After just under a year of engagement with stakeholders and interested parties, the Tokai Cecilia Management Framework (TCMF) Review Process has entered its third phase – the drafting of the implementation plan taking into account all inputs.
Once completed, the draft will be made available for a 30-day public comment period. The draft implementation plan is due for release on Thursday 31 March.
The review process started on Tuesday 25 May last year.
South African National Parks (SANParks) was assigned management of the Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) – including Tokai and Cecilia forest plantations – in 2005.
According to the public entity, the facilitation process aimed to find “realistic and viable options and scenarios for the future of Tokai and Cecilia areas as vital management sections of the TMNP”.
The first, shaped to understand the current context, issues and concerns, concluded in July last year, with the second taking place from August last year to January this year.
Phase two focussed on workshops, comprised of stakeholders and SANParks’ representatives, for issues, concerns and proposals.
The working groups formed 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.
On Monday 21 February, a consolidated summary of the groups’ recommendations was published on the SANParks website.
According to Lauren Clayton, regional communications manager of SANParks, the two convenors responsible for facilitating the review process – Prof Wendy Foden, the general manager of the Cape Research Centre, and Dr Howard Hendricks, senior general manager for policy and governance – are currently considering the detailed working group proposals in drafting the implementation plan for public comment.
“The 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,” says Clayton.
Nicky Schmidt, the chair of Parkscape, says how they will do this is another matter.
“As the usual conflict and divide persist between those who want only fynbos and those who want to see some shade remain,” she says.
Schmidt, who convened the Health and Well Being Group and also participated in the Facilities/Development Opportunities Group and the Safety Group, believes all the proposals are key.
“This is a public consultation process so all voices carry equal weight. And perhaps that’s what is a key issue – that in this, all voices are equal, no one voice or one group has the right to dominate others. Thus given some opposite positions the outcome has to be one of balance, and which meets SANParks three key mandates – socio-economic transformation, tourism and conservation.”
Schmidt says, although there were some synergies, in essence the Biodiversity Group and the Health and Well Being group took very different views on fynbos versus shade.
She explains the Biodiversity Group focused on fynbos conservation – limiting shade space to the perimeter path of Lower Tokai and the Arboretum and insisting that all other shade be created on greenbelts in the greater Tokai area (i.e. outside the national park) – while the Health and Well Being Group looked to strike a balance between fynbos conservation and shade spaces.
“Particularly as regards the mitigation of climate change, increased urbanisation and heritage landscapes – and obviously, human health and well-being.
“Equally, the Facilities and Safety Groups also saw the value of shade from both a people and safety perspective,” she says.
While you may not necessarily expect to see a group focussed on cultural heritage and history in an environmental-focused process such as the TCMF, Schmidt says these aspects are fundamental to the Tokai Cecilia landscape, and one of SANParks’ mandates is the protection of heritage.
“The heritage and history of the Tokai Constantia Valley is rich from First Nations heritage, slavery, wine farms and forestry. Their existence also offers multiple opportunities for learning and understanding and nation building,” she says.
Schmidt says the Health and Well Being group was originally named Recreation, but, she says, the group felt that this title was too limiting and that recreation is a single aspect of health and well being.
“Our green spaces and particularly our urban national park – are fundamental to the well-being of an urban population.”
According to Schmidt, with climate change and increased urbanisation, green spaces that meet human needs are imperative.
“Research shows that treed spaces have profound benefits to urban communities, from cooling to calming,” she adds.
Past engagement
In 2005, SANParks presented its Draft Management Plan for TMNP in which the organisation stated that both Tokai and Cecilia would be clear-felled and given over to the regeneration of indigenous fynbos.
Following a public outcry, a compromise was reached: the TCMF. The objective of the framework was to provide for shaded recreation on a transitional basis, providing for both shade and biodiversity conservation on a rotational basis.
Parkscape has been critical of the TCMF in the past, describing it as “a poor compromise between SANParks and the public”.
This time round, Schmidt says they have seen a shift in the way SANParks seems to want to engage with the public.
“SANParks’s engagement with the public appears to have changed from consultation to participation. Participative public engagement models means that what is presented by communities has to be factored in, unless there is very good legislative reasons not to do so.”
She says SANParks originally advised there were non negotiables, but when challenged, very few could stand up to scrutiny.
“Having studied the intersecting legislation extensively, SANParks would be legally in the wrong to attempt to ignore the recommendations that have been made.”
Schmidt says as much as the public entity is bound by environmental legislation, it is also bound by a range of other legislation. She says they have been clear to point this out.
“It is early days yet but we are hopeful that the outcome will be different this time, and if not, we have legal recourse,” concludes Schmidt.
