GOOD Media Statement by Brett Herron,
GOOD Secretary-General & Member of Parliament
7 September 2023
Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, which says it won’t object to the destruction of estuarine biodiversity at Richard’s Bay arising from the operation of power-generating ships in exchange for the donation of a game farm, must explain how the deal complies with the law.
Ezemvelo reports to Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Barbara Creecy, who published the National Biodiversity Offset Guideline for implementation in June’s Government Gazette.
The proposed Karpowership-Ezemvelo arrangement, being marketed as a biodiversity offset, doesn’t fit the definition of a biodiversity offset in the national guideline.
Buying a terrestrial farm in exchange for biodiversity loss in an estuarine environment has no benefit for threatened estuarine species. It is not “like for like”, as the guideline requires, but the environmental equivalent of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
A senior Ezemvelo scientist was quoted by amaBhungane today confirming that the site of the Karpowership project is regarded as “irreplaceable” and a “critical Biodiversity Area”.
According to Ezemvelo’s website, it is “entrusted with the long-term conservation of the region’s rich biodiversity for the people of South Africa”.
Minister Creecy must pull Ezemvelo into line.
The National Biodiversity Offset Guideline define a biodiversity offset as “an intervention that has the purpose of counterbalancing the residual negative impacts of an activity, or activities, on biodiversity, through increased protection and appropriate management”.
But the guideline makes a very clear distinction between biodiversity “offsets” and “trade-offs”.
“A trade-off in the biodiversity context involves exchanging a negative outcome for biodiversity with another positive outcome, which does not necessarily benefit biodiversity, and where it benefits biodiversity, does not properly counterbalance the loss of biodiversity through a like-for-like approach.
“Trading off is not a form of mitigation, like biodiversity offsetting. Ecological compensation is an example of a trade-off in the biodiversity context. Ecological compensation can be described as the outcome of measurable actions to protect, rehabilitate and manage priority biodiversity, aimed at compensating for residual negative impacts on biodiversity and ecological infrastructure but is not designed to counterbalance those impacts.”
Then, the punchline: “Trade-offs should be approached with extreme caution in the context of environmental authorisation applications given that South African law demands a rational link between impacts on the environment and conditions of environmental authorisations directed at addressing those impacts. Trade-offs fall outside the scope of this guideline.”
Given Minister of Electricity Kgosientsho Ramokgopa consistent insistence that South Africa is making good progress with respect to reaching electricity sustainability, the State’s continuing efforts to procure energy for 20 years from a foreign power ship company must be scrutinised more than ever.
Media Enquiries:
Brett Herron, GOOD Secretary-General & Member of Parliament
Cell: 082 518 3264
Email: bretth@forgood.org.za
Samantha Jackson, GOOD Acting Media Manager
Cell: 083 550 9875
Email: media@forgood.org.za