{"id":54116,"date":"2022-03-29T06:02:22","date_gmt":"2022-03-29T04:02:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/novanews.co.za\/peoplespost\/review-process-enters-final-stretch-20220329\/"},"modified":"2025-03-19T19:24:42","modified_gmt":"2025-03-19T17:24:42","slug":"review-process-enters-final-stretch-20220329","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/novanews.co.za\/peoplespost\/review-process-enters-final-stretch-20220329\/","title":{"rendered":"Review process enters final stretch"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

With the release of the Tokai Cecilia Management Framework (TCMF) draft implementation plan only three days away, stakeholders and interested parties are holding their breath to see how South African National Parks (SANParks) will incorporate the, at times, conflicting recommendations that emerged from a public participation process that begun last year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

For the past month, the convenors of the TCMF Review Process \u2013 Prof Wendy Foden and Dr Howard Hendricks \u2013 considered the detailed proposals delivered by seven working groups in drafting the implementation plan. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to Lauren Clayton, regional communications manager of SANParks, the convenors were assisted by an external service provider facilitating the focused workshops \u201cand the outcome thereof\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe draft implementation plan will incorporate all the working group submissions, proposals and suggested actions. These are being assessed in relation to SANParks mandate and in relation to the different working group submissions. Where conflicts exist, SANParks will put forward alternatives that seek to address differences,\u201d says Clayton. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The working groups formed part of the second phase of the facilitation process that began just under a year ago<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Comprising of stakeholders and SANParks\u2019 representatives, they included the Biodiversity Management Working Group, the Communications Working Group, the Cultural Heritage Management Working Group, the Facilities Working Group, the Fire Management Working Group, the Human Well Being Working Group, and the Safety and Security Working Group. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Monday 21 February, a consolidated summary of the groups\u2019 recommendations was published on the SANParks website<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Although there were some synergies between the groups, there were also those whose recommendations were at opposite ends of the spectrum when it came to fynbos and shade. <\/p>\n\n\n\nHistory and heritage<\/strong><\/link-app1>\n\n\n\n

A cursory glance at the inner workings of but one such working group \u2013 the History and Cultural Heritage Workshop (HCHW) \u2013 gives a glimpse of the debate that exists, not only between the groups, but in some instances even within each group. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dr Berta van Rooyen, who holds a PhD in history about Tokai Park, was selected as the convenor of HCHW by her fellow group members. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every convener was supported by a staff member of SANParks where information about SANParks or the use of its infrastructure was required. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Van Rooyen says the task of the HCHW was to assess the comments of stakeholders that referred to issues relating to history and heritage using \u201chistorical methodology\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhere applicable, issues were either supported and expanded with information or rejected if there was not substantial evidence to support claims, assumptions or presentations in the stakeholders\u2019 comments,\u201d she says. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

She adds a list of heritage markers was provided to SANParks early last year. The list indicated the layers of history periods with its accompanying cultural markers, the formally declared natural heritage and the heritage sites in the building environment. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLayers refer to time periods from before colonisation to the present era, but with specific reference to the core heritage marker \u2013 the natural heritage of Tokai Cecilia,\u201d says Van Rooyen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

She explains that when an area is declared a Protected Area, the natural heritage is dominant but without neglecting the cultural heritage and its preservation. When an area is declared a cultural heritage area, the cultural heritage is dominant, like any farming, a farmyard, a settlement or a city or mining community. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

She says it is not possible to declare Tokai Cecilia as a natural and cultural landscape as it is already a declared Protected Area because of the dominant \u201cnatural features\u201d (World Heritage Convention Act). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe usage of the land (cultural activities) established fynbos as a cultural marker. In fact, vineyards, forestry, alien tree-lined streets, recreation and urbanisation are threatening the very existence of the fynbos growing in the Cape Peninsula,\u201d says Van Rooyen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paddy Attwell, who holds the heritage portfolio for voluntary non-profit organisation, Parkscape, presents a different opinion. Attwell, who participated in the review process in his personal capacity as an informed citizen, was originally a member of the HCHW working group. However, he left the HCHW working group after it allegedly rejected his submission on the cultural landscape of the area. He then joined the Health and Wellbeing working group which included his report in their proposals to SANParks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attwell believes Tokai and Cecilia form a substantial part of the Constantia-Tokai Valley that is recognised as a cultural landscape of local, national and international significance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTokai and Cecilia cannot be seen in isolation from the valley as a whole. They have contributed significantly to the Arcadian, sylvan and rural character of the valley for many generations,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attwell states that, according to UNESCO, cultural landscapes reflect the \u201ccombined works of nature and humankind\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLeading heritage practitioners and official reports have described the cultural landscape of the valley as an irreplaceable national asset. According to these studies, the framework of this cultural landscape includes the mountain backdrop and wilderness areas, forests, farms, noteworthy building complexes, human settlement patterns, water courses and scenic routes,\u201d says Attwell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

He adds that SANParks originally accepted forestry in Tokai and Cecilia when it took over these areas from the Department of Forestry.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSANParks informed UNESCO that they were engaged in negotiations to include the Tokai and Cecilia state forests in the Cape Peninsula National Park, \u2018to be managed as part of the national park\u2019, when applying for World Heritage Site status in 2004.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAny suggestion that forestry is not allowed in terms of this inscription is incorrect. Mixed use, including forestry, is entirely compatible with UNESCO\u2019s policy on buffer zones around World Heritage Sites,\u201d Attwell says.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPoint of contention<\/strong><\/link-app1>\n\n\n\n

With the history periods under review dating as far back as to pre-colonial times when the land was used by the first landowner, the San, this was never going to be an easy task. But although there were many points of contention along the timeline, the one that seemingly caused the most debate was traced back to the 90\u2019s \u2013 The Fuggle Report of c.1994. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The summary of the group\u2019 s recommendations published on the SANParks website states that HCHW\u2019s proposal \u201cmakes reference in terms of recent heritage, wherein the notion of cultural landscapes is discussed and discouraged, while acceptance of the Cape Floral Region World Heritage Site as a Natural Site is encouraged.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The issue here is what is to be understood under \u201cnatural site\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Fuggle Report regards vineyards and alien tree lines and commercial forestry as natural landscape apart from cultural landscape. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Van Rooyen says this is not correct. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Fuggle Report was drafted when South Africa was still banned from all United Nation activities. One of the many requirements in the report was apparently that a national act should be drafted to bind the then National Parks Board to co-governance the new Cape Peninsula National Park to be as a world heritage area that would include the greater Constantia Valley and the southern peninsula. That act was never drafted. In fact, the first Head of agreement with the Cape Town municipality omitted the land of Tokai Forest Station from the agreement.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

South Africa\u2019s readmission to UN status followed in the late 1990s. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Van Rooyen says, regardless of newer legislation, the government requested by nomination land extension in 2015 by including the vineyard land on the borders of Tokai Park. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThat had to be removed from the list as the vineyards didn\u2019t grow naturally there. Therefore, vineyards and any other alien plants with reference to fynbos are regarded by the UN as \u2018lacking the integrity\u2019 of the core heritage status of the fynbos: natural,\u201d she adds. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attwell discounts this reflection on the Fuggle Report as \u201cinaccurate\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

He explains the Fuggle and Huntley reports formed the basis of the lease agreement between the City and SANParks for City land allocated to the Table Mountain National Park.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe Fuggle report was the product of extensive public consultation and is a fair reflection of what the City expected from the park,\u201d says Attwell.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The report recommended the establishment of a Cape Peninsula Heritage Area (CPHA) in what would become the Table Mountain National Park, from Table Mountain to Cape Point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the report, the CPHA should celebrate diversity of all kinds, including biological, cultural and scenic diversity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn the end, this approach was not adopted, reflecting an important lost opportunity. The Fuggle Report was well ahead of its time and could still be the point of departure for a more balanced approach to managing an urban national park,\u201d says Attwell.<\/p>\n\n\n\nRecommendations<\/strong><\/link-app1>\n\n\n\n

The HCHW group recommended that, \u201cto keep a balance\u201d, certain recreational activities must be revisited and reconsidered. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cLike the paddocks in the front sub-precinct causing enormous damage to the soil, downhill cycling tracks dividing slopes, walkers causing enormous erosion to the heritage canal running next to the lower plantation and the removal of pine trees next to Tokai (Dennendal) and Sweet Valley suburbs,\u201d says Van Rooyen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

She adds that year-round recreation is preventing the environment from recovering. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cFynbos remains a natural and cultural heritage marker, the land is declared a protected area. And cultural markers must be preserved and prevented from falling into ruins,\u201d says Van Rooyen. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Attwell says SANParks\u2019 vision for the Table Mountain National Park is a \u201cPark for All\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cWhich assumes extensive use of the park for recreation, and appropriate management of the impact, with the cooperation of users of the park.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As to how the recommendations of the working groups will be incorporated into the draft implementation plan remains to be seen. The draft will be made available for a 30-day public comment period. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n