with the largest impact being the dramatic collapse of the biodiversity within Lake St. Lucia and the St. Lucia Estuary system.
The knock on impacts of this collapsed biodiversity are quite substantial, and the negative impact on the Umkhanyakude district municipality is growing at an alarming rate as communities no longer have access to the vast renewable resources that sustained them in the past. Expanding Poaching, excessive harvesting of wild fruits, and generally living off the land in a non sustainable manner are also part of the impacts associated with the collapse of the biodiversity within the St. Lucia Estuary System and associated waterways within the Umkhanyakude.
The tourism losses that are directly connected to the loss of biodiversity within the St. Lucia Estuary system and surrounding rural areas is substantial, as the boating public along with their friends, family and associates are no longer visiting our region. The passing trade associated with the boating fraternity is quite substantial, and this really needs to be addressed at 1) National level, 2) Provincial level, 3) district and local municipally level.
The 4U2FISH campaign is in place to address these issues and help government connect the dots between poor biodiversity management within the iSimangaliso Wetland park and poverty on the ground in the Umkhanyakude district municipality. The fact that local communities are excluded from the many mandated planning procedures within the IWP is of grave concern. Our collective rights in terms of section 24 of the South African Constitution are quite extensive and include but are not restricted to :
1) economic rights
2) social rights
3) land access rights
4) access rights to renewable natural resources
These are very important rights that communities have lost due to the manner in which the IWPA administer their mandate to manage the first world heritage site in South Africa. There are many acts and a host of related legislations which mandate how the park should be managed, but the IWPA has acted as if their decisions are outside of the South African laws, and they are not responsible to the South African public for the economic and social devastation that follows their actions, policies, activities and decisions.
The 4U2FISH campaign has been established to mobilise the public into taking actions to remedy the situation. This public mobilisation has become essential because the IWPA management policies some how seem to exclude public participation processes that are mandated in terms of various acts and associated legislations with the NEMA or National Environmental Management Act being the true tool that we need to use, in conjunction with SECTION 24 of the South African Constitution as quoted below.
Quote
Environment
Everyone has the right
a. to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
b. to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that
i. prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
ii. promote conservation; and
iii. secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
End quote....
So effectively section 24 \ b \ iii states
Everyone has the right to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.
Now the rights in the bill of rights are not exclusive to natural persons, and JURISTIC PERSONS also have recourse in terms of these rights. This implies that the various impacted communities which have lost economic, social and environmental rights as a consequence of the management strategies implemented by the IWPA have recourse in terms of section 24 of the South African constitution.
Please join us in the debate around this issue on our FACE BOOK PAGE
#Frankie2Socks
#4U2FISH
#RestoreStLucia
#HerstelStLucia
