1. Welcome.

The meeting commenced at 18:10, with Councillor Demetri Qually in the Chair. Councillor Qually welcomed the participants and emphasised the importance of this initiative. 
He indicated that he felt that its success hinged on finding a balance between the various different users of the estuary.

Lists of participants and apologies received can be found at Annexes 1 and 2 respectively.

2. Introduction to CAPE Estuary Programme.

Pierre de Villiers – the Coordinator of the CAPE Estuaries Programme - gave a brief introduction to the Programme, which can be summarised as follows:

During the development of the new Integrated Coastal Management Act, it became evident that estuaries have not been adequately managed in the past, in part because they do not fit within the ambit of any one Department. Estuarine management is therefore now an integral part of the new Integrated Coastal Management Act which includes a requirement for Estuary Management Plans.

In anticipation of this, the Cape Action for People and the Environment (C.A.P.E.) Estuaries Management Programme for the estuaries in the Cape Floristic Region (CFR) was initiated in around 2006. The first phase was undertaken by the CSIR, and included the development of a generic management plan as well as a holistic and inclusive process representative of all stakeholders. The outputs include the establishment of a Forum for each estuary which will be responsible for driving the implementation of the plan. The estuaries were then prioritised and consultants appointed to develop EMP’s for the priority estuaries. 21 plans are now in place or in the process of development.

The Act also includes a requirement for a National Estuarine Management Protocol. This has also been prioritised and should be completed this year. It will, amongst other things, formalise the process for the gazetting of the Estuary Management Plans and the inter-relationships between the various relevant government departments.

Alan Boyd of DEA, who is also a resident, then provided some additional information. He indicated that Zandvlei is one of only 5% of estuaries are under any meaningful conservation. Another positive at Zandvlei is that there is a single management authority. He further stated that a plan, even if it has not yet been gazetted, gives guidance and is a reminder of the mandates of the various authorities.

3. Outline of the Process of EMP development.

Lynn Jackson explained that, in order to promote consistency in the EMP’s for the various estuaries, the CAPE Estuaries Management Programme had developed a specific process to be utilised by all consultants involved in the development of EMP’s. This comprised various phases:

• Phase I : A Situation Assessment
• Phase II: Stakeholder Workshop
• Phase III: The Development of the Estuary Management Plan
• Phase IV: Implementation.

The first phase had taken place over the past few months and would culminate in the presentation of the Situation Assessment under the next agenda item. It was also noted that the Situation Assessment would be made available electronically on the Zandvlei Trust website. The objectives of the Stakeholder Workshop - this meeting - would be to agree on priorities, to adopt of vision and management objectives for the EMP, and to consider preliminary proposals regarding the establishment of a Forum.

The third phase would involve the public through representatives on the Technical Working Groups which would be set up to address the priority issues as agreed by the Stakeholder Workshop. These groups would meet over the next few months to identify solutions and propose activities to be incorporated into the 5-year Action Plan, which would be a component of the Estuary Management Plan.

The public would then also have an opportunity to comment on the draft EMP which would be presented to a meeting towards the end of the year. This would include final proposals for a Forum.

4. Presentation of Situation Assessment and discussion on priority issues.

Lynn Jackson presented an overview of the main findings of the Situation Assessment undertaken by the consultants. It was noted that the Situation Assessment was based on pre-existing reports, and does not include any original research. It includes a historical background to developments around the estuary, a biophysical description thereof, information on the socio-economic importance, a description of the regulatory framework, a review of the threats to the estuary and related management initiatives, and preliminary suggestions on priorities as perceived by the consultants.

Key points from the presentation included:

Definition: For purposes of the Situation Assessment and the Estuary Management Plan, the estuary is defined as the area from the estuary mouth, to the upstream end of the wetlands, with the northern and lateral boundaries being the 100 - year floodline, which corresponds closely with the boundaries of the Greater Zandvlei Estuary Nature Reserve.

Historical activities: Key milestones in the history of Zandvlei were mentioned, from the establishment of a cattle-post by the Dutch East India Company in 1673, to the construction of Marina da Gama between 1969 and 1973. Land-use patterns related to these historical developments - including agriculture, urbanisation and recreation - had had a major impact on the estuary such that today it is significantly altered from its original state.

Changes to the estuary: changes included 

i) Physical structure (slope of banks, bisection by railway, canalisation, weirs, marina channels and artificial islands);
ii) Chemistry (nutrient levels, salinity, bacteriological and toxic pollutants, and litter);
iii) Hydrology (flow patterns, residence times, and water levels); and
iv) Biodiversity (increase in reedbeds and aquatic weeds, increased percentage of freshwater species, fish nursery function compromised, loss especially of wading birds, various alien and invasive species). 

Despite these changes, the estuary and surroundings still has a high conservation value as recognised in the establishment of the GZENR in 2006.

Socio-economic importance: Values have been estimated in 2001 for direct, non-consumptive uses such as property and recreation, and indirect uses - or ecosystem services - such as the fish nursery function. A study had also suggested a relatively low scenic or existence value. This is based on people’s willingness to pay to protect it and could be due to the emphasis on recreation.

Threats and management initiatives: The primary threats to the estuary are the manipulation of the mouth & water levels, water quality, urban encroachment and alien species. Past management initiatives included the development of a management plan in 1990, the establishment of the GZENR in 2006, and the Sand River Catchment Management Plan in 2003. Ongoing management activities are focused on the water levels/mouth, water quality (including litter), pondweed and invasive species. However, although there have been improvements in some aspects, there are still many challenges. At the same time, in addition to the legal requirements, there are a number of opportunities in the form of parallel initiatives. The development of a new, comprehensive plan will therefore, potentially have multiple benefits. Specific mention was made of the use of zonation as a management tool, and the fact that a preliminary zonation plan had already been drawn up based on existing usage. This would be further elaborated during the next phase.

Priorities: The following issues were identified as priorities to be addressed in the EMP:

• Water level management/mouth manipulation/ reduced salinity & loss of estuarine biota
• Water quality – need to set appropriate standards & work to achieve them
• A lot of monitoring but uncoordinated & not being used effectively
• Management of pondweed & priority IAS
• Need to achieve a balance between biodiversity & ecosystem needs, urban developments and recreation
• Management structure - improved coordination

There was no major disagreement on the proposed priorities, but during the subsequent discussion, the following points were raised:

• A study on parks in London had shown that the greater the biodiversity the greater the well being of people. It was felt that the biodiversity of the park areas around Zandvlei at present was very limited and that the plan should promote better co-operation between the Parks and Biodiversity Departments with a view to improving their biodiversity.
• Concerns were raised about the volume of litter entering the vlei from the catchment. It was stated that traps were broken and over-flowing and there was insufficient on-the-ground management.
• The need for a strong focus on institutional connectivity was emphasised. It was acknowledged that not all relevant authorities were present, and that a greater effort would be placed on ensuring their participation in future meetings.
• It was suggested that there was a need to distinguish between problems and symptoms - e.g. pondweed not a problem, but the management thereof is. This was agreed, and it was proposed that the Working Groups should aim to unpack these issues.
• One of the participants raised a query about the legal authority of the EMP once it has been gazetted. For example, although a catchment plan for the Sand River is in place, many of the listed actions have not been carried out. In response, Pierre de Villiers stated that one of the objectives of the National Protocol is to ensure that the EMP is endorsed by each responsible department. Each department will then have a formally nominated representative on the Forum and will be held accountable to deliver on the actions listed in the EMP.
• Alan Boyd of DEA noted that one of the unique actions of these plans is the use of zonation as a management tool. He also noted that this is the first estuary that hasn’t identified fishing or boating as an issue which suggests that something is being done right.
• It was suggested that there was a need to frame the priority issues in terms of their impacts on people. This would facilitate the selling of the work of the Forum into the future.
• It was noted that
  i) while reference had been made to monitoring, the development of an inventory is also important;
  ii) in addition to alien species, the Phragmites invasion is also a problem; and
  iii) participatory involvement must aim to involve all the people around the vlei, needs to cut across all groups. This was acknowledged, although it was noted that this is not easy as the poorer communities do not necessarily view the vlei as having a positive impact on their lives. Nevertheless, it was agreed that this should be addressed in the plan. It was also suggested that industry should be involved.
• A final comment was that it should be remembered that this is a nature reserve and that steps should be taken to restrict the number of users so as to limit the impacts.

5. Development of a vision for Zandvlei and management objectives for the EMP.

Lynn Jackson presented some preliminary proposals for the vision and management objectives.

5.1 Vision

It was noted that the vision had to be consistent with that for the CAPE Estuaries Programme as a whole. This reads: “Our estuaries are beautiful, rich in plants and animals, they attract visitors, sustain our livelihoods and uplift our spirits”.

It was also noted that in developing the proposals, previous initiatives had been taken into account. The Ninham Shand report of 2000, for example, indicated that the assessment of the various engineering options for the management of the mouth was based on a vision statement which read as follows: “Management should strive for a mutually-acceptable and cost-effective balance between flood control, ecological needs and recreation”.

The Sand River Catchment Management Plan (2003) was based on the following vision: “The Catchment Management Plan must ensure acceptable water quality and manage water quantity so as to support maximum biodiversity and optimize utilization of river corridors for the sustained benefit of all users”.

The proposed Vision was as follows:

Zandvlei and its catchment are natural assets, beautiful and rich in biodiversity, and a part of our heritage. They should be restored, enhanced and protected for sustainable use and appreciation by current and future generations.

Discussion: The following points were raised:

• There was some concern over the use of the word restored given that it implies a return to its original condition which will not be possible. It was proposed that the term rehabilitated be used instead;
• There was a suggestion that the vision should be based on a people centered approach so as to give appropriate recognition to the large number of users in the adjacent communities;
• In relation to the phrase sustainable use it was pointed out that Section 24 of our Constitution refers to sustainability but that this is not being enforced. In general, we have a lot of good regulations in place, but many are not being enforced i.e. law enforcement is probably one of our biggest problems (fishing/netting etc);
• There was a question as to whether the vision should apply to Zandvlei estuary alone, or to the whole catchment. Need to be clear about what the vision includes.
• It was suggested that the term “balanced use” might be better than sustainable use;
• From the conservation perspective it was suggested that the vision should talk of optimising ecological functions.

It was agreed that the consultants would work on a new version of the Vision taking into account the comments made. This would then be circulated to the meeting participants for comment.

5.2 Management Objectives.

The management objectives from the 1990 management plan and the Ninham Shand report can be summarised as follows:

1990 Plan

In mid-1987, the City’s inter-departmental Inland Waters Management Team established the Zandvlei Working Group which produced a technical report and made a number of management recommendations which were incorporated into a plan which was adopted by Council during 1990. Quick & Harding listed the management objectives of that plan as follows:

• Effective stormwater and river management (including monitoring) to reduce bacteriological and nutrient loading and to contain peak runoff volumes;
• Mechanical management of the sandbar and weir to optimise seawater intrusion to achieve adequate salinity levels and enable access to juvenile marine fish (September to November);
• Pondweed monitoring and management programme to ensure it ongoing role in water quality enhancement and provision of habitat for juvenile fish;
• Education and awareness-raising.

Ninham Shand (2000) criteria for evaluation of engineering options included:

• Prevention of flooding of urban areas;
• Provision of water quality suitable for contact recreation and ecosystem health;
• Promotion of the natural functioning of the mouth and estuary as a whole;
• Enabling the migration of fish into and out of the estuary;
• Provision of water of sufficient depth for recreational purposes;
• Maintenance of aesthetics and minimisation of social nuisance factors;
• Low maintenance and capital costs and effort.

The following Management Objectives were then proposed for Zandvlei:

Overall Objective:

To manage Zandvlei and its environs (including the catchment) in a manner that is suitable for recreation, protects adjacent property, and is compatible with the conservation of an ecosystem of regional significance for biological diversity.

Key management objectives:

• To develop a mechanism to manage the hydrodynamics of the estuary in a manner which simulates as far as possible the natural condition, maintains salinity at appropriate levels and which:
• re-establishes/ enhances the role of the estuary as a nursery for marine migrants
• maintains the competitive advantage of pondweed over phytoplankton
• protects property against flooding and other damage
• reduces siltation, and
• optimises water depth in terms of maintaining water quality and meeting recreational needs.

To prevent, reduce or minimise pollution from all sources so as to be able to restore the water quality to a standard suitable for supporting natural resources and human recreation.

To create conditions suitable for the restoration and ongoing protection of Zandvlei and its biodiversity, including:

• establishing a zonation plan which designates sanctuary areas, areas for different uses (boating, walking, swimming etc), and buffer zones between the estuary and surrounding urban areas;
• preventing introduction of alien species and controlling and removing priority existing invasive species;
• improving water quality and increasing salinity;
• promoting sustainable use of resources.

To ensure that any relevant future planning and development decisions acknowledge the socio-economic value and conservation significance of the estuary and prevent any further development within the boundaries thereof.

To promote and manage recreation, education and eco-tourism in the estuary in a manner compatible with its conservation status.

Discussion: The following points were raised in relation to the Overall Objective:

• It was suggested that the current costs of management interventions should be determined to establish a baseline and to see if existing expenditure could be re-directed so as to have greater impact;
• It was noted that it was necessary to have very specific, quantifiable targets / aims for management interventions so that the effectiveness of such interventions can be monitored (for example, for water quality);
• It was further proposed that the word preserve should be changed to conserve, that the order of objectives should be changed to have the biodiversity values at the beginning; and that the concept of balance between the various uses be incorporated. Additional comments around the Key Management Objectives included:
• The objective on hydrodynamics should include bullet points on the need to improve flushing, monitoring and the potential impacts of sea-level rise;
• It was noted that fishing is not a major issue. There are very few incidents of illegal acitivities and there is a well-established community network which reports incidents. The main concern around fisheries resources is around the low salinity that has reduced species diversity. White steenbras, for example, have declined significantly over the past 20 years. It was emphasised that angling clubs need to be involved in this process.

It was agreed that as for the Vision, the Management Objectives would be redrafted taking the points raised into account and circulated to the meeting participants.

6. Establishment of Technical Working Groups and an Estuarine Forum.

The proposed institutional structure to oversee the development and implementation of the EMP was described, and includes the following components:

Level 1: City Estuary Management Forum
Level 2: Zandvlei Estuary Management Forum
Level 3: Technical Working Groups

• Water level / mouth management
• Water quality & monitoring
• Aquatic weeds & IAS
• Conservation & Planning

Technical Working Groups:

The purpose of the TWG’s was to enable the public and specialists to assist in the process of developing solutions to the priority issues identified during the Situation Assessment. The proposals emanating from the TWG’s would then be included in the 5-year Action Plan, which would be a component of the EMP.

The intention was to set up TWG’s on each of the priority issues. Each of these groups would then meet once or twice as required between August and October. It was proposed that each TWG should include three public representatives, one to be nominated by Zandvlei Trust (in consultation with likeminded organisations in the area), the second by the combined Ratepayers/residents Associations, and the third by the recreational user groups. Representatives should be sufficiently knowledgeable to be able to contribute to the discussions, and should be available during normal working hours. The relevant organisations requested to come forward with nominations by the 9th of August.

Discussion:
· There was some debate on the recreational users with a suggestion that there was a need for a specific TWG for this group. An alternative proposal was that the recreational users should be represented on each of the other WGs. It was agreed that there was a need to get more detailed information on the various groups, and to 
establish the needs of some of the smaller groups eg. The sea scouts.

• It was proposed that there should be an additional TWG on Education & Communication to raise awareness and address the lack of understanding on the threats and potential opportunities related to the estuary. There was broad support for this proposal.
• Following some discussion, it was agreed that although monitoring had been included in the TWG on water quality, there was, in fact, a need for monitoring in relation to all the priority issues. Biodiversity monitoring, for example, should be addressed in the TWG on Conservation and Planning. It was suggested that the objectives for monitoring must be set at Management Plan level to streamline efforts. The results of the data analysis must then be fed back to managers on the ground and inform the updating of the plan.
• A question was raised about the data which is generated by the various monitoring and other programmes, and whether it is - or will be - passed on to other bodies (such as SAEON) for future reference. The meeting was informed that this would be addressed by the Protocol, but that data would definitely go to SAEON as well as to the Reserve Manager, the City’s Biodiversity Database, Zandvlei Trust Website, etc.
• It was agreed that a mechanism to facilitate close liaison with catchment management activities and initiatives (such as Source-to-Sea) needs to be established, and that this should be included in TOR for Planning TWG. It was agreed that the consultants would draw up a revised list of TWG’s with Terms of Reference for each and circulate them to the participants for comment.

7. Closure

Councillor Qually closed the meeting at 21:30.

ANNEX 1 : List of participants

ANNEX 2 : List of apologies received

ANNEX 3 : Programme