Overview
Having gone through the above report in its entirety, we are deeply concerned that the report is neither objective nor accurate and contains multiple inconsistencies in its preparation. Possibly of even greater concerns has been the apparent influence the client has brought to bear on its preparation.
Comments on the Basic Assessment Report Application Form
Section B: Description of the receiving environment, part 3 indicates NO to “Shallow water table” and “seasonally wet soils” and in part 4 “Surface Water” under “Seasonal Wetland” These responses are in contrast to page 21 of the UWC commissioned Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) which describes for location 18 (33o 55’ 57.8”S; 18o 37’ 28.0”E ) a “low-lying vlei”. In part 5 of the same section The Basic Assessment has reported the Vegetation/Groundcover as “Indigenous Vegetation with scattered aliens”, this is not supported by Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) which states the following “the majority of the ‘dog’s leg’ is remarkably free of alien grasses which is in contrast are a problem on the flat areas of the CFNR” and “Should development go ahead despite the healthy and viable condition of the ecosystem consideration should be given to relocating much of the valuable top 20cm of soil to the degraded sites in the CFNR”. Consequently for Vegetation/Ground it should be reported as being in “good condition”. All invasive species reported in the Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) except for one site (20) are located at the edges of the ‘dog leg’ where it abuts disturbed vegetation or fence lines and where alien species and disturbance can be expected. The Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) states “Control of the woody weeds is relatively easy” inferring that the few invasive present at the edges are easily controlled. On receipt of the Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) CapeNature moved its position from registering as an Interested and Affected Party to stating “Cape Nature cannot support the proposed development” This correspondence included the following ”Although there has been some invasion by some alien species, the habitat is of good quality” it goes on to state the “habitat in question is immediately adjacent to the Cape Flats Nature Reserve, part of the City of Cape Town’s biodiversity network . It is therefore connected to a larger ecological unit, increasing its long term viability and conservation value”. This clearly indicates the area of the proposed developed to be of high conservation value and it also stated “We remind you that the aims of conservation are to achieve representivity and persistence of biodiversity”.
The specific footprint of the proposed building (0.89ha) includes the area that the Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) describes as “the northern part is distinctly acid (pH 6.1-6.8). This means that the northern part of the ‘dog’s leg‘, in terms of soils (acid sands), is a habitat not found elsewhere in the CFNR”. The Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) indicated that the season when the sampling was undertaken was not ideal and stated, “Much more detailed soil analyses and related vegetation studies would be necessary to examine the fine scale differences in the plant communities”.
Consequently the Basic Application Form as prepared by the consultant EnviroAfrica does not accurately reflect information contained in the commissioned Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) nor its interpretation by an independent authority mandated with commenting on biodiversity and ecological issues in the assessment of applications for development.
Further, there are inconsistencies in reporting of the responses of Interested and Affected Parties. In a summarizing Table (Appendix E) Prof Eugene Moll who’s stance was that he did not support the proposal is not reflected as this and Jeff Manual of the Botanical Society response who also registered no support is conveniently omitted (yet his comments for no support are summarized elsewhere in the Appendix).
Comments on Procedure Issues
The procedure in conducting basic assessment is irregular. Soliciting a yes/no response from the University late in the planning is cause for concern and an atypical modus operandi without any background document and only the UWC’s notice to develop the area. Michael Dyssel from the Geography & Environmental studies has indicated his concerns from the onset in several emails which effectively have remained unanswered by the EP. In an attempt to engage in this process he extended an invitation to EnviroAfrica (the mandated EP) to do a presentation at a departmental seminar which was politely declined pending the second phase. Concerns on the procedural aspects include the absence of a Background Information Document (BID) and the process appears to be largely “dictated” by UWC authorities. An email circulated on 12 March 2007 by Michael Dyssel asks specifically “To what extent should/can the appointed EP abide by the preferences of an applicant”. Michael Dyssel further asks “how strong should SEA considerations feature in the service delivery of an EP company to an applicant”. In the broader context that the Strategic Environmental Analysis (SEA) operates there is clear implication that the development will have negative impacts that extend beyond the immediate precinct. This in turn will compromise the City of Cape Towns biodiversity network an issue raised by Cape Nature in its opposition to the development. Such important considerations are notably omitted from the Basic Assessment Report.
Scanning through the email correspondence reveals than in response to the public participation process the Dean of Science in a letter dated 22 January 2007 stated that “the need to find another site will inevitably necessitate changes in design which would delay the project by several months. Such delay is unacceptable as it will have the effect of withdrawal of support from the main overseas funder”. In Appendix H prepared by the Rector of the University it stated “The potential calculable loss if we should not be able to proceed is at least R500 million. The direct cost of not being able to use facilities which were supposed to be vacated would be at least another R250 million”. If the university authorities had timeously engaged in a consultative process with its own staff it could largely have avoided this situation. We conclude that what is jeopardizing the development of UWC is not environmental/biodiversity issues but the University administration’s resistance to comply with the precautionary principle implicit in the National Environmental Management Act.
On receipt of the first round of responses from interested and affected parties a correspondence from the Dean of Sciences dated 12 March 2007 collectively dismisses ALL comments of those opposing the development. To illustrate this point, a response from Mr Jeffrey Manual of the Botanical Society (18 January 2007) was responded to by the Dean with “it makes some sweeping statements which are countered by the report of Dr McDonald and do not warrant further comment”. The comments made my Mr Manual relate to the need to apply the precautionary principle of NEMA, that “no further habitat loss shall be allowed in Core biodiversity areas including sites that are critically endangered (Policy RC2)” and “ALL surviving remnants need to be conserved in order to meet national conservation targets” and “location alternatives will be explored in detail, especially since the University Campus has substantial portions of undeveloped land”. These issues are not dealt with in the stated Botanical Report the Dean refers to. Further they can hardly be considered sweeping since CapeNature in a correspondence dated 9th March stated similar concerns and is mandated to comment on such issues. The Dean of Science also states “to stop development now because this (to undertake a search and rescue operation of rare and threatened species) was not done, with the risk of losing the sponsorship of this and other projects to a cost of more than R500 million to the University does not seem right”. Since the university has not made its long-term Master plans available to the campus community and the call to register opposition was only made on the 14 December 2006 through an email correspondence from the Rector, there has been no opportunity to undertake such a task. This is a grossly unfair statement given the secrecy in which the University authorities undertake their planning operations. Now that the campus community has access to the Master Plan (Appendix H) contained in the Basic Assessment the only place to relocate more acid-adapted flora is also planned for development under “Zone A). Further in Appendix H the Rector has stated the University “wishes to develop the Reserve and would like to work with conservation biologists in rehabilitating the remaining acid areas in the land contiguous with the Reserve” yet the only land that is slightly acidic is in the above mentioned Zone A for Academic purposes. Further the University cannot use its own land that forms a contiguous (if irregularly shaped) area of critically endangered habitat as an offset, given the current debate on use of biodiversity offsets. There is opposition to the use of biodiversity offsets for critically endangered vegetation types. This information was communicated via a faxed correspondence from CapeNature 9th March 2007.
The fault of getting into position of advanced planning for a building without securing appropriate authorization rests firmly on the shoulders of the University authorities and should in no way influence the outcome of this assessment. Further in the above correspondence the Dean of Science stated, “I can see no reason put forward by the objectors to stop development and would like to recommend that the project continues as planned”. We need to caution that neither the Dean of Science nor the EP has the authority to disregard the responses from Interested and Affected Parties (like the Botanical Society and CapeNature) nor for authorizing the go-ahead for proposed development on the selected site (DEA&DP is the only authorizing office). In another communication the UWC administration also informed the Senate late in 2006 that it did not need authorization from DEA&DP to start development of the New Life Science Complex (this was apparently based on legal advice sought by the University and to the best of my interpretation applies to the circumstances prior to the amendments of June 2006). Since this is a critically endangered vegetation type its falls within the amended requirement for an Environmental Impact Assessment of NEMA gazetted in June 2006.
Comments on exemption from providing alternative developments
The new environmental legislation clearly calls for all development to provide alternative sites and is an issue re-iterated by CapeNature, the Botanical Society and UWC academics. The university’s has elected to avoid this compliance in executing its master plan (that has until now been withheld from the campus community). The Master plan is a very long-term (30 years) and continuously evolving concept plan, which less than a year ago had planned for the collective Life Sciences to be sited on vacant land adjacent to the rest of the Science Faculty office and departments. Further the University has yet to secure funding for most of the envisaged expansions. The precautionary principles contained in NEMA cannot give recognition let alone precedence of a long-term concept plan over the immediate and irreversible loss of part of a critically threatened vegetation type. The University’s stance is further based on a land swap conducted in the 1980’s which exchanged the ‘dog’s leg’ for a disturbed site at the extreme perimeter of the university estate and which formerly hosted a high-density informal settlement. The Dean of Science (22 January 2007) euphemistically refereed to this transaction as to “safeguard sensitive eco systems”. It should be noted that just prior to conducting this land transaction the University authorities dissolved the Cape Flats Nature Reserve Planning Committee. This land swap should have no influence on the Basic Assessment Report and should not be considered as an issue for exemption from providing alternative sites. Ownership of land does not provided unregulated development rights, and the University is not exempted from such regulation. In presenting an alternative site in an email correspondences from Richard Knight of the BCB department (dated 13 March 2006) the text has rather conveniently been so reduced in size as to make it illegible. The essence of communication is that the UWC estate has some 34 ha of transformed and undeveloped land. An alternative site was proposed with identical orientation and prominence on Modderdam road and extended walking distances to the central university facilities by a mere 30 metres (Figure 1: re-prepared from the original). Further the site is located less than 100 m from the intended site so shares similar access for construction. The correspondence further notes the hugely inadequate provision for parking and the proposed re-positioning also addresses this problem.
Finally Appendix H provided by the University for exemption from identifying alternative sites is based almost entirely on emotive arguments, which while well-intentioned, are nevertheless unrelated to compliance of the National Environment Management Act given that very really alternative sites are available.
The University Authorities have been made aware of legalities attached to developing on natural vegetation that is critically endangered since June 2006 through unsolicited correspondence from its academic community. CapeNature in a correspondence dated 17 August 2006 re-iterated NEMA principles with the following comment
- Avoid, minimize or remedy disturbance and loss of biodiversity;
- Avoid degradation of the environment;
- Avoid jeopardizing ecosystem integrity;
- Pursue the best practicable environment option by means of integrated environmental management;
- Protect the environment as the people’s common heritage;
- Control and minimize environmental damage; and
- Pay specific attention to management and planning procedures pertaining to sensitive, vulnerable, highly dynamic or stressed ecosystems.
In this correspondence it also stated the following “Particular attention should be paid to avoiding the loss of intact habitat, maximizing connectivity and habitat heterogeneity, reducing fragmentation at local and regional level. Please also note that an infestation by alien plants does not necessarily mean the area is not important for biodiversity.” In the same correspondence CapeNature has advised that a “biodiversity assessment should be undertaken if any of the above circumstances prevail or if there is any doubt about the biodiversity value of the site.” The Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) represents at most one component of such a Biodiversity Report.
Summary
To summarise this rather long correspondence the Basic Assessment Report has the following shortcomings
Factual information contained in the commissioned Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) has been incorrectly reported in the Basic Assessment Report Application Form.
There are inaccuracies/discrepancies in reporting the responses from Interested and Affected Parties which conveniently favour the client’s proposal to develop the land.
There are somewhat irregular procedures in the engagement with the various stakeholders.
The client appears to have brought undue influence to bear in the preparation of the Basic Assessment Report. Based on the record of communications, senior university authorities have been selective in the use of the findings of their appointed consultants in seeking permission to develop the site.
The proposed development has implications at both the local and regional scales and will impact on the integrity of the Cape Town’s Biodiversity Network and therefore has implications at the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) level.
The University has motivated for an exemption from providing alternative sites when it has some 34 ha of undeveloped but transformed land on its estate.
The proposed building has a foot-print of less than 1ha yet it has targeted for development the precise area within some 2.8 ha containing the lowest pH and therefore a “habitat not found in the main Cape Flats Nature Reserve” as reported in its commissioned Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006). This report further states northern part of this site contains “some areas unique”. In an independent assessment of the soils Lincoln Raitt has found that pH levels are as low as 5.1 (7 March 2006) further suggesting that at an ecosystem level this northern part of the natural vegetation is unique and not represented elsewhere by natural vegetation on the campus estate.
The commissioned Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) reports that the ecosystem is a critically rare representative of the Lowland Fynbos and that it is “remarkably free of alien grasses” and is “in a healthy and viable condition”. Many items of correspondence from the institution have conveniently ignored these findings, and rather have reported unsubstantiated statements such as “the site has been ravaged by fire” and “many species originally present have disappeared” as fact (Dean of Science, 22 January 2007). . The first of these statements is ecological incorrect, since fire actually rejuvenates fynbos ecosystems. The second statement is only true to the point that two species have indeed become extinct we have not data say more than this and there were constraints in the preparation of the Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) which clearly provides the following caveat “The time of year when the recording of the vegetation was conducted was not optimal. The best time would have been winter to spring when most species, including geophytes would have been evident. A single ‘sampling’ is not ideal to build a picture of the flora”. The site is also characterized by early and late representations of post-fire successional stages of fynbos but no intermediate phases. Many species may still be present in the form of seedbanks and bulbs and are only apparent at specific phases in the successional stages between fires. CapeNature’s interpretation of the Botanical Assessment Appendix G (McDonald 2006) as reflected in correspondence 9 March 2007 contrast markedly with those from the University authorities who are not experts in this field.
The University has made no effort to engage with our governing environmental legislation and if allowed to develop the site will destroy an ecosystem that represents a “people’s common heritage”.