136 reversed once the estuary mouth opened (GSLWPA, 2003). EKZNW also emphasised the wealth of documentation on the lake conditions, which they felt stood their conservation managers in good stead in ensuring that they were managing the St Lucia system correctly (EKZNW, 2003a). Thus, in the face of frequent official assessments of the system during this time describing the St Lucia system as ‘severely degraded’, ‘already exploited’, ‘drastically modified’ and ‘under severe threat’, the authorities called for patience with the changes evident in the state of the estuary mouth (Forbes et al, 1986: 3; DWAF, 2004: 1; Carnie, 23/08/2005). This use of alarmist language is strongly consistent with ‘survivalist’ discourse, as is the reliance on scientific experts to provide these dramatic descriptions of the state of the St Lucia estuary mouth (Dryzek, 1997).
137 Lucia lake and estuary mouth considerably (Taylor and Collings, 1988). The changes across the lake between parts of the system with completely fresh water to conditions of very high salinities in the main part of the lake were also described as part of these climatic cycles. The hypersalinity period of the cycle was considered to be an ongoing problem due to the reduction of fresh water sources for the lake. The reasons for this were identified as dam construction on feeder rivers of the lake in addition to very high levels of water use in the Umfolozi catchment (Porter et al, 1999). Accordingly, the driver for change described by EKZNW in the context of the ‘survivalist’
discourse, which, as described by Dryzek (1997) highlights the sensitivity of the environment and emphasises the need for experts to manage it.
There was a strong emphasis by EKZNW on the closed state of the mouth being part of a natural climatic cycle. Thus the changes in the system were not considered unnatural and should be considered as part of a broader picture regarding the functioning of the St Lucia lake system and not an “ecological disaster” (EKZNW, 2003: 5). Thus the changes at the St Lucia estuary mouth during this time were described by EKZNW as part of a naturally changing system, as shown by the following metaphor from a manager,
“People don’t accept that the system goes through change. It won’t always stay the same. It’s like there’s a clock. They see it at 12 o’ clock. Then they close their eyes and then look at it at 12 o’ clock again. It looks exactly the same. What they don’t realise is that it’s changed in between. It’s the same with changes that occur in the system” (Taylor, 10/05/2004).
The movement of the estuary between fresh and salt water states was well documented during this period in addition to the seasonal closure of the estuary mouth that influenced the state of the mouth with the resilience and dynamism of the system receiving particular emphasis (EKZNW, 2005). These changing states were reiterated in the press, through direct statements in newspaper articles from wildlife managers and in the media, through the presentation of the views of independent scientists on wildlife interest television programmes. An article in a provincial newspaper, The Mercury (21/04/2005) stated:
“It is a testing time for all in the region, [...] which is clearly not immune to the serious knock-on effects of Zululand's cyclical climatic conditions.
138 Lake St Lucia has taken a hammering as a result of the drying up of rivers
this summer. The level of this huge expanse of water has dropped dramatically, the estuary mouth has been closed for more than nine months and salinity levels are close to that of seawater. Conservation authority KwaZulu-Natal Wildlife says the situation is similar to the dry period experienced in 1993 but that the process is "natural and dynamic, resulting in changes in the lake through time".
While, Ticky Forbes, an independent scientist and estuarine specialist with a long history of research in St Lucia, was quoted on an evening wildlife television programme (‘St Lucia Drought’, 2004), explaining these changes:
“But the point that we should bear in mind is that the changing conditions do not necessarily herald the disappearance of everything around and if we look around here we can see flamingos, which typically move into such a system under these high salinity conditions. So the essence of what we are looking at here is a highly dynamic situation [...]. As the salinities change, as the water level changes, those plants will change, those animals associated with them will change and as we swing towards high salinity conditions that we have at the moment again we will come up with a totally different set of animals living there.”
7.4.2. Umfolozi catchment development and intervention
In addition to the changing natural conditions in St Lucia, development in the Umfolozi catchment remained a driver for change in the state of the St Lucia estuary and mouth. The water draining into the Umfolozi River from its catchment area is vital to the functioning of the St Lucia system. Historically this was the main source of fresh water and the Umfolozi performed a very important filtering function to keep the estuary free of sediment (Ellery, 14/06/2003). The Umfolozi catchment, and other catchment areas surrounding St Lucia, have a long history of human intervention (Taylor, 10/05/2004). This intervention includes changes made to the:
- Umfolozi floodplain and catchment
The upper portion of the Umfolozi swamps were transformed to improve agricultural production, more specifically to aid irrigation for sugar farming. In addition, large levees were built along the banks of the Umfolozi River to provide protection for
139 sugar cane crops against floods. This significantly changed the natural flooding process and flow of the Umfolozi River and contributes to the closing of the St Lucia estuary mouth (GLSWPA, 2004)
- St Lucia estuary mouth and the Umfolozi mouth
Since the 1930s, catchment degradation and the canalisation of the Mfolozi floodplain led to sedimentation of the Umfolozi and St Lucia mouths which were combined. This caused the mouth to close. In 1952 the Umfolozi River mouth was diverted and a separate mouth was constructed south of St Lucia estuary. A management programme remains in place to dredge the estuary area free of sediment in order to create conditions that are ideal for maintaining a St Lucia estuary mouth that is open to the sea (GLSWPA, 2004; Taylor, 10/05/2004).
- Mkuze swamps prior to 1980
The Mkuze swamps have been losing water due to diversion over several decades.
Canals were constructed by the NPB to divert fresh water into the St Lucia lake during high salinity periods. This has severely affected the functioning of the Mkuze swamps (Taylor, 1986; Ellery et al, 2003; GSLPWA, 2004; Taylor, 10/05/2004).
All of these interventions compromised the functioning of the St Lucia Lake system, in particular the supply of fresh water to the estuary from the Umfolozi and Mkuze rivers (Taylor, 1986). The reduction in fresh water inflows had a significant influence on the state of the mouth, causing it to close more frequently. However, the disconnection of the Umfolozi River from the St Lucia system is identified by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry (DWAF) as the most significant influence on the mouth and the main cause of the hypersaline conditions (DWAF, 2004). The public and the media agreed that the development of the Umfolozi catchment for commercial sugar cane had a strong influence on the state of the mouth. These stakeholders, however, were more explicit in identifying who they felt was responsible for the catchment transformations. One St Lucia resident attributed the state of the mouth to “poor farming” and alleged that the fresh water was “stolen by sugar cane farming and logging” (Viviers, 30/08/2005). This view was confirmed through several media articles, with quotes similar to this one from an article in The Witness (30/06/2003) newspaper, which stated that “the swamp areas were drained to
140 make way for cane south of Mtubatuba, impacting on the water flowing into the Lake St Lucia system.” Thus while describing the interventions in the St Lucia estuary and mouth as the drivers for change during this period, the public were ascribing to the
‘wise-use’ discourse, as it was clear in the eyes of the public, that the interventions in the system in the past had prevented and were continuing to prevent effective use of the resources St Lucia offered (Whittaker and Mercer, 2004).