Africa Geographic February 2004 [antikvár]

editorial Maybe it is simply a case of buckling before a mining consortium set to gain easy access to titanium-rich beach sand, and other powerful development lobbies? H D avid Rogers ends his feature 'A road runs through it' (see page 40) with a well-chosen passage from the writings of Aldo Leopold: 'Our tools are better than we are They suffice to crack the atom, to command the tides. But they do not suffice for the oldest task in human history: to live on a piece of land without spoiling it.' The far eastern reaches of South Africa's Eastern Cape Province are remote, scenically beautiful and biologically so significant that the rolling hills, deep winding river valleys, coastal bays and cliffs are regarded as one of the botanical hotspots of the world. It would seem sensible, therefore, not to muck it up with injudicious development. But good common sense with regard to environmental matters is often in short supply, particularly when powerful political and commercial lobbies are at stake. Sadly we do seem to be facing just such a common sense failure when it comes to the Pondoland 'Wild Coast', as the region is appropriately and evocatively known, for the green light for a wide, heavy-duty toll road through it has effectively been given. And this despite a large and well-justified outcry. It would be all too easy to see this confrontation as yet another polarisation between environmental consciousness (read irrational, emotional greenies) and development (read sensible pragmatists rooted in the 'real world'). But this is certainly not the case, for the government is not dealing with the outrage of fringe dissidents. On the contrary, many of the country's most respected environmental leaders and organisations have voiced their condemnation of the government's action, which draws from an assessment study seen as fundamentally flawed. Their reservations have been presented to government along with suggestions for alternative routings for the road which would ensure far less destruction of ecologically sensitive areas and disruption to local people. To no avail it would seem, as the alternatives have been dismissed as unworkable. The reasons for the government's high-handedness are hard to understand. On the one hand it has recently restated Its ongoing commitment to biodiversity protection and has gone as far as to promulgate the Biodiversity Act, yet on the other it cocks a snook at our most eminent scientific and environmental opinions. Maybe it is simply a case of buckling before a mining consortium set to gain easy access to titanium-rich beach sand, and other powerful development lobbies? In his measured feature David Rogers clearly and concisely sets out the situation. I would like to call it a debate because that would suggest a willingness to find compromise, but - despite the period of appeal having been extended to the end of January - it now seems that only a high court ruling could overturn the ministerial resolve to go ahead.