Mountain under siege

The illegal development of the Kgaswane Country Lodge in the Magaliesberg was discovered during a Bataleur flight to inspect the protected area. Despite strenuous objections, the development has since been condoned by the North West Government while the Magaliesberg Protection Association is determined to fight it in court.

Mountain under siege

The Magaliesberg, one of the oldest mountain ranges in the world, is also one of the most abused in South Africa. The reason for this is its proximity to the industrial and commercial hub of South Africa and it accessibility to city dwellers looking for recreation. But the biggest threat is not the hikers and picnickers who litter and pollute the environment, but those who exploit the mountain and developers who see it as an opportunity to cash in on the need for recreation – especially at the top end of the market.

The Magaliesberg has been a favourite with mountaineers and campers since the early part of the 20th century but it wasn’t until the latter part of the century that development and recreational activities began to have a serious impact on the environment.

The efforts of environmentalists to save the Magalies are described by Vincent Carruthers in his book, The Magaliesberg. Following the economic boom of the 1960s the infrastructure and the demand for recreation grew exponentially. Magaliesberg landowners often found it more profitable to subdivide land or to sell it to property developers than to farm or conserve it and the hillside was scarred by quarries for quartzite for glass and clay for bricks.

Early conservation efforts

In the early 1970 environmentalists launched what Carruthers describes as a massive effort to save the Magaliesberg.  The well-known columnist of The Star newspaper, James Clarke, focused his CARE campaign on the conservation of the Magaliesberg. He suggested that development in the mountains be frozen until the authorities have investigated the range’s potential for wildlife and recreation.  Public opinion was harnessed by letters and articles that appeared week after week, stressing the urgency of the situation.

Finally in 1975 the Physical Planning Act was passed providing for a “nature area” wherein landownership might remain in private hands but changes in land use had to be approved by the Department of Planning and the Environment. The Magaliesberg Protection Association (MPA) was founded to arrest the environmental damage to the mountain and to put into practice the principles of the act.

On 12 August 1977 the Magaliesberg was formally proclaimed a nature area – the first in South Africa but unscrupulous developers still manage to get away with simply ignoring the restrictions and relying on the official reluctance to prosecute offenders. The dispensation of 1994 further complicated matters in that the Magaliesberg range now straddles the provincial borders with some areas falling in Gauteng and others in North West Province. Conservation seems to be even less of a priority and major contraventions go unchallenged.

Brazen contraventions

One of the most blatant contraventions currently under way in on of the most sensitive areas of the Magaliesberg is the so-called Kgaswane Country Lodge development near Olifantsnek.  The massive development was only discovered by Carruthers and Kevin Gill, both members of the MPA, during a Bataleurs flight to check the environmental status of the mountain in 2008.   They alerted the provincial MEC for Agriculture, Conservation, Environment and Rural Development as well as the Rustenburg municipality.  The development was not only a violation of the protected environment in an area designated as “highly sensitive” but also threatened the initiative to have the Greater Magaliesberg region declared a Biosphere under the UNESCO charter. The MPA was pursuing this initiative in conjunction with, ironically, the Gauteng and North West departments of conservation.

The Environmental Management Framework (EMF) classifies the area where Kgaswane Lodge is being developed as “highly sensitive” and designates hotels, lodges and conference centres as incompatible activities for such an area.  The developer meanwhile applied for rectification of his illegal development which, in spite of the strong objections by the MPA and other bodies, was approved by the North West MEC for environmental affairs. The provincial department of environmental affairs justified its approval of the application by the fact that it only published the EMF after approving the application, notwithstanding the fact that the EMF has been in the public domain for more than a year.

The MPA lodged a formal appeal against the department’s condonation and belated approval of the development but the appeal was eventually dismissed by the MEC because, in his view, too much money had already been spent on the project and that it would supply employment to people in the area.  The MPA is now taking the matter to court.

Other developments in the Magaliesberg are also of concern to the MPA and there are numerous less conspicuous contraventions.  An executive member of the association, Mr John Wesson, has drawn the attention to Red Ivory development opposite Magaliespark as a possible crisis area.  The site is hidden from view, but apparently a massive conference centre and related facilities have been built there.  Next door is a billboard offering for sale another site with spa and hotel rights.  Wesson says it is illegal to build hotels and lodges within the protected area and in terms of the EMF such permission cannot be granted. It is either misleading advertising, or another illegal development is on the cards.

The MPA is arranging more aerial reconnaissance to patrol the Magaliesberg to detect such illegal developments.

In spite of South Africa having what environmentalists describe as excellent environmental legislation, there seems to be either a lack of capacity or commitment, or both, to enforce it.  Mining and development licences are issued at the drop of a hat and once a project has started without approval or environmental impact assessment, the authorities are quick to condone. To developers the major challenge seems to be to progress as far as possible before there are complaints and then to apply for ex post facto approval in terms of Section 24G of the National Environmental Management Act.  They seem confident that they will not be forced to undo the damage they have done. If they can claim that they will provide employment to a fair number of locals, they are virtually ensured of official condonation. The philosophy seems to be that it is better to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission.

The recent high profile case in which the authorities have acted against environmental abuse, that against the Vele Mine at the Mapungubwe World Heritage Site, has kindled hopes that the precedent will encourage action against other abuses of the environment. Whether this would be the case, remains to be seen.

Readers who are interested in the activities of the Magaliesberg Protection Association can learn more about the association on http://magaliesberg.org.za.