Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Information & Discussions on Garden Route National Park
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75825
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Post by Richprins »

Image

Koukamma Municipality is in the Eastern Cape province, the worst-performing province in South Africa in many respects, and a stronghold of the ruling party.


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Toko
Posts: 26619
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: -

Re: Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Post by Toko »

http://www.sabreakingnews.co.za/2016/02 ... ng-rights/

Confrontation over Tsitsikamma fishing rights

Fishermen from the surrounding communities, who have been pressurising the DEA to reinstate their fishing rights since the Tsitsikamma MPA was declared a no-take zone in 2000, are becoming impatient, resorting to threats and protests.


Melissa Reitz



Community anglers are threatening tourist safety if fishing rights are not granted, spurring the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) on in opening up parts of the Tsitsikamma marine protected area (MPA) to allow fishing – a move which marine experts are calling flawed and likely to devastate fish stocks.


Fishermen from the surrounding communities, who have been pressurising the DEA to reinstate their fishing rights since the Tsitsikamma MPA was declared a no-take zone in 2000, are becoming impatient, resorting to threats and protests.


Members of the community claim that fishing in the reserve is their historical right and will add to their livelihoods by alleviating poverty. They have indicated that a failure to get those rights will pose a threat to tourists in the area.

“The communities were never consulted in 2000 when they took away our rights to the sea and our people are angry and will fight for their constitutional rights,” says Tsitsikamma Angling Forum member Henrico Bruiners “If they do not get access to the sea they cannot guarantee the safety of tourists, especially those walking the Otter Trail.”

The DEA announced a proposal in November to open the no-take zone and gazetted draft regulations to allow registered members from communities between Covie and Bloukrans, including communities within the Koukamma Municipality, to apply for recreational fishing permits.

A four week pilot phase to allow fishing in the MPA was approved by the DEA in December, only to be legally halted by a group of conservationists, Friends of Tsitsikamma, on the grounds that the department’s procedure was unlawful by allowing fishing ahead of closure for public comment on the proposed rezoning of the reserve.

They said the department was bowing to pressure from enraged fishers and even a short period open to fishing will have lasting detrimental effects on the reserve’s fish population – which is considered a crucial seeding ground for South Africa’s fisheries.

“No-take MPA’s are essential in providing a refuge and allow protected populations to recover in both number and size and to contribute to adjacent exploited populations through spill over,” says Bruce Mann, Senior Scientist at the Durban Oceanographic Research Institute.

Professor Peter Britz from the Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science at Rhodes University says traditional fishing rights can be restored in terms of the Constitution which recognises traditional and customary rights even if they are not defined in law.

“But the problem is that the draft Gazette regulations do not frame the issue as a historical restitution one. The park is to be opened to all residents of the area, not just families historically compromised. This approach is flawed because the DEA lack the correct policy to guide them on fishing rights.”

According to DEA spokesperson, Zolile Nqayi, restitution cannot be applied to the sea and the proposed rezoning is not to restore real rights. “It’s an attempt to address the fact that these communities have been denied access to enjoy and use marine resources which they have historically been allowed to undertake prior to declaring the MPA.”

But Friends of Tsitiskamma remain concerned that the lack of policy will allow a greater number of fishers into the reserve, heightening the impact on sensitive marine resources and setting a precedent that will compromise other protected areas.

“The current lack of due process in Tsitsikamma has the potential to undermine all protected areas in South Africa, both marine and terrestrial,” says marine biologist, Professor Mandy Lombard.

Meanwhile experts have clearly indicated to the DEA the dire consequences of allowing fishing in the MPA which will result in a rapid decline of fish stocks.

“Resident fish populations within these controlled zones will be depleted very quickly, even with the bag limits proposed,” says Bruce Mann.

With 500 fisherman registering at SANParks for the pilot phase, each permitted to fish for four days a month and limited to ten fish per day, an average of 20 000 fish are destined to be pulled out of the water every month.

Previous attempts were made to open the Tsitsikamma MPA to fishing in 2007 and 2010, but the then environmental ministers took heed to scientific advice, deciding not to allow fishing and appealing to local communities to respect their decision which was in the interest to the nation as a whole.


User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67229
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Post by Lisbeth »

Toko wrote: With 500 fisherman registering at SANParks for the pilot phase, each permitted to fish for four days a month and limited to ten fish per day, an average of 20 000 fish are destined to be pulled out of the water every month.
How would Sanparks keep control on those numbers?


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Puff Addy
Posts: 648
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 7:32 pm
Country: Czech Republic
Location: Prague, Czech Republic
Contact:

Re: Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Post by Puff Addy »

I despair... :no:


User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75825
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Post by Richprins »

“If they do not get access to the sea they cannot guarantee the safety of tourists, especially those walking the Otter Trail.”


I despair too! :evil:


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75825
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Post by Richprins »

Starkly different views in the Tsitsikamma MPA process

Date: 2016-02-08



There is always room for further consultation in a public participation process as not everyone will be happy with the end result.

There are ample stakeholder models to apply and most of them require the definition of stakeholders as the first step in a plan of action, then exploring prior to engagement, building and formalising common goals for the future, consolidating, implementing and evaluating whilst determining learning mechanisms. Some argue this process was followed in both 2007 and 2010 as when communities first approached authorities for fishing rights in the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area (MPA).

Opposing views to rezone the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area are starkly different. The Wildlife & Environment Society of SA (WESSA) statement (dated 03rd February 2016) states the organisation is "strongly opposed" due to a ‘belief that this move would endanger our national fish stocks.’ Communities via their social media page 'Indigenous custodians of the Tsitsikamma' are not at all opposed to the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of marine resources but also believe the declaration of the Tsitsikamma MPA without a proper consultation process 'robbed them of various rights (including and not limited to culture, food security), a product of inequity, discrimination and social injustice.'

Over 50% of the people living in Tsitsikamma are unemployed, a large number of this percentage is made up of young people. All five of South Africa's MPAs with a coastal boundary declared since 2003 ( which contributed to a new vision for MPAs as charted by the World Parks Congress) have allowed recreational line fishing from at least part of the coastline, in the knowledge that this access often catered for poorer portions of the community. (The two exceptions are Bird Island in the middle of Algoa Bay and the Prince Edward Island MPA in the middle of the Southern Ocean).

In the Garden Route, the Goukamma and Robberg MPAs both allow shore-based line fishing. The Robberg MPA in Plettenberg Bay allows line fishing from the shore, currently around its whole coastline. In addition anglers can fish to the east and to the west of Robberg.

A statement released by WWF (dated 28 January 2016) is correct in stating that "while the ecological arguments are in favour of retaining the MPAs ‘no-take' zone status, it was important to recognise that protected areas can compromise the ability of coastal communities living in and adjacent to these areas- to access the resources which they traditionally relied upon for the livelihood and food security."

Not only was the proposal to rezone the MPA published in the Government Gazette for public comment, it was also shared via various public forums (websites, social media, media). Workshops and meetings were held in Cape Town as part of this process and WWF was part of several meetings held with marine scientists. Over 450 comments were received from members of the public. Three (3) months after the closure for the call for proposals, WWF releases a statement calling for consultation?

The WWF statement mentions a funded study of the economic benefits of three MPAs: Robberg, Goukamma and Tsitsikamma. Whilst it is a comprehensive study in economic terms, the findings will be skewed because (whilst it can be accepted that visitors would be not representative of SA or Tsitsikamma demographics) the survey of the general public was in no way representative of either Tsitsikamma residents or the South African population.

Not one organisation has written to us thus far to assist with the process or offered conservation tools in the 20 year struggle. This has been a 50-year journey.

The Department of Environmental Affairs and SANParks have a dual function of providing benefits for society and of ensuring that such benefits are protected for future generations. The trade-offs between the flow of benefits and the protection of the resources that provide benefits are complex and subject to continuous change as human needs evolve and as new knowledge accumulates.

The proposal recommends stringent criteria for rezoning the MPA to include 20% of the coastline with 80% remaining a 'no-take' zone and 100% of the offshore remaining a 'no-take' zone as well. In addition, there will be limiting access to local anglers only.
limiting the number of days per month an individual may fish to four
limiting fishing times to daylight hours
reduced daily bag limits for most species (approximately half)

There will be an active monitoring of catches. There will be impacts on fish stocks in the controlled areas where fishing is allowed, and catch-rates will decrease, but these effects will be different for different species. International and national approaches to conservation have strived to harmonize conservation objectives with social needs as far back as 1972 (United Nations Conference on the Human Environment) and the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

Kind regards

Nandi Mgwadlamba
Communications Manager
SANParks: Garden Route National Park
Tel: 044 302 5633 Cell: 078 702 9663
E-mail: nandi.mgwadlamba@sanparks.org


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75825
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Post by Richprins »

The above release by SANParks, may appear confused, baffling and without background to a casual reader, but is in response to the uproar over the issue, and takes a strand of apparent support from a WWF SA comment here:

http://www.wwf.org.za/?16201/WWF-SA-cal ... oldest-MPA

My opinions in red.



There is always room for further consultation in a public participation process as not everyone will be happy with the end result.

SANParks, the Department/government/municipalty, and Tsitsikamma Angling Forum are unhappy. Everyone else is happy.



There are ample stakeholder models to apply and most of them require the definition of stakeholders as the first step in a plan of action, then exploring prior to engagement, building and formalising common goals for the future, consolidating, implementing and evaluating whilst determining learning mechanisms.

Says who? The issue is simple, and stakeholders are in place. Who decides the new definition of stakeholders, and why is there a learning process after a decade?

Some argue this process was followed in both 2007 and 2010 as when communities first approached authorities for fishing rights in the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area (MPA).

Some argue municipal elections were held in 2007 and 2011. Why now again this story before municipal elections in 2016? How else is the timeline explained if the issue is so serious?

Opposing views to rezone the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area are starkly different. The Wildlife & Environment Society of SA (WESSA) statement (dated 03rd February 2016) states the organisation is "strongly opposed" due to a ‘belief that this move would endanger our national fish stocks.’ Communities via their social media page 'Indigenous custodians of the Tsitsikamma' are not at all opposed to the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of marine resources but also believe the declaration of the Tsitsikamma MPA without a proper consultation process 'robbed them of various rights (including and not limited to culture, food security), a product of inequity, discrimination and social injustice.'


'Indigenous custodians of the Tsitsikamma' is not party to any stakeholder discussions, or more pertinently to legal proceedings, as far as is apparent.




Over 50% of the people living in Tsitsikamma are unemployed, a large number of this percentage is made up of young people. All five of South Africa's MPAs with a coastal boundary declared since 2003 ( which contributed to a new vision for MPAs as charted by the World Parks Congress) have allowed recreational line fishing from at least part of the coastline, in the knowledge that this access often catered for poorer portions of the community. (The two exceptions are Bird Island in the middle of Algoa Bay and the Prince Edward Island MPA in the middle of the Southern Ocean).

In the Garden Route, the Goukamma and Robberg MPAs both allow shore-based line fishing. The Robberg MPA in Plettenberg Bay allows line fishing from the shore, currently around its whole coastline. In addition anglers can fish to the east and to the west of Robberg.

Government is addressing the problem of unemployment via various hugely-budgeted departments. Nothing to do with SANParks. The other MPA's also have nothing to do with SANParks. Rather provincial nature reserves, and tiny.

A statement released by WWF (dated 28 January 2016) is correct in stating that "while the ecological arguments are in favour of retaining the MPAs ‘no-take' zone status, it was important to recognise that protected areas can compromise the ability of coastal communities living in and adjacent to these areas- to access the resources which they traditionally relied upon for the livelihood and food security."

The WWF statement says, unequivocally: "the Department’s current approach to the rezonation of Tsitsikamma MPA is of particular concern.

Prior to the gazetting of the draft rezoning regulations, there has been little to no engagement with the marine and social science community outside of the local municipality to interrogate the range of different management options for this area. It is therefore not clear where the current proposal comes from and to what extent the socio-economic and ecological implications associated with opening these sections of the MPA to recreational fishing have been considered.

A 2007 study, commissioned by WWF-SA, on the value of the Garden Route MPAs suggested that from a socio-economic perspective, opening the MPA to even limited fishing would result in economic losses rather than gains."




Not only was the proposal to rezone the MPA published in the Government Gazette for public comment, it was also shared via various public forums (websites, social media, media). Workshops and meetings were held in Cape Town as part of this process and WWF was part of several meetings held with marine scientists. Over 450 comments were received from members of the public. Three (3) months after the closure for the call for proposals, WWF releases a statement calling for consultation?

But if WWF agree in principle, what is the problem then? Why did they call for consultation then? Are they only selectively correct? There was no official press release by SANParks regarding this matter, only when the bomb dropped end 2015. Back in January 2015 there was no mention of fishing, rather the following:


"An increase in visitors of 19% and notably in black visitor numbers of 11,4% revealed improved stakeholder relations and outreach programmes with local government structures and neighbouring communities. Local government departments are increasingly using the park’s many attractions and accommodation options as a base for important workshops. Local events companies use the restcamps as event villages for activities such as the world-renowned Otter Trail run, Merell Eden Duo, Southern Storm and the Outeniqua challenge amongst many.'


https://www.sanparks.org/about/news/?id=56286


So stakeholders were humming along...


The WWF statement mentions a funded study of the economic benefits of three MPAs: Robberg, Goukamma and Tsitsikamma. Whilst it is a comprehensive study in economic terms, the findings will be skewed because (whilst it can be accepted that visitors would be not representative of SA or Tsitsikamma demographics) the survey of the general public was in no way representative of either Tsitsikamma residents or the South African population.


How does it matter who fishes? The fish get removed and stocks and breeding suffer, as world-renowned scientists have abundantly indicated. Not WWF scientists at all...surely this "skewed" assessment should have been arduously argued before court, and a settlement not reached to end the pilot project? I don't understand at all!

https://www.sanparks.org/about/news/?id=56557


Not one organisation has written to us thus far to assist with the process or offered conservation tools in the 20 year struggle. This has been a 50-year journey.

What on earth is a 20 year struggle in a 50 year journey? Why should an organisation write to you in this regard? What is the struggle exactly, presumably the 20 year struggle since free elections? Are the fish now different after 20-50 years?

The government has assisted you big time, as is their job, as is what taxpayers expect to happen without writing to you?


The Department of Environmental Affairs and SANParks have a dual function of providing benefits for society and of ensuring that such benefits are protected for future generations. The trade-offs between the flow of benefits and the protection of the resources that provide benefits are complex and subject to continuous change as human needs evolve and as new knowledge accumulates.

The Department and SANParks have a duty to protect the environment and National Parks, by definition. End of story. Otherwise the department must change its name to "Environmental Affairs, Social Development, Land affairs, Education, Local Government, etc. etc."




The proposal recommends stringent criteria for rezoning the MPA to include 20% of the coastline with 80% remaining a 'no-take' zone and 100% of the offshore remaining a 'no-take' zone as well.

Fish swim offshore and inshore...many species breed inshore. They also disregard percentages, and will move between the demarcated areas. By that logic, it is pointless having MPAs in the first place...

In addition, there will be limiting access to local anglers only.
limiting the number of days per month an individual may fish to four
limiting fishing times to daylight hours
reduced daily bag limits for most species (approximately half)

There will be an active monitoring of catches.



Unfortunately, there is absolutely no reason to believe that an admittedly underfunded and understaffed organisation would have any realistic chance of monitoring an as- yet undetailed catching system, especially at night in a rugged and uninhabited stretch of coastline and there is rather an abundantly precedented concern that "communities" who have already threatened violence against tourists will get their way regardless of qoutas once promises have been made and adopted.


There will be impacts on fish stocks in the controlled areas where fishing is allowed, and catch-rates will decrease, but these effects will be different for different species.


What research is this suddenly based upon, and how does one species get preference, so to speak?


International and national approaches to conservation have strived to harmonize conservation objectives with social needs as far back as 1972 (United Nations Conference on the Human Environment) and the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development.

Kind regards

Nandi Mgwadlamba
Communications Manager
SANParks: Garden Route National Park
Tel: 044 302 5633 Cell: 078 702 9663
E-mail: nandi.mgwadlamba@sanparks.org[/quote]




This is a feeble release, and above all makes no reference to the simple truth, namely that a legal precedent was set, whereby the "offending" parties accepted that they would have no leg to stand on in a court of law, which remains our prime source of justice in this country. The law cannot be changed ad-hoc by SANParks in a boardroom. with self-fulfilling policies and priorities, self-created.


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Richprins
Committee Member
Posts: 75825
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 3:52 pm
Location: NELSPRUIT
Contact:

Re: Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Post by Richprins »

The Minister of Environmental Affairs, Dr BEE Molewa, has approved the rezonation of the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area (MPA) to allow limited fishing by members of local communities.
The Tsitsikamma National Park Marine Protected Area Declaration Notice was published in GN 1578 in Government Gazette 40510 while the regulations were published in GN R. 1579 in Government Gazette 40511 on Monday, 19 December 2016. The publications were made in terms of section 22A of the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003.

The Regulations grant permission for local communities to fish 20% of the coastline in 3 areas of the MPA.
The rezonation follows an extensive public participation process, including extended engagements with local communities. This included consideration of the socio-economic circumstances of the area concerned as well as the biological resources of the area.
The objectives of the rezonation include, inter alia, marine biodiversity conservation and direct (reasonable access to the MPA and its biological resources) and indirect (socio-economic opportunities, such as, local jobs and tourism development) community benefits.

Whilst no-take MPAs are effective in achieving protection of marine resources and biodiversity, by definition they exclude reasonable access for the local communities to marine resources. Members of the local communities around the Tsitsikamma MPA have been excluded from fishing in the MPA to increasing degrees since 1975. The regulations seek to provide equitable access to marine resources for local communities.

The Park will commence with the registration process, as stipulated in the gazette, on the 27th December 2016.

Issued by The Department of Environmental Affairs
For media inquiries contact: Zolile Nqayi 082 898 6483


Please check Needs Attention pre-booking: https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=596
User avatar
Lisbeth
Site Admin
Posts: 67229
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
Country: Switzerland
Location: Lugano
Contact:

Re: Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Post by Lisbeth »

:no: O/


"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world." Nelson Mandela
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
User avatar
Sprocky
Posts: 7121
Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:29 pm
Country: South Africa
Location: Grietjie Private Reserve
Contact:

Re: Rezoning of Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area

Post by Sprocky »

'It's like allowing hunting in the Kruger' - Conservationists mourn Tsitsikamma MPA rezoning
2016-12-22 07:31 - Louzel Lombard Steyn

Cape Town - Conservationists in South Africa are mourning the rezoning of the Tsitsikamma Marine Protected Area (MPA), South Africa's oldest MPA, saying the opening of fishing in the area is equal to "allowing limited hunting in the Kruger National Park by local communities".

SA's Minister of Environmental Affairs, Edna Molewa officially approved the rezoning of the MPA to allow limited fishing by members of local communities on Monday, 19 December 2016. This despite massive push back from conservationists over the past year.

Which is why Jean Tresfon, professional African conservation photographer specialising in underwater and aerial images around SA's coast, calls the move a shocking one which sets an appalling precedent. "There is ZERO difference between this and allowing limited hunting in the Kruger National Park by local communities," Tresfon wrote on Facebook.

Wildlife and conservation journalist Scott Ramsay agrees, saying the decision opens the possibility for "other protected areas in our country" to be exploited. Ramsay refers particularly to a part of the West Coast National Park, which is potentially going to be de-proclaimed for mining, he tells Traveller24.

"Is anything sacred anymore? Does the rest of nature have any meaning and value beyond its use by humankind? These are ethical and moral questions which we all need to consider," Ramsay asks.

"We are not the only species on this planet, and we depend totally on nature for our survival. While our national parks and nature reserves do have political and social legacies, they comprise less than 10% of our land and less than 1% of our oceans.

"Surely we don't need to transform and consume MORE of our country's last remaining natural areas and wild animals?," he says.

Custodians of our oceans?

Peter Chadwick, dedicated conservationist and African conservation photographer, asks the same questions and says "the Tsitsikamma issue is, sadly, only a microcosm of a much larger issue of lack of enforcement and protection of South Africa’s marine resources.

"DEA and Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) are both failing in their responsibilities to protect marine resources to the detriment of all of South Africa’s people."

He tells Traveller24 that although "it is fully understandable and acceptable that genuine impoverished communities should have some form of opportunity to resources upon which they depend, in the case of Tsitsikamma, access is being provided to a much wider group of individuals for recreational purposes and this therefore will quickly deplete stocks of fish that have built up within the MPA over the last 63 years.

"Just as hunting of rhino or elephant is not allowed within National Parks, so too should fishing not be allowed within the Tsitsikamma MPA," he says.

He adds that the "positioning of the fishing zones make enforcement extremely difficult for SANParks personnel as the areas are far from their base station and are difficult to reach."

The difficulty of policing fishing in a protected marine environment became evident recently in the Paulsberg MPA in Cape Town, where fishing vessels could be seen in the demarcated 'no-take' zone within the MPA.

In a response to the Department of Environmental Affairs' initial report on the rezoning of the Tsitsikamma MPA, Ramsay said that he has "lost a lot of respect for so-called conservationists in positions of authority in government and public institutions".

Tresfon also responded to the DEA's initial announcement saying "it seems the government prioritises short-term political agendas over long-term fisheries' conservation efforts and just carried on regardless with their plan to open the MPA to fishing".

Chadwick affirms that the DEA's "claims of extensive consultation are incorrect as this was only carried out at a very localized level. Opening the MPA to fishing will not benefit conservation and in the long run will only deplete already severely threatened resources further as is stated above," he says.

Sad end to a long fight from conservationists

The rezoning of the Tsitsikamma MPA has been a highly contested issue over the past 12 months. In January this year, the DEA was ordered by the High Court to cease the recreational angling pilot project in the Tsitsikamma MPA with immediate effect.

The pilot was initially supposed to run until March 2016 but was ceased SANParks and the Tsitsikamma Angling Forum (representatives of the Tsitsikamma fishing community) reached a settlement agreement with the Friends of the Tsitsikamma Association to stop the pilot recreational angling project.

Following the court order and various other conservation efforts to maintain the oldest marine protected area in the country, the DEA officially gazetted the rezoning on Monday, 19 December.


Sometimes it’s not until you don’t see what you want to see, that you truly open your eyes.
Post Reply

Return to “Garden Route National Park”