NOTES FROM PRESENTATION MADE BY JOANNE THOMAS

PURPOSE OF THE MEETING

•    To engage relevant role-players and provide an opportunity for interaction with the project team
•    To solicit role-player views regarding the guideline development process
•    To discuss other related initiatives which could influence the guidelines
•    To discuss the way forward

INTRODUCTION: Basic Assumptions

•    Off-road routes – include recreational & purpose-driven routes
•    Off-road vehicles include 4x4s, SUVs, quad-bikes (motorised)
•    No relevant existing guidelines country-wide
•    Degree of self-regulation already begun though SAROOF, NOW & AAWDC
•    Sensitive environment of the Western Cape is clearly understood – available data

INTRODUCTION: Problem Statement

•    Off-road vehicle (ORV) use has increased – <20 000 (1990) to ~500 000 (2005)
•    Increased development & use of off-road routes country-wide
•    ORV industry well-established
•    Management problems arising from inappropriately sited and engineered trails
•    Resulted in some detrimental environmental impact
•    Need for guidelines identified: siting, construction, operation & maintenance, use, & decommissioning

THE ISSUES

•    Direct impacts: removal of vegetation, soil compaction, displacement & erosion
•    Indirect impacts: impacts on hydrological systems, visual impacts, biodiversity, fire risk, noise & air pollution, threats to sites of special interest, littering, waste, associated infrastructure
•    Level of impact not necessarily in proportion to level of use – but rather to level of non-compliance

THE SOLUTION

•    Responding to these impacts requires an understanding of the environment
•    This requires a mechanism to assist in addressing the development, operation, maintenance & decommissioning of trails at a practical level
•    Also requires the development of management practices & alternative management options

APPROACH TO DEVELOPING GUIDELINES

•    Review of relevant data
•    Targeted consultation with role-players & stakeholders
•    Development of guidelines
–    Guidelines for planning, development, operation, management & decommissioning of ORV routes
–    Guidelines for the assessment & evaluation of ORV routes
–    Guidelines for trail users
•    Workshop guidelines with WC D:EA&DP

AIMS & OBJECTIVES OF THE GUIDELINES

•    Provide clear & concise guiding principles which reflect role-players’ & WC DEA&DP views on ORV use
•    Set the scene for the development of operational policy & procedures for specific areas
•    Guide sustainable trail use by ORVs and minimal impact practices
•    Guide the implementation of relevant legislation & policy

FUNCTION OF THE GUIDELINES

•    Framework to highlight constraints associated with siting, construction, operation, management & decommissioning of routes
•    Provide a checklist for evaluation & regulation of routes
•    Seek to promote local solutions to local problems
•    Provide guidance to ORV trail users
•    Will not revise any existing legislation or regulations
•    Cannot be used to close or authorise routes, but can inform the decision regarding closure and authorisation

RESPONSE BY THE WESTERN CAPE

•    Guidelines – a key step in the greater initiative
•    Further initiatives required:
–    Education of trail operators & users
–    Site specific engineering & environmental solutions to reduce & manage impacts
–    Regulation & enforcement (‘Duty of Care’)

PROPOSED FORMAT FOR GUIDELINES

•    Devise best framework for best possible use of guidelines by all
•    Three guideline components to take different formats
–    Guidelines for planning, development, operation & management of ORV routes: provide management measures
–    Guidelines for the assessment & evaluation of ORV routes: checklist
–    Easy reference guide for trail users

TIMEFRAME

•    Draft guidelines for stakeholder comment
•    Role-player workshops – Cape Town & George
•    Finalise guidelines in terms of all comments

RECORD OF DISCUSSION HELD

The discussion was very informal and did not follow any particular structure.  For the sake of ease of reading, we have grouped various topics that arose.  The project team will take cognizance of all contributions, and will hopefully be able to address many of the concerns and/or suggestions in the draft guidelines.

GUIDELINE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

Stakeholder consultation needs to include other user groups such as hikers and mountain bikers who may be using the same wilderness areas as the ORV users.

TERMINOLOGY

The formal clubs/associations represented at the meeting raised their concern with the term "off-road" which has negative connotations, saying they would prefer reference to "off-highway".  The codes of conduct they support do not promote any "off road" driving.  "Off-highway" essentially means off proclaimed road.  This term is currently used by and supported by NOW.  This may seem like semantics but the provincial department (DEA&DP) will need to consider what is meant by “off-road”, as it is currently proposing to include "off-road" activities in the provincial EIA regulations.  The activity description will need to be unambiguous so as to avoid loopholes.

ACTIVITY TYPE

Off-road driving can also be divided into distinct activities, such as extreme activities which test technical driving skills, or 'off-the-beaten-track’ eco-experience activities, or merely a matter of access etc.  Would these distinct activities be able to be addressed through the guidelines?  Could it be suggested that only specific sites be used to test driving abilities?

Tracks should include those servicing cellphone masts (although these would have management plans linked to their conditions of approval), farm and forestry roads, access roads for Telkom, Eskom and mining etc.  These roads should also have management plans, and monitoring and auditing requirements.  It was also noted that some of those responsible for these roads already have to report on them in departmental Environmental Implementation Plans (EIPs).

CURRENT STATUS OF ROUTES (NEW AND EXISTING)

Those routes established prior to 1997 do not require an EIA and authorisation.  These routes should, however, be appropriately managed.  It was noted that ORV route development is not a listed activity as from 1 July 2006 when the new EIA regulations come into effect.  However, the Western Cape will include this activity in its supplemented regulations which are likely to be gazetted by the end of 2006 or early 2007.

There are approximately 340 4x4 trails in the Western Cape (advised by SAROOF).  The guidelines therefore must address management of existing facilities, and not only new facilities. According to SAROOF, there are very few routes in virgin areas and very few applications for new rowtes.  It should be noted that an estimate of more than 95% of routes have been developed from existing farm or access roads. E.g. roads used to access alien clearing, fire breaks or wild flower harvesting.  In addition, there is a decline in the number of routes being established at this time.

The ORV industry provides many benefits.  Some routes have played a significant role in providing access for fire-fighting and alien clearing.  It is suggested that more routes be encouraged in more deserted areas to improve fire fighting access networks.  These routes can be multi-purpose.

The EIA process (current and new) requires pubic participation as well as the identification of alternatives.  Environmental sensitivity would have to be assessed for existing and new routes.  

It was suggested that 'class applications' for EIAs should be possible to avoid duplication of effort, especially where neighbours may each submit an application.  In these cases, it is argued, vegetation, soils and other aspects of the receiving environment are the same and therefore specialist studies could be the same for each.  Cumulative impacts would, however, be important in such an instance.

GUIDELINES

The guidelines should include mapping of routes, signage and route-marking standards and advisories.  This would assist in reducing off-track driving and aid in-track management.  Road signage should consider Department of Transport requirements, and the use of environmentally friendly signage should be considered, referring to TreadLightly!  for ideas.

The guidelines need to include a step-by-step guide on the process required for trail approval.  The guidelines should alert users to the relevant legislation and which government departments or officials are responsible for which aspects of ORV route development or management.  The legal context should also include those regulations or by-laws controlled by other departments or levels of government such as the local bylaws, City of Cape Town planning requirements, DWAF, National Veld and Forest Fire Act.  They should include the users' responsibilities and permit requirements.

The guidelines should address the associated infrastructure that is often part and parcel of an ORV route such as overnight accommodation, conference facilities etc.  The trail may attract visitors to come to an area and enjoy the other facilities on the property, or while enjoying other facilities, the trail may provide an additional paid-for activity on offer.  

BEST PRACTICE

The guidelines should provide a guide to achieve Best Practice.  Issues such as Duty of Care and the responsibility of landowners and users must be clear. The guidelines should consider some basic principles regarding soils, vegetation, erosion minimisation and prevention, agricultural planning, water runoff management.  Guidelines will consider what should be achieved in terms of best practice, but will not go into detail regarding 'how' to attain the best practice state.

In terms of water resources and disturbance, it was noted that it is important to maintain watersheds so that there is no water transfer or redirection between catchment areas.  Water load also needs to be considered so that accumulation of water is avoided.

Tracks4Africa, a private company based in George, has very kindly offered its mapping data to the provincial DEA&DP.  Tracks4Africa has developed a system for users to report erosion hotspots using waypoints and GPS.  Approximately 800 vehicles are involved in this programme, and provide data to assess the variations of the conditions of the tracks.

BUSINESS PLAN

The carrying capacity / level of use of routes needs to be addressed.  This will include its economic viability and the receiving environment.  It was agreed that a business plan should be required up front to assess economic viability, and would be essential in alerting the route owner to the financial implications of opening and/or operating a route.  The economic viability/business plan should be part of the assessment.  The sensitivity of the area would come into play, and a balance between utilisation of route and economic viability will be required.

The guidelines should outline some of the financial steps involved in planning, operating and managing a ORV track so that the potential owner can better understand whether it is an affordable prospect before it is too late.

REHABILITATION

Of great concern is the aspect of route decommissioning and appropriate rehabilitation.  It was agreed that appropriate decommissioning is required on disused routes and/or degraded sections of existing routes that have been diverted to more suitable terrain.  Rehabilitation of tracks is difficult and expensive, and in many cases tracks are simply left in a degraded state.  Erosion is exacerbated and the situation worsens.  Route owners need to know their responsibilities in terms of disused routes.

The guidelines will probably specify when a route will require decommissioning but will not inform the owner as to 'how' to decommission.  Vegetation, road surface and soil specialists may need to be consulted by the owner to assist him in rehabilitation.  Again, significant costs may be incurred.

ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

Legislation and law enforcement is a big problem.  The industry is promoting self-regulation but there are always those who do not comply either as route owners or users.  Non-compliance is a key factor.  There needs to be wide-scale political will for the impacts of ORVs to be collectively minimised by producers, route owners and users.  Mechanisms for enforcement must be considered, and must include enforcement by DEA&DP, self-regulation and listing/grading of routes.  A mechanism is required to be able to take non-compliant routes (owners) to task.

It is suggested that route grading can be used creatively to provide users with an indication of the technical difficulty of a route, as well as other important aspects such as environmental experience (unique fauna or flora) and environmental compliance.  Grading levels can be 'lost' for non-compliance or route degradation.

Many vehicle brands are now supporting and providing user training which includes a wide range of do's and don'ts for vehicle owners/drivers.  Independent trainers should be able to assist in eco-friendly training.  Route Guides should have appropriate eco-experience and training.

Discussion was held regarding the content of a Record of Decision (ROD) issued by DEA&DP when authorising a route (bearing in mind that many routes already exist, most of which are not legal).  Standard conditions of approval should include:
•    A construction environmental management plan (EMP) that is generic and site-specific.  
•    An independent annual audit / monitoring process (over and above internal audits that should take place more regularly)
•    An operational EMP (especially for existing tracks)
•    A decommissioning management plan
The above should all have 'roles and responsibilities' clearly laid out with specific individuals identified.

Management is key, and the implementation of the EMPs must be monitored.  As the guidelines are not enforceable, management plans and monitoring must be part of the environmental authorisations.

Concern was expressed regarding the resources of the regulating authorities and those responsible for compliance checking.  One way to address this is to promote self-regulation, which is what the industry is striving towards.  Another is to develop partnerships between the regulators and the industry.  And a third could be to incentivise good practice and 'name and shame' those acting in contravention of the law.  Incentives would include marketing of a route as a top class route as well as other promotions.

A co-operative process is required between the industry and the regulators.  There should be focussed co-operation between the parties.

HERITAGE AND VISUAL IMPACTS

Concern was expressed about increased access to archaeological sites and the removal of artefacts.  The Ceres-Bokkeveld area has fossil-rich deposits.  Monitoring is required before and after a trail/route is developed in an area to assess impact on archaeological or palaeontological aspects.  Impacts (in-direct impacts) on sites should be managed, for example by restricting access to certain areas or fencing off areas of concern.  Where sites are known to occur, it is likely that trail-users will stop and could disturb sites.  Dust from passing vehicles can have a seriously negative impact on rock art.  In many cases Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA) may be required particularly where cultural landscapes, old cemeteries (many farm cemeteries are ignored) and fortifications occur. In addition, an increase in awareness is required. It was suggested that the Geological Society of South Africa also be consulted, especially with regards to the potential for sites of palaeontological interest / fossils.

Visual impact assessments may be necessary particularly in cultural landscapes, viewsheds and horizons and refer specifically to areas considered to have 'sense of place'.  This will include the visual impact of the track and the vehicles and shall include proposed mitigation measures.  Visual Impact Assessments may be required in terms of the EIA or Heritage IA requirements.

It is the industry’s intention to educate users regarding heritage sites as well as the appropriate way to treat the country's heritage.  

QUADBIKES

Quadbikes fall within the Association of Motorcycle Importers and Distributors (AMID), and are included within the NOW initiative (have been since the inception of NOW).  However, most quadbike owners are not members of the association and do not belong to formal clubs.  Quadbikes are not licensed vehicles and therefore are not permitted on proclaimed roads.  Another concern is that drivers may be as young as four or five years of age.  While most other ORV drivers prefer not to drive "off road", quadbike owners seem to have a preference for not following demarcated roads.  Quadbike racing events take place on an ad hoc basis. They are organised by various motorsport associations and are regulated by the Motorsport Association of South Africa .  

SHORT PRESENTATION BY FRANCOIS SMIT (SAROOF)

Francois Smit of SAROOF kindly showed the meeting some pictures of work being undertaken in the Cederberg area.  In the Cederberg a pilot initiative is underway in partnership with CapeNature to regulate and responsibly manage all 34 trails in the area, with buy-in from trail owners.  The pictures illustrated many of the scenarios that had been discussed in the meeting and were well appreciated.

CLOSURE

The meeting closed at 12h15.


LIST OF USEFUL ACRONYMS

D:EADP (=DEA&DP)    Department of Environmental Affairs and Development Planning
ORV    Off-road vehicle
NOW    National Offroad Workgroup
AMID    Association of Motorcycle Importers and Distributors
SAROOF    South African Route Owners and Operators Forum
EIA    Environmental Impact Assessment
DWAF    Department of Water Affairs
HIA    Heritage Impact Assessment
EMP    Environmental Management Plan
ROD    Record of Decision