Plans to ensure the long-term future of SA’s largest estuarine lake have been cast into turmoil after a controversial decision to break open a sand barrier separating Lake St Lucia and the ocean.
Now the country’s oldest environmental watchdog group has asked the national environment ministry to explain why the mouth of the World Heritage Site lake was ripped open with heavy earth-moving equipment earlier this month – and also demanded assurances that no further “illegal” tampering with the lake’s natural processes would be allowed.
The Wildlife and Environment Society (WESSA), a civil society watchdog formed in 1926, said it was “most disturbed” by the recent artificial breaching of the country’s largest estuarine lake, also charging that this was contrary to the park’s management policies and in defiance of legal rulings by the high court and Supreme Court of Appeal.
In a letter to environment, forestry and fisheries minister Barbara Creecy, WESSA spokesperson Patrick Dowling said: “As an organisation that has worked hard at the maintenance of the ecological integrity of the iSimangaliso/Greater St Lucia Wetland Park and its environs for more than 50 years, WESSA is most disturbed by the recent breaching of the estuary, contrary to policy and in defiance of a (2018) decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal.”
Seven estuarine and hydrology experts have also written to Creecy to voice alarm over the park management’s apparent decision to “deviate from scientific, evidence-based management decisions”.
Dowling said: “We fully endorse the concerns articulated by a group of highly respected local scientists in a recent open letter to your offices and urge you to take the necessary action in response to this flagrant action of disregard.”
He was referring to an open letter written to Creecy by senior estuarine and hydrology scientists who recalled that the iSimangaliso Wetland Park Authority took a decision about five years ago to reverse more than 60 years of artificial management of the mouth to restore natural processes for the long-term benefit of the World Heritage Site.
The seven scientists – Prof Anthony Forbes, Prof Derek Stretch, Prof Gerrit Basson, Dr Barry Clark, Dr Jane Turpie, Nicolette Forbes and Eddie Bosman – said since the 1950s a number of expensive experiments such as dredging the estuary mouth, diverting the flow of water from the uMfolozi River and building a link canal had “failed to address the impaired hydrological and ecological functioning of the Lake St Lucia estuary”.
Freshwater flows to the lake from the uMfolozi have been reduced significantly due to decades of human meddling, and in recent years the lake has almost dried up during drought periods.
“The recognition of the disastrous effects of the historical management of the estuary, coupled with the increased knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the drivers of the system made the (historical) policy’s failure and broad implications glaringly apparent,” the scientists said.
A third environmental group, the Isimangaliso Action Group, has raised similar concerns – in stark contrast to sentiments from local sugar farmers, many saltwater fishers and some tourism operations in St Lucia village, who have praised iSimangaliso for breaking the mouth open to allow saltwater to reenter the lake (albeit artificially).
Sugar farmers went to court in 2015 in an effort to protect some of their low-lying fields being flooded by uMfolozi floodwaters during the restoration process, but they lost their battle in the high court and Supreme Court of Appeal.
More recently some tour operators have complained that boat-based hippo and crocodile tours were in jeopardy, as the closed mouth had led to higher levels of mud and dense reed growth, while several anglers have celebrated the return of more sea fish after the mouth was breached by a contractor whose identity has yet to be disclosed.
According to the park authority, a decision was taken recently to “skim” the sand berm separating the lake from the sea. It said the decision was taken by a task team set up by iSimangaliso, which had included a number of scientists.
But so far, only one scientist has publicly defended the task team’s decision to breach the mouth artificially. Prof Alan Whitfield of the SA Institute for Aquatic Biodiversity said he recommended the breach to allow the nursery function of Lake St Lucia for marine fish and invertebrates to be restored.
“The St Lucia system constitutes 50% of the estuarine nursery area for the whole of SA and has effectively been unable to perform that function over the past two decades.”
The other seven expert scientists have disagreed strongly, however, arguing that natural processes should be allowed to restore the lake’s long-term health. They have emphasised that the lake’s natural ecology is dynamic – alternating between freshwater and salty conditions depending on whether the mouth is open or closed according to natural cycles.
It is understood that the seven scientists were invited to meet iSimangaliso officials last week to discuss the controversy, but they have requested further detailed documentation from park managers before engaging.
Creecy issued a statement on January 18, confirming she had asked iSimangaliso for a full report on the matter.
According to environmental affairs, the chief executive officer of the iSimangaliso Wetland Park indicated that he would present a response to Creecy before the end of the week.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.