Posted on 3 December 2018 by Africa Geographic Editorial in Destinations, Kruger, News, South Africa, Wildlife
A citrus farming enterprise has purchased a small but ecologically pivotal farm on the border of the Klaserie and Timbavati private nature reserves (Greater Kruger) near the town of Hoedspruit and plans to develop a citrus orchard in this vital game reserve area. Private reserves in the area have submitted their opposition to the development via formal channels, and they would appreciate your help to prevent an ecological disaster on the Kruger border.
After reading the information below, please register your feedback with the Limpopo Department of Economic Development and Tourism (LEDET), by way of email Comms@ledet.gov.za or on Twitter. LEDET is responsible for assessing the application and is currently busy with that process. Note that LEDET is not an adversary in this process, they are the governing authority that has to make difficult decisions such as this, balancing the needs and rights of various stakeholders.
The farmer
The applicant, Soleil Mashishimale (Pty) Ltd, is an affiliate of Soleil Sitrus (Pty) Ltd, a company specialising in the production, packing and exporting of citrus, currently exporting approximately one million cartons of citrus per annum. The farm in question was recently purchased specifically by Soleil for the purpose of developing a citrus orchard.
The farm
The farm borders the Klaserie River and shares its northern border with Klaserie Private Nature Reserve. The farm will also border the Timbavati Private Nature Reserve on Timbavati’s western border if and when an application by a private reserve for inclusion into Timbavati is accepted. Both Klaserie and Timbavati are included in the Greater Kruger ecosystem, with animals free-roaming between them and the Kruger National Park. The farm includes previously-cultivated land, and the proposed plan is to develop 120ha as a citrus orchard.
The area
This area is typically devoted to game reserves, as it is categorised as a Critical Biodiversity Area 2 (CBA 2), where developments need to be environmentally sensitive, should blend in with the environmental characteristics and processes of the area with little to no compromise to the ecological integrity and to threatened species.
The property is important in terms of corridors and connectivity, falls within the buffer zone of the important Klaserie River and within the natural distribution range of the Cape, hooded, white-backed and white-headed vultures and bataleur, martial and tawny eagles – all threatened species.
The property is within the SANParks Kruger National Park buffer zone, and therefore important for the long-term plan to safeguard as much land surrounding Kruger as possible.
Map showing the location of the planned citrus farm on the Greater Kruger boundary, with proposed cultivation area in green.
Major concerns
Major concerns already submitted to LEDET by neighbouring reserves and landowners include the following:
1. Elephants are known to relish citrus fruit, particularly during the dry season when natural food sources are limited. The likely scenario is that Kruger elephants will frequently break through the fences separating the Greater Kruger from the farm, to get to the fruit. This will lead to human-wildlife conflict, and life-threatening encounters for both humans and elephants, and the destruction of property. Employees from the neighbouring reserves will be hard-pressed to react timeously to these break-outs, and the likely result will be that the farmer will most likely apply for permits to have the elephants declared ‘problem-causing animals’ and killed;
2. Other animals likely to be attracted to the fruit include baboons, monkeys and birds, and many will in all likelihood be killed – again as ‘problem-causing animals’;
3. Neighbouring reserves will incur significant additional costs as a result of having to deploy teams every time an elephant goes through a fence, reducing the available financial resources to combat poaching;
4. The farm has water rights for 120ha, equating to an estimated 1.2 billion litres per annum of water to be extracted from the Klaserie River (10 million litres per hectare per annum). The Klaserie River is a key tributary of the Olifants River, so this water extraction will impact significantly on Kruger. This area is in the grips of an extended and serious drought, with areas of the Greater Kruger and the Kruger National Park denuded of edible vegetation, and the animals battling to survive. At the best of times this area enjoys unreliable rainfall of 300-700mm per annum, with about 65 rain days per year – mainly via thunder showers.
5. There will be significant chemical pollution due to the citrus farming operations, including the use of poisons, herbicides and fertilisers;
6. The noise pollution of farm machinery and the visual pollution of a monoculture crop in an otherwise peaceful and biodiverse bushveld setting will be significant;
7. The insertion of a citrus farming operation into a bushveld game reserve environment is not compatible with existing land-use, and will compromise the further expansion of the Greater Kruger and SANParks plans for a core buffer zone around the Kruger;
Parting thought
Because of its location, this planned citrus farm is likely to have an enormous environmental footprint, far out of proportion to any benefits the farmer will claim (of generating jobs and tax revenue). Surely the best location for this farmer’s expansion objectives is on the western side of Hoedspruit, where extensive citrus farms are already located?
https://africageographic.com/blog/new-c ... 3cf4ca8e69
New citrus farm on Kruger border
- Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 66797
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
New citrus farm on Kruger border
"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
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
- Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 66797
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: New citrus farm on Kruger border
Elephant experts respond regarding proposed citrus farm on Kruger border
Posted on 12 December, 2018 by Africa Geographic Editorial in Conservation, News, People, Research, Wildlife and the News Desk post series.
Elephants Alive has released a comprehensive report regarding the proposed 120ha citrus farm development on the border of the Greater Kruger National Park. This small but ecologically pivotal farm was purchased by a citrus farming enterprise, Soleil Mashishimale (Pty) Ltd., an affiliate of Soleil Sitrus (Pty) Ltd. who specialise in the production, packing and exporting of citrus. The farm is located on the border of the Klaserie and Timbavati Private Nature Reserves (Greater Kruger) near the town of Hoedspruit.
The company plans to develop a citrus orchard in this vital area, which is typically devoted to game reserves and is categorised as a Critical Biodiversity Area 2 (CBA 2). This means that developments need to be environmentally sensitive, should blend in with the environmental characteristics and processes of the area with little to no compromise to the ecological integrity and to threatened species.
The Elephants Alive report expresses concern about this proposed development and highlights the devastating effects a citrus farm will have on the biodiversity of the area and its surroundings. The report covers specific concerns associated with the farm, namely loss of protected area expansion opportunities; pesticide application; water pollution; water supply; soil degradation; climate change implications; and the potential impact on human-wildlife conflict.
Figure 1: Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) within the Mopani district of Limpopo with an inlay showing the CBAs within the proposed citrus farm development (QGIS, 2019)
To briefly summarise each concern
• Loss of protected area expansion opportunities:
Currently 11% of Limpopo is formally protected, with the Kruger National Park contributing 72% to the provincial protected area network (PAN). The Limpopo Conservation Plan has identified 40% of the province as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) and 22% as Ecological Support Areas (ESA).
The property contains 120ha of CBA 2, and also contains 7ha of CBA 1 which is outside of the proposed citrus orchard development, but still within the farm’s boundaries. This area is regarded as irreplaceable and vital for maintaining ecological process targets, and will become degraded if the property were to be developed. Developing the property into a citrus farm would undermine conservation efforts and there would be a consequential loss of biodiversity.
• Pesticide application:
The location of the proposed citrus farm is cause for great concern on both the impact that pesticides and water extraction may have on the surrounding environment. This concern is elevated due to the close proximity of the farm to the Greater Kruger National Park.
• Water pollution:
The proposed development poses a high risk of decreasing the quality of the only natural surface water source in the area. This will have a detrimental effect downstream, specifically within the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR).
• Water supply:
The Klaserie River drains approximately half the Klaserie Private Nature Reserve and flows to the north-east into the Olifants River together with other seasonal drainage lines. The proposed development would make use of the Klaserie River for irrigation.
As citrus farming requires a substantial amount of water this will increase the pressure on an already water-stressed ecosystem as Limpopo is a water-scarce province due to its geologically-limiting groundwater aquifers. The reduced water supply will ultimately have a negative impact on the ecosystem and affect the fauna and flora during the dry seasons and future droughts.
• Soil degradation:
The proposed development will have detrimental long-term effects on soil structure and chemistry, potentially preventing future habitat rehabilitation efforts. Extensive use of chemicals and fertilisers will completely change the soil biota, reducing soil biodiversity and health.
• Climate change:
Climate change is inevitable and thus the importance of recognising strategies to allow ecosystem resilience for the continued provisions of ecosystem goods and services. Protecting important areas to allow for a larger connected habitat is one of those strategies. The proposed developed impedes this and will instead lead to land degradation and habitat fragmentation.
• Damage-causing animals (DCAs) the potential for human-wildlife conflict:
Elephants have been found to travel up to 5 km to reach cultivated areas. Back in 2017, three elephants travelled 40 km from within the APNR to reach mango orchards. As the proposed citrus farm is within 1 km of the boundaries of the APNR, crop raiding by elephants is inevitable. This would not only increase human-wildlife conflict already occurring throughout Limpopo but undermine the purpose of the nature reserve.
From an environmental, economic and ethical stand-point it is not feasible to cultivate an attractive crop such as oranges next to a reserve which protects a large population of elephants. Although there are mitigation methods to prevent intense fence breaks, these methods are time-consuming and potentially costly.
In the report the team does propose mitigation strategies based on the above concerns, such as planting crops that are compatible with organic farming methods; using water purification methods for wastewater; planting alternative crops (such as lemon grass, chili and garlic) that are known not to be attractive to wildlife; and so on. In addition to the above mentioned threats to biodiversity, the proposed development would also incur significant noise and traffic pollution during both the construction and operational phase. However, neither of these threats are easily mitigated and should be acknowledged.
In conclusion, the team is strongly opposed to the proposed citrus development and believes viable alternatives are available that would not come at the expense of the region’s ecological integrity. They go on to say that “there are certain limited resources and existing ecosystem services that can and should not be sacrificed in the name of ‘development’.”
Posted on 12 December, 2018 by Africa Geographic Editorial in Conservation, News, People, Research, Wildlife and the News Desk post series.
Elephants Alive has released a comprehensive report regarding the proposed 120ha citrus farm development on the border of the Greater Kruger National Park. This small but ecologically pivotal farm was purchased by a citrus farming enterprise, Soleil Mashishimale (Pty) Ltd., an affiliate of Soleil Sitrus (Pty) Ltd. who specialise in the production, packing and exporting of citrus. The farm is located on the border of the Klaserie and Timbavati Private Nature Reserves (Greater Kruger) near the town of Hoedspruit.
The company plans to develop a citrus orchard in this vital area, which is typically devoted to game reserves and is categorised as a Critical Biodiversity Area 2 (CBA 2). This means that developments need to be environmentally sensitive, should blend in with the environmental characteristics and processes of the area with little to no compromise to the ecological integrity and to threatened species.
The Elephants Alive report expresses concern about this proposed development and highlights the devastating effects a citrus farm will have on the biodiversity of the area and its surroundings. The report covers specific concerns associated with the farm, namely loss of protected area expansion opportunities; pesticide application; water pollution; water supply; soil degradation; climate change implications; and the potential impact on human-wildlife conflict.
Figure 1: Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) within the Mopani district of Limpopo with an inlay showing the CBAs within the proposed citrus farm development (QGIS, 2019)
To briefly summarise each concern
• Loss of protected area expansion opportunities:
Currently 11% of Limpopo is formally protected, with the Kruger National Park contributing 72% to the provincial protected area network (PAN). The Limpopo Conservation Plan has identified 40% of the province as Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBA) and 22% as Ecological Support Areas (ESA).
The property contains 120ha of CBA 2, and also contains 7ha of CBA 1 which is outside of the proposed citrus orchard development, but still within the farm’s boundaries. This area is regarded as irreplaceable and vital for maintaining ecological process targets, and will become degraded if the property were to be developed. Developing the property into a citrus farm would undermine conservation efforts and there would be a consequential loss of biodiversity.
• Pesticide application:
The location of the proposed citrus farm is cause for great concern on both the impact that pesticides and water extraction may have on the surrounding environment. This concern is elevated due to the close proximity of the farm to the Greater Kruger National Park.
• Water pollution:
The proposed development poses a high risk of decreasing the quality of the only natural surface water source in the area. This will have a detrimental effect downstream, specifically within the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR).
• Water supply:
The Klaserie River drains approximately half the Klaserie Private Nature Reserve and flows to the north-east into the Olifants River together with other seasonal drainage lines. The proposed development would make use of the Klaserie River for irrigation.
As citrus farming requires a substantial amount of water this will increase the pressure on an already water-stressed ecosystem as Limpopo is a water-scarce province due to its geologically-limiting groundwater aquifers. The reduced water supply will ultimately have a negative impact on the ecosystem and affect the fauna and flora during the dry seasons and future droughts.
• Soil degradation:
The proposed development will have detrimental long-term effects on soil structure and chemistry, potentially preventing future habitat rehabilitation efforts. Extensive use of chemicals and fertilisers will completely change the soil biota, reducing soil biodiversity and health.
• Climate change:
Climate change is inevitable and thus the importance of recognising strategies to allow ecosystem resilience for the continued provisions of ecosystem goods and services. Protecting important areas to allow for a larger connected habitat is one of those strategies. The proposed developed impedes this and will instead lead to land degradation and habitat fragmentation.
• Damage-causing animals (DCAs) the potential for human-wildlife conflict:
Elephants have been found to travel up to 5 km to reach cultivated areas. Back in 2017, three elephants travelled 40 km from within the APNR to reach mango orchards. As the proposed citrus farm is within 1 km of the boundaries of the APNR, crop raiding by elephants is inevitable. This would not only increase human-wildlife conflict already occurring throughout Limpopo but undermine the purpose of the nature reserve.
From an environmental, economic and ethical stand-point it is not feasible to cultivate an attractive crop such as oranges next to a reserve which protects a large population of elephants. Although there are mitigation methods to prevent intense fence breaks, these methods are time-consuming and potentially costly.
In the report the team does propose mitigation strategies based on the above concerns, such as planting crops that are compatible with organic farming methods; using water purification methods for wastewater; planting alternative crops (such as lemon grass, chili and garlic) that are known not to be attractive to wildlife; and so on. In addition to the above mentioned threats to biodiversity, the proposed development would also incur significant noise and traffic pollution during both the construction and operational phase. However, neither of these threats are easily mitigated and should be acknowledged.
In conclusion, the team is strongly opposed to the proposed citrus development and believes viable alternatives are available that would not come at the expense of the region’s ecological integrity. They go on to say that “there are certain limited resources and existing ecosystem services that can and should not be sacrificed in the name of ‘development’.”
"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
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
- Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 66797
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: New citrus farm on Kruger border – have your say
Kruger citrus farming impact report rated as ‘poor’ – serious questions asked
Posted on 17 April, 2019 by Africa Geographic Editorial in Conservation, News, People, Wildlife and the News Desk post series.
We reported previously about a proposed new citrus farm inside the protected wildlife area bordering the Greater Kruger National Park. In accordance with South African law a Draft Impact Report was compiled, which endorses the proposed farm development and recommends that it go ahead, and dismisses concerns expressed by a wide range of experts and affected tourism businesses in the area.
The concerns expressed include the likely killing of elephants, warthogs, baboons, vervet monkeys, porcupines and various bird and other species that are attracted to the fruiting citrus trees, poaching security, extraction of excessive amounts of water from the Klaserie River, noise and chemical pollution, threat of herbicides to biodiversity, the aesthetic blight of homogeneous orchards and farm infrastructure in a wildlife and tourism area and the disruption of the necessary expansion of the Greater Kruger.
In her assessment of this Draft Impact Report, researcher Jessica Wilmot of Elephants Alive has scored the Report as ‘poor in analytical components’ and ‘unsatisfactory because of omissions or inadequacies’. She goes on to say that the Report does not identify: a) possible alternatives to the one proposed or b) adverse impacts of the proposal or specific measures to prevent or reduce those impacts.
Map showing location of the planned citrus farm on the Greater Kruger boundary, with proposed cultivation area in green.
Wilmot also questioned the objectivity of the compiler of the report, as a negative finding would cause them to lose favour with future developers.
She went on to say that developments where only one person will benefit financially should not be placed above the long term needs of the ecosystem and the region. Developments like this in wildlife areas tend to seed a long-term process of degradation and destruction, as other developments are likely to be approved once the first is in place.
Wilmot’s report, which will form part of the process going forward, goes into great detail, and exposes significant shortcomings in the Report. She asks important questions about phrases and claims in the Report, and we can only hope that the authorities exercise their duties and apply the necessary rigour to this process.
Download Jessica Wilmot’s report here: The consequences of citrus: Assessing the quality of a Draft Impact Report for a proposed citrus development project in Limpopo Province, South Africa https://africageographic.com/wp-content ... il2019.pdf
Posted on 17 April, 2019 by Africa Geographic Editorial in Conservation, News, People, Wildlife and the News Desk post series.
We reported previously about a proposed new citrus farm inside the protected wildlife area bordering the Greater Kruger National Park. In accordance with South African law a Draft Impact Report was compiled, which endorses the proposed farm development and recommends that it go ahead, and dismisses concerns expressed by a wide range of experts and affected tourism businesses in the area.
The concerns expressed include the likely killing of elephants, warthogs, baboons, vervet monkeys, porcupines and various bird and other species that are attracted to the fruiting citrus trees, poaching security, extraction of excessive amounts of water from the Klaserie River, noise and chemical pollution, threat of herbicides to biodiversity, the aesthetic blight of homogeneous orchards and farm infrastructure in a wildlife and tourism area and the disruption of the necessary expansion of the Greater Kruger.
In her assessment of this Draft Impact Report, researcher Jessica Wilmot of Elephants Alive has scored the Report as ‘poor in analytical components’ and ‘unsatisfactory because of omissions or inadequacies’. She goes on to say that the Report does not identify: a) possible alternatives to the one proposed or b) adverse impacts of the proposal or specific measures to prevent or reduce those impacts.
Map showing location of the planned citrus farm on the Greater Kruger boundary, with proposed cultivation area in green.
Wilmot also questioned the objectivity of the compiler of the report, as a negative finding would cause them to lose favour with future developers.
She went on to say that developments where only one person will benefit financially should not be placed above the long term needs of the ecosystem and the region. Developments like this in wildlife areas tend to seed a long-term process of degradation and destruction, as other developments are likely to be approved once the first is in place.
Wilmot’s report, which will form part of the process going forward, goes into great detail, and exposes significant shortcomings in the Report. She asks important questions about phrases and claims in the Report, and we can only hope that the authorities exercise their duties and apply the necessary rigour to this process.
Download Jessica Wilmot’s report here: The consequences of citrus: Assessing the quality of a Draft Impact Report for a proposed citrus development project in Limpopo Province, South Africa https://africageographic.com/wp-content ... il2019.pdf
"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
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 5858
- Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
- Country: Germany
- Contact:
Re: New citrus farm on Kruger border – have your say
Well, one can not dictate what is to be done on the other side of the fence, I recon
Might be that the ellies and the oranges and lemons can coexist without major chaos done by elephants. Mapungubwe NP has also citrus farming on the perimeter and more or less within the park
Might be that the ellies and the oranges and lemons can coexist without major chaos done by elephants. Mapungubwe NP has also citrus farming on the perimeter and more or less within the park
- Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 66797
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: New citrus farm on Kruger border
Opinion: Approval of citrus farm on Greater Kruger border puts the region’s Protected Area Expansion Project at risk
Posted on August 30, 2019 by Guest Blogger in the OPINION EDITORIAL post series.
OPINION POST by “Concerned Protected Area Managers”
Following up on the previous article which highlighted the serious environmental concerns of a proposed citrus development to border South Africa’s largest intact Protected Area, LEDET (Limpopo Economic Development, Environment and Tourism) has ignored all concerns and given the farm development the go-ahead. By doing this, LEDET has failed not only the Hoedspruit community, they have also put the Protected Areas Network at risk by destroying the continuity of the landscape and habitat, while also failing to secure a future for fauna and flora supported within the surrounding ecosystems.
This seemingly inconsequential act of approving the development severely undermines national and provincial conservation efforts to maintain ecosystem resilience for future climate change implications. The greater consequence of this development will derail the plan of expanding the area under conservation of the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR) to Hoedspruit, and reduce the opportunity for the region to become a cornerstone for conservation (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1. Layout of the authorised commercial citrus development in relation to the surrounding Private Nature Reserves and Hoedspruit
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is incorrect in claiming that the 120 ha piece of land that is about to be irreversibly destroyed by planting citrus trees is not unique. Although similar land types are relatively widespread throughout the Lowveld, this approval highlights the lack of understanding of the urgency to protect these areas and keep them intact. This was the very reason that track of land was classified as a Protected Areas Buffer Zone and Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA2). For an ecosystem to function properly it must not be fragmented as this reduces its resilience and leads to environmental collapse. LEDET’s approval shows a general short-sightedness by the relevant authorities, and a lack of understanding of the environmental impacts of one development at a time. This cumulative effect of negative impacts is equivalent to the “death by a thousand cuts” for our environment.
If similar developments are to be authorised, there will be no viable areas left to create crucial ecological networks.
This approval of a commercial farm within a critical biodiversity area begs the question why the bigger picture for the region is being blatantly disregarded in favour of an inappropriate agricultural development. How would a citrus farm, which not only borders a Protected Area, falls on classified land but also occurs on an important river, benefit the surrounding landscape? How justifiable is it to allow for the deliberate degradation of a Protected Area through the cumulative impacts of excessive water extraction and the addition of pesticides, chemicals and other pollutants? Not only would the development decrease the area’s ecological integrity, but it would have immense impacts on wildlife movements within the Protected Area. An attractant such as citrus will lure all kinds of animals from the APNR, diminishing its purpose to act as a safe haven.
Unfortunately, as previously reported by others, there appears to be an apparent trend for inappropriate development applications being granted without due consideration of the real and severe impacts on the environment. We can only hope that by standing together as a community, we will be able to turn the tide and protect what is left of our natural environment. There has to come a time when the importance of safeguarding our natural environment takes preference over the economic benefit of a selected few.
PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION, and help us increase the pressure on LEDET to recognise the EIA appeal application: Prevent a citrus development from compromising South Africa’s largest Protected Area
Posted on August 30, 2019 by Guest Blogger in the OPINION EDITORIAL post series.
OPINION POST by “Concerned Protected Area Managers”
Following up on the previous article which highlighted the serious environmental concerns of a proposed citrus development to border South Africa’s largest intact Protected Area, LEDET (Limpopo Economic Development, Environment and Tourism) has ignored all concerns and given the farm development the go-ahead. By doing this, LEDET has failed not only the Hoedspruit community, they have also put the Protected Areas Network at risk by destroying the continuity of the landscape and habitat, while also failing to secure a future for fauna and flora supported within the surrounding ecosystems.
This seemingly inconsequential act of approving the development severely undermines national and provincial conservation efforts to maintain ecosystem resilience for future climate change implications. The greater consequence of this development will derail the plan of expanding the area under conservation of the Associated Private Nature Reserves (APNR) to Hoedspruit, and reduce the opportunity for the region to become a cornerstone for conservation (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 1. Layout of the authorised commercial citrus development in relation to the surrounding Private Nature Reserves and Hoedspruit
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is incorrect in claiming that the 120 ha piece of land that is about to be irreversibly destroyed by planting citrus trees is not unique. Although similar land types are relatively widespread throughout the Lowveld, this approval highlights the lack of understanding of the urgency to protect these areas and keep them intact. This was the very reason that track of land was classified as a Protected Areas Buffer Zone and Critical Biodiversity Area (CBA2). For an ecosystem to function properly it must not be fragmented as this reduces its resilience and leads to environmental collapse. LEDET’s approval shows a general short-sightedness by the relevant authorities, and a lack of understanding of the environmental impacts of one development at a time. This cumulative effect of negative impacts is equivalent to the “death by a thousand cuts” for our environment.
If similar developments are to be authorised, there will be no viable areas left to create crucial ecological networks.
This approval of a commercial farm within a critical biodiversity area begs the question why the bigger picture for the region is being blatantly disregarded in favour of an inappropriate agricultural development. How would a citrus farm, which not only borders a Protected Area, falls on classified land but also occurs on an important river, benefit the surrounding landscape? How justifiable is it to allow for the deliberate degradation of a Protected Area through the cumulative impacts of excessive water extraction and the addition of pesticides, chemicals and other pollutants? Not only would the development decrease the area’s ecological integrity, but it would have immense impacts on wildlife movements within the Protected Area. An attractant such as citrus will lure all kinds of animals from the APNR, diminishing its purpose to act as a safe haven.
Unfortunately, as previously reported by others, there appears to be an apparent trend for inappropriate development applications being granted without due consideration of the real and severe impacts on the environment. We can only hope that by standing together as a community, we will be able to turn the tide and protect what is left of our natural environment. There has to come a time when the importance of safeguarding our natural environment takes preference over the economic benefit of a selected few.
PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION, and help us increase the pressure on LEDET to recognise the EIA appeal application: Prevent a citrus development from compromising South Africa’s largest Protected Area
"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
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
-
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 5858
- Joined: Sat Sep 14, 2013 12:34 pm
- Country: Germany
- Contact:
Re: New citrus farm on Kruger border
Timbavati and Klaserie are not safe haven but hunting groundsAn attractant such as citrus will lure all kinds of animals from the APNR, diminishing its purpose to act as a safe haven.
I wonder what the land use there is now, would be interesting to know and then one could form an opinion if a citrus farm is much worse in terms of environmental impact.
- Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 66797
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: New citrus farm on Kruger border
Big game parks vs big farming: A battle for the ages on the Klaserie River
By Kevin Bloom• 14 June 2021
View from a cliff above the southern shore of the Olifants River in the Kruger National Park. (Photo: Flickr / Ikka)
On a small plot of land outside Hoedspruit, a fight has been brewing that goes to the very heart of South Africa’s environmental legislation. One of the country’s largest citrus exporters is taking on 15 of the biggest brands in nature conservation, with the provincial authorities so far favouring the former. If the final battle is lost, say the conservationists, it will be open season on the region’s ecological treasures.
“Insects form the base that supports intricate food webs.”
With this statement of fact, included in a report that detailed the likely impact of a proposed citrus farm on the Klaserie River basin, the ecologist Jessica Wilmot was echoing the work of Rachel Carson.
Published in 1962, Carson’s Silent Spring was an investigative masterpiece; an exposé of the catastrophe in the world of beetles and bugs, where pesticides were disrupting the food chain and silencing all birdsong. Back then, the public had no idea of the damage caused by habitat conversion and monocultural farming practices — almost 60 years later, thanks to the role played by Silent Spring in igniting the environmental movement, we know that pesticides are directly implicated in our current insect apocalypse.
Of course, to every type of global ecological crisis there is a profusion of local contexts. On the Klaserie River, as Wilmot pointed out in her report, that context had everything to do with where the citrus farm had been staked out.
“The property occurs in an area where the main land use is either wildlife-based tourism or wildlife economy initiatives,” she wrote, before noting that it was sandwiched between two of the largest private game parks in the country — the 60,000-hectare Klaserie Reserve and the 53,000-hectare Timbavati Reserve.
Wilmot, who published her report in April 2019 on behalf of the NGO Elephants Alive, came to the fight when she realised that the elephants on these two reserves would almost certainly sniff out the orange orchards, which would result in “human-wildlife conflict” and the possible slaughter of the animals.
The Kruger National Park and the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Region, in a response to the mooted project published five months earlier, had likewise foreseen the problem.
“The current fencing system ‘keeping animals in’ is very porous,” these conservation heavyweights had noted, “due to the fact that the Klaserie River itself cannot be fully fenced, meaning movement levels from the reserve to the proposed citrus area could be high.”
There were a number of reasons for their interest. First, as they had stressed, the proposed development was located inside the Kruger National Park Land Use Buffer, which had been “earmarked for expansion”.
In anticipation of the proclamation of the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity of January 2020 — an international gathering that would call for a third of the surface of the earth to be “under protection” by 2030 — the response had explained that the property was slap-bang in the middle of the Greater Kruger Open System in South Africa — a vast wildlife corridor that (all things being equal) would eventually connect to the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area, as run trilaterally by South Africa, Zimbabwe and Mozambique.
Second, there was the fact that the Klaserie River flows into the Olifants River, one of the Kruger Park’s largest watercourses. Here, given the use of pesticides and herbicides that commercial citrus farming typically entails, the response had been pretty blunt:
“Vast amounts are being invested in the clearing of the Klaserie headwaters of invasive alien plants so as to improve streamflow. This additional water is not for uptake by a single entity, but is intended to maintain basic human needs and river health to the confluence. Downstream impacts on the protected areas are likely and there is little evidence of mitigation.”
The mitigation plans, as both Elephants Alive and the Kruger Park made clear, should ideally have been included in the draft environmental impact assessment, completed in 2018. As it turned out, the final EIA, submitted in June 2019, would acknowledge the likelihood that water use for irrigation of the citrus orchard would have a “negative impact on available water resources in the region”.
So how, then, did the citrus farmer get his environmental authorisation?
This question, among many others, would form the basis of ongoing litigation between the citrus farming company, identified in court papers as Casketts Sitrus (Pty) Ltd — a cosmetic name-change from Soleil Mashishimale (Pty) Ltd, a subsidiary of the Soleil Sitrus Group, which exports to markets in Europe, Japan, the Middle East and Russia — and the Klaserie Reserve, the Timbavati Reserve and Elephants Alive.
As the leading conservationists in the fight, these three applicants would lean on the tenets of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) to take Soleil’s environmental authorisation on review, a process — still pending at the time of this writing — that would involve hauling the Limpopo provincial authorities before the Polokwane High Court. But, given what they say is Soleil’s alleged manipulation of the provincial authorities’ ineptitude, they would also seek an urgent interdict to halt the farming conglomerate in its tracks.
Backing up the applicants, as “interested and affected parties” in a concurrent appeal process, would be no less than 12 of the biggest brands in South African conservation, including SANParks and the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area, with the Global White Lion Protection Trust offering support from the sidelines.
As all of them were aware, there was evidence to suggest that Soleil had acted unlawfully in its haste to plant saplings and get the operation going. By all accounts, once the trees were bearing fruit, it wouldn’t be long until there was a queue of farmers waiting to cultivate the Kruger Park buffer zone.
***
On 2 August 2019, the chief director of environmental trade and protection at the Limpopo provincial government’s department of economic development, environment and tourism (LEDET), which has featured heavily (and not entirely favourably) in Daily Maverick’s coverage of the Musina-Makhado SEZ — granted Soleil the right to start preparing the ground.
There were a number of caveats to the environmental authorisation, including the conditions that no more than 102 hectares would be open to cultivation; that a permit for removing “protected trees” would need to be obtained from the national department, and that no farming could take place within the flood line of the Klaserie River.
A month later, on 3 September 2019, the Limpopo MEC for economic development, environment and tourism, Thabo Mokone, was bombarded with all of 15 separate appeals against LEDET’s decision, as per the provisions of section 43 of NEMA. The appeal of Elephants Alive was submitted with a petition that had garnered 1,137 signatures.
From the perspective of the appellants, this was when the authorities began to reveal their “strangely disinterested” hand. For starters, they alleged, “despite repeated correspondence”, Mokone failed to adhere to the prescribed time limits for the processing of appeals.
Of way more concern, however, was the fact that Soleil — in apparent contravention of sections 43(7) and 49A(1) of NEMA, which jointly state that an appeal “suspends an environmental authorisation” and that to “commence with an activity” in these circumstance is a criminal offence — had in the interim brought in earth-moving equipment.
Still, as the appellants were about to discover, Soleil was just beginning to get warmed up. On top of the company’s disregard for the process, which it justified in legal correspondence (see below details of a letter) by suggesting that the MEC’s delay was evidence of his intention to deny the appeal, it would soon appear likely to them that the conditions of the original authorisation had been breached.
Although Soleil had been granted permission to repair one of the dam walls on the property, Google Earth satellite imagery — captured by Wilmot in February and August 2020 — seemed to suggest that the company had deepened and widened the dam itself.
By October 2020, when the appellants managed to obtain a series of ground-level photographs, the full extent of Soleil’s activities had shifted to a realm beyond doubt. These images, shared with Daily Maverick, showed Caterpillar bulldozers, backhoe loaders and articulated trucks. In one image, a compactor was flattening a road; behind the machine, uprooted indigenous trees were lying in the rubble.
Caterpillar earth-moving machinery on Casketts Sitrus property. (Photo: Supplied)
At which point, the appellants made the decision to call Mokone to account. On 19 November 2020, in a letter to the MEC on behalf of Elephants Alive — and copied to the Klaserie Reserve, the Timbavati Reserve, SANParks, Kruger2Canyons and the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area — attorney Richard Summers alleged that Soleil had transgressed NEMA and committed a criminal offence. Given that it was now more than 14 months since the appeal had been lodged, Summers demanded that LEDET, “as the competent authority charged with administering compliance”, investigate the case.
When nothing happened, Wilmot took a bash at raising the interest of some of the other public institutions in South Africa that are mandated with the investigation and prosecution of environmental crimes.
In late December 2020 and early January 2021, after unsuccessfully reporting Soleil’s alleged transgressions to the National Environmental Crimes and Incidents hotline, she lodged various complaints with the Environmental Management Inspectorate, otherwise known as the Green Scorpions, which were met with a disturbing silence. Her next port of call was the South African Police Service, which, as per section 31 of NEMA, has the same powers as the Green Scorpions — but again, crickets.
Meanwhile, the surveillance of Soleil’s activities continued.
On 15 December 2020, Bruce McDonald, a fixed-wing pilot who was working on behalf of anti-rhino poaching services in the area, buzzed the property. McDonald was able to capture images of the extensive land clearing that had been taking place.
In mid-February 2021, working off these images, Summers tried his own luck with the Green Scorpions, to no avail. A few days later, Wilmot herself was taking pictures from a light aircraft — the photographs, when collated with those from Wilmot’s second flight in April 2021, appeared to show breach of environmental legislation on a large scale.
Soil preparation was at an advanced stage, blue PVC irrigation piping was visible on the ground and an excavator was clearing vegetation in the property’s south-western corner, an area demarcated as a “no-go zone” by the environmental authorisation of August 2019.
By this late date, Wilmot and Summers were acutely aware that MEC Mokone — in fulfilment of Soleil’s prophecy — had denied the appeal.
A compactor flattens the road on Casketts property. (Photo: Supplied)
The problem was, in the two-page decision of 24 March 2021, which had been rendered a full 18 months after the original submission, only the appeals of Klaserie Reserve and Masungulo Lodge were addressed. Neither Timbavati Reserve nor Elephants Alive, or any of the other conservation heavyweights involved in the matter, had received word of Mokone’s decision.
Also, the appeal decision had imposed one further condition on Soleil — that they “erect an elephant-proof fence around the property, in order to enhance the safety of freely roaming elephants and other damage causing animals”.
According to Wilmot, the images from the flyover of April 2021 showed that no such fence had been erected.
***
Like the conservationists, Soleil Sitrus had been heavily lawyered up from the start. Although Daily Maverick could not obtain the financial statements, it was obvious from the website that the company could afford to go toe-to-toe with the NGOs and game parks on every accusation — with 370 permanent employees, 500 seasonal employees and thousands of hectares under cultivation on 11 farms in multiple provinces, Soleil’s founder, Kobus van Staden, was clearly a man who was not fond of losing.
In a letter to Elephants Alive dated 10 September 2020, Soleil’s attorney, Leon Doyer of WdT Inc, noted that it had been more than a year since the conservationists had lodged their appeals. Referring to the National Appeal Regulations, Doyer pointed out that decisions on appeals were supposed to be a “speedy process”, allowing the authorities no more than 50 days from receipt of the responding statement.
“You are in charge of the current appeal,” Doyer insisted, in the correspondence with Elephants Alive. “Our client cannot verify that all the correct steps were taken to lodge the appeal timeously and procedurally correctly. It is obvious by now that [LEDET] either has taken the view that it is not obliged to even consider the appeal (due to some or other mistake in the process) or does not intend to do so.”
Accordingly, continued Doyer, “[our] client intends to proceed to act on the authorisation and commence with the development of the property for citrus farming”.
Six weeks later, however, after being informed that the appeal decision was expected on 27 November 2020 — and less than a week after Summers had requested Mokone to “investigate” the alleged criminal breach of NEMA — Doyer informed Summers, Mokone and LEDET that his client would “await the MEC’s final decision and then react accordingly”.
The Olifants River, Kruger National Park, South Africa. (Photo: Flickr / Manuel ROMARIS)
In light of the fact that a decision on just two of the 15 appeals was handed down on 24 March 2021, and given the ongoing “proof of development” that the appellants had gathered in the interim, Daily Maverick asked Van Staden whether he could provide a reasonable explanation for the contradiction.
Van Staden declined to engage, instead referring Daily Maverick to the court papers, so that we could “remain fully informed of proceedings”.
These papers, like Doyer’s legal correspondence, had been consistent in their framing of Soleil’s counter-arguments.
Where the conservationists argued that the property had lain fallow for a decade and thus retrieved its natural ecological state, Soleil argued that it was registered farmland, which hadn’t been pristine bushveld since 1967.
Where the conservationists contended that Soleil had breached their environmental authorisation by extending and deepening the dam, Soleil countered that they “were not developing the dam wall”, but “repairing the wall that already existed”.
Where the conservationists insisted that there was still no elephant-proof fence, Soleil maintained that “the fences currently in place” were “more than adequate deterrence against elephants”.
The dispute over water rights was another matter, one that Soleil — with apparent justification — claimed to have settled to the satisfaction of the authorities.
Here, Daily Maverick wanted to know — since Van Staden had co-signed the initial responding letter to the appeals with a certain Jurie Jansen van Vuuren, chair of the Klaserie Irrigation Board — whether he refuted the contention of the appellants that this represented a conflict of interest. Again, Van Staden chose not to engage.
As for the office of the MEC, the 18-month delay on the appeal decision was explained by “the involvement of multiple parties, the complexity of the matter as well as the lockdown”, with the MEC extending his “regrets and apologies” via LEDET head of department Solly Kgopong.
Daily Maverick was further informed that decisions had now been made on “all appeals”, although no explanation was offered — other than the fact that the matter was pending before the Polokwane High Court — for why the MEC had not investigated Soleil’s apparent breach of section 43 of NEMA.
As it happened, the “pending matter” was the judicial review that the Klaserie Reserve, the Timbavati Reserve and Elephants Alive had launched against Soleil’s original environmental authorisation, with the MEC and LEDET listed as co-respondents.
But on 14 May 2021, aware that they were losing ground with each passing day, these same applicants had approached the court for an urgent interdict, hoping to stop Soleil from “further clearing the land, installing irrigation systems, planting citrus saplings and erecting fences” until the decision on the review had been handed down.
On 8 June 2021, the interdict was denied — Judge Veronica Semenya, who had just one day to rule on the hundreds of pages in the court record, chose to set aside the ecological arguments and focus on the ineptitude of the authorities.
The applicants had been aware for some time that they “weren’t being assisted”, she noted in her ruling, “so why was the application only launched now?”
Still, in the face of what was looking more and more like a Kafka novel, the conservationists weren’t about to give up. The review application had been drawn up to go at the heart of the fight, where the ultimate arbiter would hopefully be NEMA itself.
Among the reasons for challenging the environmental authorisation was its failure to consider key policy documents — including the Kruger National Park Management Plan, the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy and the Convention on Biological Diversity — and the allegation, argued at length with reference to NEMA, that it did not adequately assess “the cumulative impact on water resources”.
The review, when it happens, will see the Klaserie Reserve, the Timbavati Reserve and Elephants Alive up against Soleil Sitrus for what is likely to be the last time.
With SANParks and the rest of the “interested and affected parties” watching closely, the outcome won’t be limited to the region around Hoedspruit.
As Deon Huysamer, the chairperson of the Klaserie Reserve, told Daily Maverick, “it will set a very dangerous precedent if we allow the development to continue unchallenged.”
Just like Rachel Carson’s environmental science book, Silent Spring, it appeared Huysamer was considering the knock-on effects for the entire nation’s natural heritage. DM
By Kevin Bloom• 14 June 2021
View from a cliff above the southern shore of the Olifants River in the Kruger National Park. (Photo: Flickr / Ikka)
On a small plot of land outside Hoedspruit, a fight has been brewing that goes to the very heart of South Africa’s environmental legislation. One of the country’s largest citrus exporters is taking on 15 of the biggest brands in nature conservation, with the provincial authorities so far favouring the former. If the final battle is lost, say the conservationists, it will be open season on the region’s ecological treasures.
“Insects form the base that supports intricate food webs.”
With this statement of fact, included in a report that detailed the likely impact of a proposed citrus farm on the Klaserie River basin, the ecologist Jessica Wilmot was echoing the work of Rachel Carson.
Published in 1962, Carson’s Silent Spring was an investigative masterpiece; an exposé of the catastrophe in the world of beetles and bugs, where pesticides were disrupting the food chain and silencing all birdsong. Back then, the public had no idea of the damage caused by habitat conversion and monocultural farming practices — almost 60 years later, thanks to the role played by Silent Spring in igniting the environmental movement, we know that pesticides are directly implicated in our current insect apocalypse.
Of course, to every type of global ecological crisis there is a profusion of local contexts. On the Klaserie River, as Wilmot pointed out in her report, that context had everything to do with where the citrus farm had been staked out.
“The property occurs in an area where the main land use is either wildlife-based tourism or wildlife economy initiatives,” she wrote, before noting that it was sandwiched between two of the largest private game parks in the country — the 60,000-hectare Klaserie Reserve and the 53,000-hectare Timbavati Reserve.
Wilmot, who published her report in April 2019 on behalf of the NGO Elephants Alive, came to the fight when she realised that the elephants on these two reserves would almost certainly sniff out the orange orchards, which would result in “human-wildlife conflict” and the possible slaughter of the animals.
The Kruger National Park and the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Region, in a response to the mooted project published five months earlier, had likewise foreseen the problem.
“The current fencing system ‘keeping animals in’ is very porous,” these conservation heavyweights had noted, “due to the fact that the Klaserie River itself cannot be fully fenced, meaning movement levels from the reserve to the proposed citrus area could be high.”
There were a number of reasons for their interest. First, as they had stressed, the proposed development was located inside the Kruger National Park Land Use Buffer, which had been “earmarked for expansion”.
In anticipation of the proclamation of the UN’s Convention on Biological Diversity of January 2020 — an international gathering that would call for a third of the surface of the earth to be “under protection” by 2030 — the response had explained that the property was slap-bang in the middle of the Greater Kruger Open System in South Africa — a vast wildlife corridor that (all things being equal) would eventually connect to the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area, as run trilaterally by South Africa, Zimbabwe and Mozambique.
Second, there was the fact that the Klaserie River flows into the Olifants River, one of the Kruger Park’s largest watercourses. Here, given the use of pesticides and herbicides that commercial citrus farming typically entails, the response had been pretty blunt:
“Vast amounts are being invested in the clearing of the Klaserie headwaters of invasive alien plants so as to improve streamflow. This additional water is not for uptake by a single entity, but is intended to maintain basic human needs and river health to the confluence. Downstream impacts on the protected areas are likely and there is little evidence of mitigation.”
The mitigation plans, as both Elephants Alive and the Kruger Park made clear, should ideally have been included in the draft environmental impact assessment, completed in 2018. As it turned out, the final EIA, submitted in June 2019, would acknowledge the likelihood that water use for irrigation of the citrus orchard would have a “negative impact on available water resources in the region”.
So how, then, did the citrus farmer get his environmental authorisation?
This question, among many others, would form the basis of ongoing litigation between the citrus farming company, identified in court papers as Casketts Sitrus (Pty) Ltd — a cosmetic name-change from Soleil Mashishimale (Pty) Ltd, a subsidiary of the Soleil Sitrus Group, which exports to markets in Europe, Japan, the Middle East and Russia — and the Klaserie Reserve, the Timbavati Reserve and Elephants Alive.
As the leading conservationists in the fight, these three applicants would lean on the tenets of the National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) to take Soleil’s environmental authorisation on review, a process — still pending at the time of this writing — that would involve hauling the Limpopo provincial authorities before the Polokwane High Court. But, given what they say is Soleil’s alleged manipulation of the provincial authorities’ ineptitude, they would also seek an urgent interdict to halt the farming conglomerate in its tracks.
Backing up the applicants, as “interested and affected parties” in a concurrent appeal process, would be no less than 12 of the biggest brands in South African conservation, including SANParks and the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area, with the Global White Lion Protection Trust offering support from the sidelines.
As all of them were aware, there was evidence to suggest that Soleil had acted unlawfully in its haste to plant saplings and get the operation going. By all accounts, once the trees were bearing fruit, it wouldn’t be long until there was a queue of farmers waiting to cultivate the Kruger Park buffer zone.
***
On 2 August 2019, the chief director of environmental trade and protection at the Limpopo provincial government’s department of economic development, environment and tourism (LEDET), which has featured heavily (and not entirely favourably) in Daily Maverick’s coverage of the Musina-Makhado SEZ — granted Soleil the right to start preparing the ground.
There were a number of caveats to the environmental authorisation, including the conditions that no more than 102 hectares would be open to cultivation; that a permit for removing “protected trees” would need to be obtained from the national department, and that no farming could take place within the flood line of the Klaserie River.
A month later, on 3 September 2019, the Limpopo MEC for economic development, environment and tourism, Thabo Mokone, was bombarded with all of 15 separate appeals against LEDET’s decision, as per the provisions of section 43 of NEMA. The appeal of Elephants Alive was submitted with a petition that had garnered 1,137 signatures.
From the perspective of the appellants, this was when the authorities began to reveal their “strangely disinterested” hand. For starters, they alleged, “despite repeated correspondence”, Mokone failed to adhere to the prescribed time limits for the processing of appeals.
Of way more concern, however, was the fact that Soleil — in apparent contravention of sections 43(7) and 49A(1) of NEMA, which jointly state that an appeal “suspends an environmental authorisation” and that to “commence with an activity” in these circumstance is a criminal offence — had in the interim brought in earth-moving equipment.
Still, as the appellants were about to discover, Soleil was just beginning to get warmed up. On top of the company’s disregard for the process, which it justified in legal correspondence (see below details of a letter) by suggesting that the MEC’s delay was evidence of his intention to deny the appeal, it would soon appear likely to them that the conditions of the original authorisation had been breached.
Although Soleil had been granted permission to repair one of the dam walls on the property, Google Earth satellite imagery — captured by Wilmot in February and August 2020 — seemed to suggest that the company had deepened and widened the dam itself.
By October 2020, when the appellants managed to obtain a series of ground-level photographs, the full extent of Soleil’s activities had shifted to a realm beyond doubt. These images, shared with Daily Maverick, showed Caterpillar bulldozers, backhoe loaders and articulated trucks. In one image, a compactor was flattening a road; behind the machine, uprooted indigenous trees were lying in the rubble.
Caterpillar earth-moving machinery on Casketts Sitrus property. (Photo: Supplied)
At which point, the appellants made the decision to call Mokone to account. On 19 November 2020, in a letter to the MEC on behalf of Elephants Alive — and copied to the Klaserie Reserve, the Timbavati Reserve, SANParks, Kruger2Canyons and the Greater Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area — attorney Richard Summers alleged that Soleil had transgressed NEMA and committed a criminal offence. Given that it was now more than 14 months since the appeal had been lodged, Summers demanded that LEDET, “as the competent authority charged with administering compliance”, investigate the case.
When nothing happened, Wilmot took a bash at raising the interest of some of the other public institutions in South Africa that are mandated with the investigation and prosecution of environmental crimes.
In late December 2020 and early January 2021, after unsuccessfully reporting Soleil’s alleged transgressions to the National Environmental Crimes and Incidents hotline, she lodged various complaints with the Environmental Management Inspectorate, otherwise known as the Green Scorpions, which were met with a disturbing silence. Her next port of call was the South African Police Service, which, as per section 31 of NEMA, has the same powers as the Green Scorpions — but again, crickets.
Meanwhile, the surveillance of Soleil’s activities continued.
On 15 December 2020, Bruce McDonald, a fixed-wing pilot who was working on behalf of anti-rhino poaching services in the area, buzzed the property. McDonald was able to capture images of the extensive land clearing that had been taking place.
In mid-February 2021, working off these images, Summers tried his own luck with the Green Scorpions, to no avail. A few days later, Wilmot herself was taking pictures from a light aircraft — the photographs, when collated with those from Wilmot’s second flight in April 2021, appeared to show breach of environmental legislation on a large scale.
Soil preparation was at an advanced stage, blue PVC irrigation piping was visible on the ground and an excavator was clearing vegetation in the property’s south-western corner, an area demarcated as a “no-go zone” by the environmental authorisation of August 2019.
By this late date, Wilmot and Summers were acutely aware that MEC Mokone — in fulfilment of Soleil’s prophecy — had denied the appeal.
A compactor flattens the road on Casketts property. (Photo: Supplied)
The problem was, in the two-page decision of 24 March 2021, which had been rendered a full 18 months after the original submission, only the appeals of Klaserie Reserve and Masungulo Lodge were addressed. Neither Timbavati Reserve nor Elephants Alive, or any of the other conservation heavyweights involved in the matter, had received word of Mokone’s decision.
Also, the appeal decision had imposed one further condition on Soleil — that they “erect an elephant-proof fence around the property, in order to enhance the safety of freely roaming elephants and other damage causing animals”.
According to Wilmot, the images from the flyover of April 2021 showed that no such fence had been erected.
***
Like the conservationists, Soleil Sitrus had been heavily lawyered up from the start. Although Daily Maverick could not obtain the financial statements, it was obvious from the website that the company could afford to go toe-to-toe with the NGOs and game parks on every accusation — with 370 permanent employees, 500 seasonal employees and thousands of hectares under cultivation on 11 farms in multiple provinces, Soleil’s founder, Kobus van Staden, was clearly a man who was not fond of losing.
In a letter to Elephants Alive dated 10 September 2020, Soleil’s attorney, Leon Doyer of WdT Inc, noted that it had been more than a year since the conservationists had lodged their appeals. Referring to the National Appeal Regulations, Doyer pointed out that decisions on appeals were supposed to be a “speedy process”, allowing the authorities no more than 50 days from receipt of the responding statement.
“You are in charge of the current appeal,” Doyer insisted, in the correspondence with Elephants Alive. “Our client cannot verify that all the correct steps were taken to lodge the appeal timeously and procedurally correctly. It is obvious by now that [LEDET] either has taken the view that it is not obliged to even consider the appeal (due to some or other mistake in the process) or does not intend to do so.”
Accordingly, continued Doyer, “[our] client intends to proceed to act on the authorisation and commence with the development of the property for citrus farming”.
Six weeks later, however, after being informed that the appeal decision was expected on 27 November 2020 — and less than a week after Summers had requested Mokone to “investigate” the alleged criminal breach of NEMA — Doyer informed Summers, Mokone and LEDET that his client would “await the MEC’s final decision and then react accordingly”.
The Olifants River, Kruger National Park, South Africa. (Photo: Flickr / Manuel ROMARIS)
In light of the fact that a decision on just two of the 15 appeals was handed down on 24 March 2021, and given the ongoing “proof of development” that the appellants had gathered in the interim, Daily Maverick asked Van Staden whether he could provide a reasonable explanation for the contradiction.
Van Staden declined to engage, instead referring Daily Maverick to the court papers, so that we could “remain fully informed of proceedings”.
These papers, like Doyer’s legal correspondence, had been consistent in their framing of Soleil’s counter-arguments.
Where the conservationists argued that the property had lain fallow for a decade and thus retrieved its natural ecological state, Soleil argued that it was registered farmland, which hadn’t been pristine bushveld since 1967.
Where the conservationists contended that Soleil had breached their environmental authorisation by extending and deepening the dam, Soleil countered that they “were not developing the dam wall”, but “repairing the wall that already existed”.
Where the conservationists insisted that there was still no elephant-proof fence, Soleil maintained that “the fences currently in place” were “more than adequate deterrence against elephants”.
The dispute over water rights was another matter, one that Soleil — with apparent justification — claimed to have settled to the satisfaction of the authorities.
Here, Daily Maverick wanted to know — since Van Staden had co-signed the initial responding letter to the appeals with a certain Jurie Jansen van Vuuren, chair of the Klaserie Irrigation Board — whether he refuted the contention of the appellants that this represented a conflict of interest. Again, Van Staden chose not to engage.
As for the office of the MEC, the 18-month delay on the appeal decision was explained by “the involvement of multiple parties, the complexity of the matter as well as the lockdown”, with the MEC extending his “regrets and apologies” via LEDET head of department Solly Kgopong.
Daily Maverick was further informed that decisions had now been made on “all appeals”, although no explanation was offered — other than the fact that the matter was pending before the Polokwane High Court — for why the MEC had not investigated Soleil’s apparent breach of section 43 of NEMA.
As it happened, the “pending matter” was the judicial review that the Klaserie Reserve, the Timbavati Reserve and Elephants Alive had launched against Soleil’s original environmental authorisation, with the MEC and LEDET listed as co-respondents.
But on 14 May 2021, aware that they were losing ground with each passing day, these same applicants had approached the court for an urgent interdict, hoping to stop Soleil from “further clearing the land, installing irrigation systems, planting citrus saplings and erecting fences” until the decision on the review had been handed down.
On 8 June 2021, the interdict was denied — Judge Veronica Semenya, who had just one day to rule on the hundreds of pages in the court record, chose to set aside the ecological arguments and focus on the ineptitude of the authorities.
The applicants had been aware for some time that they “weren’t being assisted”, she noted in her ruling, “so why was the application only launched now?”
Still, in the face of what was looking more and more like a Kafka novel, the conservationists weren’t about to give up. The review application had been drawn up to go at the heart of the fight, where the ultimate arbiter would hopefully be NEMA itself.
Among the reasons for challenging the environmental authorisation was its failure to consider key policy documents — including the Kruger National Park Management Plan, the National Protected Areas Expansion Strategy and the Convention on Biological Diversity — and the allegation, argued at length with reference to NEMA, that it did not adequately assess “the cumulative impact on water resources”.
The review, when it happens, will see the Klaserie Reserve, the Timbavati Reserve and Elephants Alive up against Soleil Sitrus for what is likely to be the last time.
With SANParks and the rest of the “interested and affected parties” watching closely, the outcome won’t be limited to the region around Hoedspruit.
As Deon Huysamer, the chairperson of the Klaserie Reserve, told Daily Maverick, “it will set a very dangerous precedent if we allow the development to continue unchallenged.”
Just like Rachel Carson’s environmental science book, Silent Spring, it appeared Huysamer was considering the knock-on effects for the entire nation’s natural heritage. DM
"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
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
- Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 66797
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: New citrus farm on Kruger border
The authorities do not seem to be working very well. It looks as if the problem is not there, if you do not answer
"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
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge
- Peter Betts
- Posts: 3080
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 9:28 am
- Country: RSA
- Contact:
Re: New citrus farm on Kruger border
Its actually outside Greater Kruger on poached out tribal land >> this will have a Buffer between Burgeoning human presuure
- Lisbeth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 66797
- Joined: Sat May 19, 2012 12:31 pm
- Country: Switzerland
- Location: Lugano
- Contact:
Re: New citrus farm on Kruger border
Casketts citrus farm and Greater Kruger are now bedfellows
Posted on July 8, 2021 by Simon Espley in the OPINION EDITORIAL post series.
A new intensive citrus farm bordering the renowned Timbavati and Klaserie private nature reserves – Greater Kruger – is now a fait accompli. This I state without any shadow of a doubt
I did not understand this reality when I arranged to meet farmer Kobus van Staden at his new project Casketts Sitrus. But I do now.
Van Staden met me at the gate to Casketts and jumped into my venerable Landy Defender to guide me to the farm HQ. I had loaded up a key question: whether he would consider dropping the intensive farming idea and instead partner with others to open a lodge or other tourism service. That question disappeared like mist under the African sun when we emerged from hectares of scrappy thorn scrub to a vista of ploughed fields with rows of plastic irrigation pipes and a newly-planted cash crop of gem squash seedlings. Here and there, on the cleared fields, large marula, leadwood and knobthorn trees had been left standing their ground defiantly. I saw a large area enclosed by shade-net to the side of the fields – sheltering the citrus saplings that will be planted once the season turns and the cash crop is harvested. About 60,000 trees.
OK then, this is a done deal. With that level of investment, there is little realistic chance of an about-turn in land use and rehabilitation of this farm back to ‘bushveld’ status.
Clockwise, from top left: Ploughed fields with a cash crop of gem squash + Citrus saplings awaiting planting + the Casketts entrance a short distance from the gate to Timbavati and Klaserie private nature reserves.
I followed van Staden and fellow Casketts owner Jurie van Vuren to a rustic farmhouse veranda overlooking the Klaserie River and beyond to prime Big 5 safari country – the Greater Kruger. What followed was a cordial but frank discussion, followed by a tour of the farm. My every request for information was met without hesitation, and I was left free to photograph anything – including a cleared area beyond the authorised limits.
There has been much said and written about this controversial situation, and the battle became intensely personal, with van Staden taking body blows to his reputation. Team AG initially requested members of the public to exercise their legal right to have a say in December 2018 and then followed up with regular opinions from respected scientists opposed to the new farm – who also questioned the Impact Report. However, what we had failed to do to date, was speak to the farmer, a situation I was keen to remedy.
Context to these notes:
|I was and remain opposed to this intensive farming operation on the border of the Greater Kruger. BUT I now understand better the context
|and the complexities, and I hope that my notes below will resource you to debate this controversial topic from a factual perspective.
Caskett’s farm, Greater Kruger area
The farm Casketts
The 420ha farm was subdivided and purchased from former owner Rocco Gioia for about R35million (US$2,5m) – and is entirely surrounded by Gioia’s remaining farms. The authorities have authorised 102 hectares for irrigated citrus orchards based on an existing water right.
The farm was purchased in 1967 by Libero Gioia, who farmed cattle, tomatoes and cattle fodder. When his son Rocco took over the farm, he focussed on tobacco, mangoes, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, chillies, lucerne and blue buffalo grass and various game species – some of which are hunted. Rocco Gioia continues to utilise the remaining 2,400ha surrounding Casketts primarily for game farming.
Water rights
Casketts has a legal right to extract sufficient water to irrigate 120 hectares. This right was granted in 1950 when the Klaserie Irrigation Board was constituted by the then governor-general of the Union of South Africa.
That water offtake is sufficient for Casketts purposes – they have made no application for additional offtake, and no other water use license is required in terms of the Water Act.
The Klaserie Dam was built in the 1950s on the Klaserie River about 22 km upstream of Casketts specifically to enable the farmers to access reliable water for their crops. The total water listed for farmers from the dam is to irrigate 1,100ha, of which about 500ha is currently utilised.
Water is regularly released from the dam to provide the farmers’ required water and maintain the river’s ecological state (theoretically). Casketts has a pump to extract that water directly from the river as it flows past. This water is then pumped to earth dams for storage and then irrigation.
Left: A 1965 map of Casketts and its neighbours on the Klaserie River – note the irrigated fields on either side of the river, including on land that is now incorporated into the Greater Kruger. Right: Casketts pump on the Klaserie River.
Water right conflict of interest?
A perceived conflict of interest has been raised in some quarters because Casketts co-owner Jurie van Vuren is also a board member (and chairperson) of the Klaserie Irrigation Board. The general suspicion being whispered is that he either used his position to grant the necessary water rights (not possible because the water rights were allocated in 1950, as described above) or will influence future decisions related to water and Casketts.
The Department of Water Affairs owns the Klaserie Dam, and the relevant farmers own allocated water volume rights. The only way to be on the Irrigation Board is if you are a water right owner. All board members are beneficiaries of decisions made by themselves. In other words, this is not a public democracy; it’s a club of people who own rights to a water resource and who rely on their collective intent and skills to best manage that resource. This is no different to the many other forms of cooperative resource management boards, such as those governing the Timbavati and Klaserie private nature reserves (PNR), for example.
When I questioned van Vuren about the timing of his appointment to the Board, he advised: “I became a shareholder of Casketts on 09 September 2018 and a board member of Klaserie Irrigation Board on 23 November 2018.”
So, van Vuren was not alive when the water right was granted. Could he conceivably influence water-related decisions in favour of Casketts? Yes, absolutely. But then so could every other Klaserie Irrigation Board member serve their interests in this way. The conflict of interest is there, it’s intentional, and it is no different to other boards that serve a similar purpose. Perhaps boards such as these – with significant environmental impact – should be opened up to include independent board members? But that’s a conversation for another day.
The farm dams
Casketts has four long-existing dams on a drainage line that feeds into the Klaserie River. Two still hold water, and two were breached during the 2012 floods and are currently empty. Van Staden has repaired the largest of the broken dams and indicated that he wouldn’t repair the other dam. The EIA conditions stipulate that he cannot increase the size of the repaired dam – from the original 70m length, 6m width and 5m height.
Our tour of Casketts included the dam in question. It was apparent that the dam floor has been scraped – “to remove the accumulated sand from the rocky floor of the dam”, he told me. The repaired dam wall does not appear to exceed the permitted 5m height limit. The wall is now wider than 6m, increased to 12m in places. Van Staden’s explanation that this was to ensure no further breaches during floods makes sense, as does his further justification that the wider wall now permits them to use the dam wall as the main road to access the portion of the farm on the other side of the drainage line with heavy farming vehicles. In this way, they avoid making roads through the protected riverine area. The length of the wall has been increased to allow for a spillway to prevent future floods – the original dam did not have a spillway. The spillway does not increase the holding capacity of the dam.
I am no dam expert (obviously), but I was no more alarmed at what I saw here than I was last year when one of the largest landowners in Timbavati PNR repaired the 2012 flood-damaged dam wall at his lodge on the Nhlaralumi River. He moved large amounts of sand from the dam floor. I was alerted to this by a downstream property owner who was surprised to see little or no flowing water immediately after excellent rains early this year when the Nhlaralumi was flowing bank-to bank a short distance upstream. This is a large dam with no agricultural benefit. The flow of this non-perennial river is impeded to provide a visually appealing lodge site and attract wildlife for those gin&tonic moments. As an aside, one reason for the concentration of elephants in the Greater Kruger during the dry months, and subsequent destruction of local trees, is these man-made dams. But that’s another discussion entirely.
Do these increases in width and length of the Casketts dam wall represent an opportunity for legal and punitive action? Time will tell. Should every dam repair, regardless of where, be appropriately scrutinised for environmental reasons? Certainly.
Protected trees and clearing beyond the demarcated area
The EIA stipulates that no protected trees may be removed during the bush clearing process – without a permit. Van Staden assured me that no such trees were removed, but of course, I have no way to verify that claim. Google Earth shows old fields with scant natural cover – much like the damaged scrubland we drove through on the way from the gate to the orchards. Nevertheless, there were some sizeable, defiant leadwood, marula and knobthorn trees dotted amidst the moonscape – and each had been marked with plastic tape.
I noticed that part of the clearing was taking place beyond the clearly defined EIA boundary limits and questioned van Staden about that. He explained that he had to decide how to make up the permitted 102ha of land to be cleared because some of the area approved for clearing featured more trees than the area he chose to clear. This transgression did not result in him exceeding the 102ha allocation, and he seemed philosophical about potential ramifications.
Clockwise from top left: The newly repaired dam on a drainage line that feeds into the Klaserie River + Looking across cleared fields and over the drainage line towards recently revamped farm structures + A spared leadwood tree stands defiantly on the cleared fields.
Chemicals and groundwater contamination
Another primary concern is how Casketts will ‘deal with’ the overload of insects that can be expected to invade the citrus orchards from the neighbouring biodiversity-rich Greater Kruger area. The likely chemical warfare will surely impact groundwater pollution and wildlife that feeds on poisoned insects.
Van Staden dismissed my concerns – mainly on the basis that Casketts will, like his other farms, be GLOBALG.A.P. certified to export their fruit and that the requirements are so precise, traceable and transparent that there is no room for errors. He also emphasised that he requires his chemical processes to be bee-friendly to ensure the fertilisation by bees of his orchards. He mentioned using predator insects as one tactic to remove insects that could harm his citrus crop. He further added that GLOBALG.A.P. is very sensitive to negative social media publicity and extra vigilant during the annual audit process.
I found myself silenced by his confident dismissal and not knowledgeable enough to counter. And yet, I am mindful that scientists cite the ubiquitous use of agricultural pesticides and the spread of monoculture crops as a primary reason for the fall-off of the world’s insect populations. Other scientists conclude that insect declines are linked to the intensification of agriculture in the last 50 years.
Legal action and the authorities
Much of the legal tussle going on between the parties seems to hinge on whether any of the bush clearing occurred while the appeal process was underway – which would be illegal. This Daily Maverick article provides the relevant detail, and I won’t go into this matter in any further detail. Van Staden did not want to comment on this matter because of the impending legal actions, but he did express frustration at the costly delays related to the appeal process. In this timeline below, it becomes clear that the authorities (office of the M.E.C., Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism (LEDET)) took 21 months to finalise an appeal process that they are obligated to complete in 90 days. Despite the LEDET tardiness, appeals lodged by some parties after the stipulated 20-day deadline were rejected as being late!
Legal timeline:
23/03/2017: Application for subdivision of property;
24/07/2017: Dept. Agriculture grants permission to cultivate the property;
28/11/2017: Subdivision of the property approved;
15/10/2018: Transfer of property into the name of Soleil Mashishimale Pty Ltd;
15/10/2018: EIA process initiated;
02/08/2019: EIA approved;
02/08/2019: Appeals lodged by Timbavati PNR, Klaserie PNR and Elephants Alive, amongst others. Various other appeals were not submitted timeously and therefore dismissed;
24/03/2021: Above appeals dismissed, approval of the EIA granted on 02/08/2019 upheld;
04/2021: Application by above appellants against the M.E.C: LEDET & Others for a judicial review of the decision by the M.E.C.
04/2021: Urgent application by above appellants to prevent any further development until the judicial review has been finalised;
08/06/2021: Dismissal of the above urgent application.
It is unlikely that the above application (in bold) will see the courtroom sooner than eighteen months from now – we can expect Covid-related delays – and by then, the citrus trees will be in the ground, and the farming enterprise will be well on its way.
WHY is this farm not included in Greater Kruger?
Farms in this area are sought-after because they are close to the Greater Kruger and could one day conceivably be incorporated into this successful conservation endeavour – which would add significantly to their value and revenue-generation potential.
I was curious as to how this valuable wildlife land could end up as a citrus farm. My enquiry as to why Casketts was not fenced into the prestigious Timbavati or Klaserie private nature reserves was referred to the previous owner, Rocco Gioia. As a local landowner, Gioia co-operates extensively with Timbavati and Klaserie management during their anti-poaching efforts to protect their rhino – his farms border those reserves – and maintains a good relationship with them.
HOWEVER, Gioia pointed out in an email that his requests for his farm to be included in Timbavati Private Nature Reserve were turned down.
I discussed these historic rejections with a former Timbavati warden, who confirmed that the decision-makers viewed Gioia’s property as not suitable for inclusion. We also extracted this statement from the Timbavati chairman Anthony Hare: “We took a decision based on our ability to absorb a large property, beyond our natural footprint. This would have meant considerable extra resources and cost required and without being able to leverage the existing operations to take it on. We did not rule it out forever, just at the time.”
Gioia also mentioned several attempts to have his farm included in the Klaserie Private Nature Reserve, including one request based on operating as a hunting camp. We were advised by the current Klaserie warden Colin Rowles that according to his records, Gioia applied at some stage in the 1990s but subsequently withdrew that application.
Gioia provided several examples of specific requests made by him to both reserves going back about 30 years, and the reasons for rejection varied each time. His obvious frustration provides a clear indication that things need to change if we are to avoid similar scenarios repeating themselves. Angry neighbours, of whatever level of economic empowerment, make for bad conservation bedfellows.
Elephants and oranges
The concern about animals being killed by various means as they target the citrus trees is valid, and this scenario is mirrored on most commercial farms in the world. Animals will die in their pursuit of nourishment from these trees – from insects to birds and mammals. Hopefully, there will be mitigation strategies in place (van Staden says there will be), but the reality is that some animals will die.
The issue that has hogged the limelight has been the likelihood of elephants targeting the oranges and what will happen if and when they do.
Van Staden seemed open to any considered, well-managed collaborations to reduce the risk of this happening and to prevent elephant crop-raiders from being killed or harmed – by working with local authorities and NGOs. He seemed to be relaxed about this risk and confused about the focus on elephants as the main issue at play. “Elephants will have to come through four fences before they get to my property”, he said – the Greater Kruger fence, a neighbour farm fence, the Gioia farm fence and the Casketts farm fence. The EIA requires him to install an elephant-proof fence on Casketts – and he assured me that this would be done.
To help me understand the elephant-oranges issue better, I spoke to Kevin Leo-Smith, manager of Rietspruit Game Reserve, just outside Hoedspruit and across the busy R40 road from the Greater Kruger area in question. His input is very relevant because he recently managed the re-introduction of elephants to Rietspruit, which borders directly onto established citrus farms. The neighbour consultation process involved explaining to concerned farmers his mitigation procedures if elephants escape Rietspruit to raid the citrus orchards.
Leo-Smith explained that there is no scientific evidence that elephants specifically target citrus as a general rule. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of elephants eating oranges in farm orchards, but elephants target just about anything edible. For example, three bull elephants that escaped from the nearby Balule Private Nature Reserve (Greater Kruger) about four years ago followed the Blyde River upstream as they pursued their natural dispersal instinct. They did not make their way to nearby citrus farms; instead they feasted on the mango orchards along the way before being captured and returned to the reserve. The Malelane and Komatipoort areas, about 250 km south of Hoedspruit, are awash with huge sugar cane and citrus farms, amongst other crops, and few if any elephant issues are reported by farmers.
Leo-Smith explained that bull elephants in particular will, through learned behaviour, regularly visit sources of reliable nutrition – including citrus crops – but that they are more likely to target grass crops like sugar cane, maize (corn) and sorghum, which more closely resemble their preferred grass diet.
‘Pristine, virgin bushveld’
Several people I have spoken to recently seem under the impression that this area bordering the Greater Kruger is unspoilt bushveld. I live here and can tell you that this is a fallacy. The area has been farmed extensively, and the veld bears the scars – with large tracts of invasive shrub species such as sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea and no sign of palatable grass or large trees. We also have massive mining operations nearby (including on the Kruger National Park border) and even a railway line running through the Greater Kruger delivering mica and other minerals to insatiable international markets. Brief scrutiny of the area on Google Earth reveals massive currently used irrigation fields at several places on or near the Greater Kruger border. I mention this to add a touch of reality to some perceptions.
A man who is better placed than me to provide input is local businessman and conservationist Trevor Jordan, who added these interesting notes about the history of the Hoedspruit area (click the link to open a new website tab).
Left: The Casketts farm area between the cleared lands and the farm entrance gate consists of arid shrub veld dominated by the invasive (but indigenous) sickle bush. Right: An area beyond the EIA limits being cleared, with large trees left standing.
Where to from here?
One thing I am sure of is that this citrus farm will go ahead. What remains to be seen is how much financial damage is to be suffered by the warring parties before the storm passes.
On the one side is a wealthy, astute local farmer who is meticulous in his planning. On the other side are extremely wealthy, mostly non-resident landowners and a respected team of elephant scientists.
As much as van Staden has outmanoeuvred his opponents to date, his journey has been made easier by a notoriously lax local government that is the bane of most wildlife landowners. LEDET should hang their heads in shame for twiddling their thumbs while their missed deadlines wreak havoc for all of us.
There is no question in my mind that a significant conservation concern is the lack of employment for local people – and Caskett’s promised 60 permanent and 120 seasonal local jobs (employees need SA identity documents and local bank accounts) trumps what was on offer before. Perhaps things would be different if Gioia’s application for his farm to be included in the Greater Kruger had been successful?
We all recognise the critical role that both farming and wildlife tourism play in SA and that where they meet/compete, we have to be pragmatic in finding ways to solve problems and work together. Perhaps once the time and money have been spent on legal proceedings, all parties should sit down and agree on a mitigation strategy for the inevitable consequences of this intensive citrus farm on the Greater Kruger’s border. Perhaps the conservationists should also work out how this happened on their watch and make sure it does not happen again.
Simon Espley – CEO, Africa Geographic
Posted on July 8, 2021 by Simon Espley in the OPINION EDITORIAL post series.
A new intensive citrus farm bordering the renowned Timbavati and Klaserie private nature reserves – Greater Kruger – is now a fait accompli. This I state without any shadow of a doubt
I did not understand this reality when I arranged to meet farmer Kobus van Staden at his new project Casketts Sitrus. But I do now.
Van Staden met me at the gate to Casketts and jumped into my venerable Landy Defender to guide me to the farm HQ. I had loaded up a key question: whether he would consider dropping the intensive farming idea and instead partner with others to open a lodge or other tourism service. That question disappeared like mist under the African sun when we emerged from hectares of scrappy thorn scrub to a vista of ploughed fields with rows of plastic irrigation pipes and a newly-planted cash crop of gem squash seedlings. Here and there, on the cleared fields, large marula, leadwood and knobthorn trees had been left standing their ground defiantly. I saw a large area enclosed by shade-net to the side of the fields – sheltering the citrus saplings that will be planted once the season turns and the cash crop is harvested. About 60,000 trees.
OK then, this is a done deal. With that level of investment, there is little realistic chance of an about-turn in land use and rehabilitation of this farm back to ‘bushveld’ status.
Clockwise, from top left: Ploughed fields with a cash crop of gem squash + Citrus saplings awaiting planting + the Casketts entrance a short distance from the gate to Timbavati and Klaserie private nature reserves.
I followed van Staden and fellow Casketts owner Jurie van Vuren to a rustic farmhouse veranda overlooking the Klaserie River and beyond to prime Big 5 safari country – the Greater Kruger. What followed was a cordial but frank discussion, followed by a tour of the farm. My every request for information was met without hesitation, and I was left free to photograph anything – including a cleared area beyond the authorised limits.
There has been much said and written about this controversial situation, and the battle became intensely personal, with van Staden taking body blows to his reputation. Team AG initially requested members of the public to exercise their legal right to have a say in December 2018 and then followed up with regular opinions from respected scientists opposed to the new farm – who also questioned the Impact Report. However, what we had failed to do to date, was speak to the farmer, a situation I was keen to remedy.
Context to these notes:
|I was and remain opposed to this intensive farming operation on the border of the Greater Kruger. BUT I now understand better the context
|and the complexities, and I hope that my notes below will resource you to debate this controversial topic from a factual perspective.
Caskett’s farm, Greater Kruger area
The farm Casketts
The 420ha farm was subdivided and purchased from former owner Rocco Gioia for about R35million (US$2,5m) – and is entirely surrounded by Gioia’s remaining farms. The authorities have authorised 102 hectares for irrigated citrus orchards based on an existing water right.
The farm was purchased in 1967 by Libero Gioia, who farmed cattle, tomatoes and cattle fodder. When his son Rocco took over the farm, he focussed on tobacco, mangoes, sweet potatoes, tomatoes, chillies, lucerne and blue buffalo grass and various game species – some of which are hunted. Rocco Gioia continues to utilise the remaining 2,400ha surrounding Casketts primarily for game farming.
Water rights
Casketts has a legal right to extract sufficient water to irrigate 120 hectares. This right was granted in 1950 when the Klaserie Irrigation Board was constituted by the then governor-general of the Union of South Africa.
That water offtake is sufficient for Casketts purposes – they have made no application for additional offtake, and no other water use license is required in terms of the Water Act.
The Klaserie Dam was built in the 1950s on the Klaserie River about 22 km upstream of Casketts specifically to enable the farmers to access reliable water for their crops. The total water listed for farmers from the dam is to irrigate 1,100ha, of which about 500ha is currently utilised.
Water is regularly released from the dam to provide the farmers’ required water and maintain the river’s ecological state (theoretically). Casketts has a pump to extract that water directly from the river as it flows past. This water is then pumped to earth dams for storage and then irrigation.
Left: A 1965 map of Casketts and its neighbours on the Klaserie River – note the irrigated fields on either side of the river, including on land that is now incorporated into the Greater Kruger. Right: Casketts pump on the Klaserie River.
Water right conflict of interest?
A perceived conflict of interest has been raised in some quarters because Casketts co-owner Jurie van Vuren is also a board member (and chairperson) of the Klaserie Irrigation Board. The general suspicion being whispered is that he either used his position to grant the necessary water rights (not possible because the water rights were allocated in 1950, as described above) or will influence future decisions related to water and Casketts.
The Department of Water Affairs owns the Klaserie Dam, and the relevant farmers own allocated water volume rights. The only way to be on the Irrigation Board is if you are a water right owner. All board members are beneficiaries of decisions made by themselves. In other words, this is not a public democracy; it’s a club of people who own rights to a water resource and who rely on their collective intent and skills to best manage that resource. This is no different to the many other forms of cooperative resource management boards, such as those governing the Timbavati and Klaserie private nature reserves (PNR), for example.
When I questioned van Vuren about the timing of his appointment to the Board, he advised: “I became a shareholder of Casketts on 09 September 2018 and a board member of Klaserie Irrigation Board on 23 November 2018.”
So, van Vuren was not alive when the water right was granted. Could he conceivably influence water-related decisions in favour of Casketts? Yes, absolutely. But then so could every other Klaserie Irrigation Board member serve their interests in this way. The conflict of interest is there, it’s intentional, and it is no different to other boards that serve a similar purpose. Perhaps boards such as these – with significant environmental impact – should be opened up to include independent board members? But that’s a conversation for another day.
The farm dams
Casketts has four long-existing dams on a drainage line that feeds into the Klaserie River. Two still hold water, and two were breached during the 2012 floods and are currently empty. Van Staden has repaired the largest of the broken dams and indicated that he wouldn’t repair the other dam. The EIA conditions stipulate that he cannot increase the size of the repaired dam – from the original 70m length, 6m width and 5m height.
Our tour of Casketts included the dam in question. It was apparent that the dam floor has been scraped – “to remove the accumulated sand from the rocky floor of the dam”, he told me. The repaired dam wall does not appear to exceed the permitted 5m height limit. The wall is now wider than 6m, increased to 12m in places. Van Staden’s explanation that this was to ensure no further breaches during floods makes sense, as does his further justification that the wider wall now permits them to use the dam wall as the main road to access the portion of the farm on the other side of the drainage line with heavy farming vehicles. In this way, they avoid making roads through the protected riverine area. The length of the wall has been increased to allow for a spillway to prevent future floods – the original dam did not have a spillway. The spillway does not increase the holding capacity of the dam.
I am no dam expert (obviously), but I was no more alarmed at what I saw here than I was last year when one of the largest landowners in Timbavati PNR repaired the 2012 flood-damaged dam wall at his lodge on the Nhlaralumi River. He moved large amounts of sand from the dam floor. I was alerted to this by a downstream property owner who was surprised to see little or no flowing water immediately after excellent rains early this year when the Nhlaralumi was flowing bank-to bank a short distance upstream. This is a large dam with no agricultural benefit. The flow of this non-perennial river is impeded to provide a visually appealing lodge site and attract wildlife for those gin&tonic moments. As an aside, one reason for the concentration of elephants in the Greater Kruger during the dry months, and subsequent destruction of local trees, is these man-made dams. But that’s another discussion entirely.
Do these increases in width and length of the Casketts dam wall represent an opportunity for legal and punitive action? Time will tell. Should every dam repair, regardless of where, be appropriately scrutinised for environmental reasons? Certainly.
Protected trees and clearing beyond the demarcated area
The EIA stipulates that no protected trees may be removed during the bush clearing process – without a permit. Van Staden assured me that no such trees were removed, but of course, I have no way to verify that claim. Google Earth shows old fields with scant natural cover – much like the damaged scrubland we drove through on the way from the gate to the orchards. Nevertheless, there were some sizeable, defiant leadwood, marula and knobthorn trees dotted amidst the moonscape – and each had been marked with plastic tape.
I noticed that part of the clearing was taking place beyond the clearly defined EIA boundary limits and questioned van Staden about that. He explained that he had to decide how to make up the permitted 102ha of land to be cleared because some of the area approved for clearing featured more trees than the area he chose to clear. This transgression did not result in him exceeding the 102ha allocation, and he seemed philosophical about potential ramifications.
Clockwise from top left: The newly repaired dam on a drainage line that feeds into the Klaserie River + Looking across cleared fields and over the drainage line towards recently revamped farm structures + A spared leadwood tree stands defiantly on the cleared fields.
Chemicals and groundwater contamination
Another primary concern is how Casketts will ‘deal with’ the overload of insects that can be expected to invade the citrus orchards from the neighbouring biodiversity-rich Greater Kruger area. The likely chemical warfare will surely impact groundwater pollution and wildlife that feeds on poisoned insects.
Van Staden dismissed my concerns – mainly on the basis that Casketts will, like his other farms, be GLOBALG.A.P. certified to export their fruit and that the requirements are so precise, traceable and transparent that there is no room for errors. He also emphasised that he requires his chemical processes to be bee-friendly to ensure the fertilisation by bees of his orchards. He mentioned using predator insects as one tactic to remove insects that could harm his citrus crop. He further added that GLOBALG.A.P. is very sensitive to negative social media publicity and extra vigilant during the annual audit process.
I found myself silenced by his confident dismissal and not knowledgeable enough to counter. And yet, I am mindful that scientists cite the ubiquitous use of agricultural pesticides and the spread of monoculture crops as a primary reason for the fall-off of the world’s insect populations. Other scientists conclude that insect declines are linked to the intensification of agriculture in the last 50 years.
Legal action and the authorities
Much of the legal tussle going on between the parties seems to hinge on whether any of the bush clearing occurred while the appeal process was underway – which would be illegal. This Daily Maverick article provides the relevant detail, and I won’t go into this matter in any further detail. Van Staden did not want to comment on this matter because of the impending legal actions, but he did express frustration at the costly delays related to the appeal process. In this timeline below, it becomes clear that the authorities (office of the M.E.C., Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment & Tourism (LEDET)) took 21 months to finalise an appeal process that they are obligated to complete in 90 days. Despite the LEDET tardiness, appeals lodged by some parties after the stipulated 20-day deadline were rejected as being late!
Legal timeline:
23/03/2017: Application for subdivision of property;
24/07/2017: Dept. Agriculture grants permission to cultivate the property;
28/11/2017: Subdivision of the property approved;
15/10/2018: Transfer of property into the name of Soleil Mashishimale Pty Ltd;
15/10/2018: EIA process initiated;
02/08/2019: EIA approved;
02/08/2019: Appeals lodged by Timbavati PNR, Klaserie PNR and Elephants Alive, amongst others. Various other appeals were not submitted timeously and therefore dismissed;
24/03/2021: Above appeals dismissed, approval of the EIA granted on 02/08/2019 upheld;
04/2021: Application by above appellants against the M.E.C: LEDET & Others for a judicial review of the decision by the M.E.C.
04/2021: Urgent application by above appellants to prevent any further development until the judicial review has been finalised;
08/06/2021: Dismissal of the above urgent application.
It is unlikely that the above application (in bold) will see the courtroom sooner than eighteen months from now – we can expect Covid-related delays – and by then, the citrus trees will be in the ground, and the farming enterprise will be well on its way.
WHY is this farm not included in Greater Kruger?
Farms in this area are sought-after because they are close to the Greater Kruger and could one day conceivably be incorporated into this successful conservation endeavour – which would add significantly to their value and revenue-generation potential.
I was curious as to how this valuable wildlife land could end up as a citrus farm. My enquiry as to why Casketts was not fenced into the prestigious Timbavati or Klaserie private nature reserves was referred to the previous owner, Rocco Gioia. As a local landowner, Gioia co-operates extensively with Timbavati and Klaserie management during their anti-poaching efforts to protect their rhino – his farms border those reserves – and maintains a good relationship with them.
HOWEVER, Gioia pointed out in an email that his requests for his farm to be included in Timbavati Private Nature Reserve were turned down.
I discussed these historic rejections with a former Timbavati warden, who confirmed that the decision-makers viewed Gioia’s property as not suitable for inclusion. We also extracted this statement from the Timbavati chairman Anthony Hare: “We took a decision based on our ability to absorb a large property, beyond our natural footprint. This would have meant considerable extra resources and cost required and without being able to leverage the existing operations to take it on. We did not rule it out forever, just at the time.”
Gioia also mentioned several attempts to have his farm included in the Klaserie Private Nature Reserve, including one request based on operating as a hunting camp. We were advised by the current Klaserie warden Colin Rowles that according to his records, Gioia applied at some stage in the 1990s but subsequently withdrew that application.
Gioia provided several examples of specific requests made by him to both reserves going back about 30 years, and the reasons for rejection varied each time. His obvious frustration provides a clear indication that things need to change if we are to avoid similar scenarios repeating themselves. Angry neighbours, of whatever level of economic empowerment, make for bad conservation bedfellows.
Elephants and oranges
The concern about animals being killed by various means as they target the citrus trees is valid, and this scenario is mirrored on most commercial farms in the world. Animals will die in their pursuit of nourishment from these trees – from insects to birds and mammals. Hopefully, there will be mitigation strategies in place (van Staden says there will be), but the reality is that some animals will die.
The issue that has hogged the limelight has been the likelihood of elephants targeting the oranges and what will happen if and when they do.
Van Staden seemed open to any considered, well-managed collaborations to reduce the risk of this happening and to prevent elephant crop-raiders from being killed or harmed – by working with local authorities and NGOs. He seemed to be relaxed about this risk and confused about the focus on elephants as the main issue at play. “Elephants will have to come through four fences before they get to my property”, he said – the Greater Kruger fence, a neighbour farm fence, the Gioia farm fence and the Casketts farm fence. The EIA requires him to install an elephant-proof fence on Casketts – and he assured me that this would be done.
To help me understand the elephant-oranges issue better, I spoke to Kevin Leo-Smith, manager of Rietspruit Game Reserve, just outside Hoedspruit and across the busy R40 road from the Greater Kruger area in question. His input is very relevant because he recently managed the re-introduction of elephants to Rietspruit, which borders directly onto established citrus farms. The neighbour consultation process involved explaining to concerned farmers his mitigation procedures if elephants escape Rietspruit to raid the citrus orchards.
Leo-Smith explained that there is no scientific evidence that elephants specifically target citrus as a general rule. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of elephants eating oranges in farm orchards, but elephants target just about anything edible. For example, three bull elephants that escaped from the nearby Balule Private Nature Reserve (Greater Kruger) about four years ago followed the Blyde River upstream as they pursued their natural dispersal instinct. They did not make their way to nearby citrus farms; instead they feasted on the mango orchards along the way before being captured and returned to the reserve. The Malelane and Komatipoort areas, about 250 km south of Hoedspruit, are awash with huge sugar cane and citrus farms, amongst other crops, and few if any elephant issues are reported by farmers.
Leo-Smith explained that bull elephants in particular will, through learned behaviour, regularly visit sources of reliable nutrition – including citrus crops – but that they are more likely to target grass crops like sugar cane, maize (corn) and sorghum, which more closely resemble their preferred grass diet.
‘Pristine, virgin bushveld’
Several people I have spoken to recently seem under the impression that this area bordering the Greater Kruger is unspoilt bushveld. I live here and can tell you that this is a fallacy. The area has been farmed extensively, and the veld bears the scars – with large tracts of invasive shrub species such as sickle bush Dichrostachys cinerea and no sign of palatable grass or large trees. We also have massive mining operations nearby (including on the Kruger National Park border) and even a railway line running through the Greater Kruger delivering mica and other minerals to insatiable international markets. Brief scrutiny of the area on Google Earth reveals massive currently used irrigation fields at several places on or near the Greater Kruger border. I mention this to add a touch of reality to some perceptions.
A man who is better placed than me to provide input is local businessman and conservationist Trevor Jordan, who added these interesting notes about the history of the Hoedspruit area (click the link to open a new website tab).
Left: The Casketts farm area between the cleared lands and the farm entrance gate consists of arid shrub veld dominated by the invasive (but indigenous) sickle bush. Right: An area beyond the EIA limits being cleared, with large trees left standing.
Where to from here?
One thing I am sure of is that this citrus farm will go ahead. What remains to be seen is how much financial damage is to be suffered by the warring parties before the storm passes.
On the one side is a wealthy, astute local farmer who is meticulous in his planning. On the other side are extremely wealthy, mostly non-resident landowners and a respected team of elephant scientists.
As much as van Staden has outmanoeuvred his opponents to date, his journey has been made easier by a notoriously lax local government that is the bane of most wildlife landowners. LEDET should hang their heads in shame for twiddling their thumbs while their missed deadlines wreak havoc for all of us.
There is no question in my mind that a significant conservation concern is the lack of employment for local people – and Caskett’s promised 60 permanent and 120 seasonal local jobs (employees need SA identity documents and local bank accounts) trumps what was on offer before. Perhaps things would be different if Gioia’s application for his farm to be included in the Greater Kruger had been successful?
We all recognise the critical role that both farming and wildlife tourism play in SA and that where they meet/compete, we have to be pragmatic in finding ways to solve problems and work together. Perhaps once the time and money have been spent on legal proceedings, all parties should sit down and agree on a mitigation strategy for the inevitable consequences of this intensive citrus farm on the Greater Kruger’s border. Perhaps the conservationists should also work out how this happened on their watch and make sure it does not happen again.
Simon Espley – CEO, Africa Geographic
"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
The desire for equality must never exceed the demands of knowledge