Comments by Bishop Geoff Davies, Kokstad, following the publication and presentation of the EIA for the proposed N2 Wild Coast Toll Road on 9th October, 2002
I endorse the comments of Mr. L. E. Harris regarding the danger of future destruction of the natural habitat through human encroachment. (Ph. No. 039 727 3734)
We must first congratulate the Wild Coast Consortium on their Public Participation Process and Bohlweki Environmental on a very thorough EIA. I would not want to fault the work that has been done. We also appreciate the readiness of the engineers to seek to avoid sensitive areas within the Proposed Corridor (PC) wherever possible. However, the proposal is fundamentally flawed by being restricted to the Proposed Corridor. The EIA confirms that this is an area of exceptional conservation value and that the proposed road will have a severe impact both environmentally and socially. One Example is given:
The Vegetation Specialist Report, Page 112:
“On
the basis of plant diversity and ecological studies undertaken in this area,
there is no doubt that any development, such as a toll road, will have a
significant impact on the sensitive environments in this area”.)
Since this area is worthy of conservation, and if this road is worth building, then we must do it properly, be prepared to pay for it and keep it away from sensitive areas. This means taking it further inland, away from the proposed Pondoland Park, to where it will be more beneficial to the local communities. This is now the “post World Summit on Sustainable Development era” and we must take sustainability seriously into consideration. This Pondoland Coast should be established as a World Heritage Site (WHS). The proximity of a motorway could seriously threaten, if not destroy, the very beauty and attraction the tourists are seeking.
So we ask: Who is this road for?
Ø If it is for the benefit of the trucking industry, all the more reason to move it well away from the sensitive coastal area.
Ø If it is to promote tourism, then for goodness sake, don’t build a whacking great motor-way. Follow the example of sensitive areas in Europe and build a narrow, discreet road that allows access without environmental destruction. The proposed toll road will kill the very areas you want to open to tourism. The attraction of the Wild Coast is its unspoiled beauty. This can be maintained if there is sensitive and carefully thought out development. A toll toad is obtrusive and insensitive.
We also question the rationale of spending billions on a road, when UNITRA is being closed and we need to say that just because the Government can get private enterprise to build and pay for the road, does not necessarily make it right. Serious consideration needs to be given to the impact on the communities of Flagstaff, Bizana, Mount Frere and Kokstad. It needs to be asked whether the present routing, after upgrading, does not have benefits to the local communities, which outweigh a toll road. Consideration should be given as to whether it would not be preferable for the N2 to go from Pakade to Magusheni and link with the present R61 through Bizana to Port Edward, with discreet tourist roads giving access to the Wild Coast. This would greatly benefit the people of Pondoland.
Since the presentation on 9th October, I have seen the construction on the Mount Fletcher to Maclear road. This new road has steep gradients and very sharp bends which obviously don’t conform to the standards of a National Road (only 4.5% gradient and few curves in order to maintain a travelling speed of 120 kph). But do you have to have national road standards to be a toll road? Surely you could be a toll road, but in the “greenfields” section, not following national road standards would allow you to have steeper gradients and sharper bends. This means you could go inland without the massive earthworks required for a national road, you would avoid the sensitive coastal area and you would be of greater benefit to the communities of Pondoland. You say there are additional costs traversing the terrain inland, but you would have substantial savings (I believe you said almost 50% of the cost) by not having to build two very impressive, lengthy and costly bridges. The road could then go, for example, from Lusikisiki to Holy Cross and then across towards Bizana, though probably coming in south of Bizana on the R61.The reason for this is that it would then benefit the hundreds of thousand of people who live in that part of Pondoland, whereas the proposed routing of the toll road, after leaving Lusikisiki, goes through some of the least populated areas of Pondoland. The people of Pondoland desperately need tarred roads that will benefit them; that will get them to Holy Cross Hospital and other centres. They will not benefit from a national toll road that will just divide local communities.
The other key question is what percentage will benefit from a road designed to take the Durban traffic? The proposed route will, we are told, be approximately 85 km shorter than the present N2 route via Kokstad. This does not apply to the Johannesburg, Pietermaritzburg, Kokstad traffic. If coming from Johannesburg, it will still be shorter – and more scenic – to turn off at Merrivale and travel through Underberg (on the R617). There will be no saving of distance for Pietermaritzburg traffic to go via Durban and Kokstad traffic would still travel direct to Umtata.
This raises a further point. There is no point in building a toll road with motorway standards if it is not going to bypass Umtata, Idutywa and Butterworth. We are really playing games if we still have to spend 20 minutes getting through Umtata. And we have to raise the question, when we already have a reasonable road coming to Kokstad, why nothing is being done about the shocking section of N2 National Road coming past Peddie. Surely that is a priority?
In brief: It is really important that we assess the needs for roads and assess which communities need to benefit. Having consulted local communities and agreed on road priorities that benefit the most marginalized, we can then set about finding the funding. Because people can make money out of building a road does not mean it is right or the most needed.
There is real danger that in building a road “to open up the Wild Coast to tourism” we kill the very attraction people are looking for. I repeat, the attraction of the Wild Coast is its unspoilt beauty. There are now more 4 x 4 vehicles on the road than ever before, looking for some-where to go! Why build expensive roads for tourists (who don’t want them) when the local people desperately need better roads?
Let people in Government see the roads around Holy Cross or Sulenkama Hospitals, and they will see the needs.
Bishop Geoff Davies, Kokstad. 14th October, 2002