A man for all seasons ... Nolly Zaloumis

By Rob Cross – friend, co-author and colleague

Dr Nolly Zaloumis, one of St Lucia’s staunchest supporters and one of South Africa’s most respected conservationists, has died at his Durban home after a long illness.
Though born in Zambia he was educated at Michaelhouse in the Natal Midlands and after having qualified as a dental surgeon returned to settle in KZN in 1964 to practice in Durban. He immediately became involved in the conservation issues of the day and was soon elected Chair of the the Natal branch of the Wildlife Society, later becoming its national president for ten years and remaining on its Board until last year.
He was in the forefront of many important conservation battles over the years, but will always be remembered for his leading role in the long and often bitter fight to stop the eastern shores of Lake St. Lucia being mined. This proposal, he and his fellow members of The Campaign for St. Lucia knew, would irrevocably harm the Lake but, in addition to this ecological damage, he always argued that an eco-tourism option had the potential to provide better economic benefits for the communities living around the Lake than the short-term employment opportunities offered by the would-be miners.
Though The Campaign for St. Lucia (which he had set up with just a handful of dedicated conservationists from a variety of backgrounds and disciplines), initially had little in the way of material resources, it became wholeheartedly involved in a David and Goliath struggle. Rio Tinto Zinc, the company which planned to strip-mine the dunes of the eastern shores, was one of the world’s biggest and most influential and at times it must have seemed that the long drawn-out fight was going to be almost impossible to win.

Nolly never wavered -- convinced of the moral value of their case. After two huge national petitions (described at the time as the biggest ever organised in South Africa), asking the government of the day to prohibit the proposed mining, and the well-orchestrated media campaign, there was seemingly endless lobbying of politicians and people of influence. Eventually a government-appointed Commission under Judge Ramon Leon was created to hear evidence and to advise on the issue -- and it chose to listen to people like Nolly who made an eloquent plea for the Lake and for the chance for it to become a true people’s park and retain the spirit of wilderness for all South Africans.
Mining was prohibited and the 180km long Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park came into being – eventually to become one of South Africa’s first World Heritage Sites almost ten years after the fight had started.
Nolly served on many of South Africa’s major conservation organisations and was recognised and honoured -- perhaps more than any other conservationist of his generation -- for the outstanding contribution he had made to the cause in which he believed so passionately. His integrity and uncompromising stand on issues sometimes made him enemies, but they also earned him the respect of all who worked with him; his standards and values acted as an inspiration to all. He continued to see a responsibility for NGO’s and civil society to ensure that the promised economic benefits of eco-tourism in St Lucia materialised and worked actively on the KZN Wildlife Board and WESSA structures to ensure this.
It is appropriate that Nolly will be remembered in a permanent and tangible form in the Park. A trust fund has been set up to build a Resource Centre at St Lucia for the benefit of all who use the park and its resources.

Kosi solution in sight

People who live near Kosi Bay recently marched on the offices of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife to present a list of grievances. Paul Ngubane, one of the march leaders, looks at the issues and argues that there is a solution.

Since the community resident adjacent the Kosi Lake system marched to the NCS offices at Kosi Bay on the 8th February 2003 and presented a memorandum of grievance, the developments had taken the slippery road, but progress is inevitable. The disintegration of the march committee because of lack of proper communication and visionary leadership had resulted in short-lived prorogation.

The NCS and the march committee kick-started negotiation process, immediately after the march hence the involvement of the Tembe Tribal Authority and Greater St Lucia Wetlands Park Authority. Accordingly, certain agreements were reached (notably the suspension of arrests during the negotiations; the withdrawal of the letter written by the NCS to the Tribal authority; the inclusion of all stakeholders in the negotiations because of the dynamic nature of grievances) albeit eclipsed by the lack of a strategic approach to the resolution of the conflict, from all parties. The negotiations breakdown was a result of that condition. The parties deadlocked on the technical process, which was essentially, the refusal by the Government bodies to respond to the committee’s demands in writing and insisting on talks. The deadlock demonstrated a high degree of lack of confidence of the parties.

The committee regarded the Tribal Authority as an obstacle precisely because of the lack of confidence and because of its ambiguity on the conservation conflict. The committee and the Tribal Authority then engaged in bilateral talks in which the committee demanded that the Tribal Authority must not be ambiguous when firm decisions favourable to the community are taken. The talks are presently underway and whether the process is insurmountable or not a solution is possible. The committee has regrouped hence the Tribal Authority’s commitment to take the side of the poor will create a possibility to resume fully-fledged talks. This state of affair necessitates the prediction of the way forward, which must see the creation of proper systems, structures and programmes to manage the process. Accordingly, that process should be nurtured in manner that it produces a long-term solution to the current conflict, that is, a comprehensive modus operandi for the elimination of persistent hostility.

No hassle on Legality

Berna Malan of White and Case (legal advisors to the Wetlands Authority) states that agreement on GSLWP binds all parties

A senior advocate who has been asked about corporate governance issues has advised that the Management Agreement reached two years ago between the three establishing parties of the Greater St Lucia Wetlands Authority (GSLWPA) is binding and legal and must be respected
On 4 September 2001 the Greater St Lucia Wetland Park Authority (the Park Authority), the KwaZulu-Natal Nature Conservation Board (the Board) and the KwaZulu-Natal Tourism Authority (the Tourism Authority) signed a Management Agreement which represents the culmination of negotiations between the aforesaid three parties regarding various rights, duties and obligations in respect of the Greater St. Lucia Wetland Park (the Park), and gives effect to statutory obligations placed on the Park Authority in this regard.
Schedule A to the Management Agreement, which deals with the transfer of operational and management control of certain State owned assets and resources in the Park, was signed by the Park Authority and KZN Wildlife (acting as the operational arm of the Board) on 13 May 2002.
The ratification of the Management Agreement and its schedules by the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Minister Valli Moosa entrenched the position of the Park Authority as the mandated management authority charged with the responsibility of protecting, managing and developing the Park.
The Management Agreement specifies that the three parties must assist each other in achieving the required regulatory processes and approvals necessary for the general enhancement of the Park and in giving effect to the objectives of the Park Authority.
In terms of the Management Agreement, the Park Authority must develop measures for the cultural and environmental protection of the Park, must promote, manage and facilitate tourism and related development in connection with the Park, must facilitate programmes which encourage job creation, and must establish and implement the Integrated Management Plan for the Park.
The Park Authority has to monitor and regulate conservation management and ensure compliance with the World Heritage Convention. KZN Wildlife (as the operating arm of the Board) is responsible for the day-to-day biodiversity management of the Park and the implementation of the Conservation Operational Plan and regulatory enforcement related to conservation within the Park.
The Tourism Authority must develop, in consultation with and on behalf of the Park Authority, an annual marketing and investment-support strategy to promote both the Park and the Park Authority.
The Park Authority and KZN Wildlife have, in terms of the Management Agreement, formed a Management Committee, which is responsible for, amongst other things, operational day-to-day decisions relating to the implementation and monitoring of eco-tourism developments. By having an equal number of representatives from both the Park Authority and KZN Wildlife on the Management Committee, these two parties ensure co-operation between them in all matters of possible