February forum will expose ecological concerns of extension plans
SERIOUS ECOLOGICAL impacts will result from the proposed phase 1 of Durban's port container terminal extension, according to a draft report that has been presented to Portnet.
The on/off debate, which was delayed when Portnet managing director Rob Childs said he wanted further studies to be undertaken, will reach a critical stage next Thursday (28 January) when an open day at the city hall will be held for the public and stakeholders.
An independent Cape Town firm of consultants has been employed to undertake an integrated environmental assessment (IEM) and has now circulated its draft report. Interested parties have been invited to submit written comment by January 29, after which a stakeholder forum will be held in the second week of February, representing the interests of shipping.
These include the controversial phase 1 development calling for the enlargement of the existing container terminal. Phase 1 involves extending the existing terminal berths (206/207 development). Phase 2 requires the creation of a new buffer stack zone by relocation of South African Container Depot's (SACD) terminal to a new site elsewhere.
Phase 3 and 4 are the least controversial - Phase 3 involves new deepwater berths off the Point and the relocation of the combi terminal to these berths, and Phase 4 the conversion and extension of Pier 1 to create an additional container terminal.
However, it is Phase 1 that will draw the most comment. According to project leader Muller Coetzee of Common Ground Consulting, preliminary findings have shown that the development of phase 1 would result in a permanent loss of a significant and unique portion of natural habitat, which is important as a refuge and food source for juvenile fish. "This could influence the fish stocks and fisheries of KwaZulu Natal."
Muller adds that these negative impacts need to be weighed against the important economic benefits derived from the container business in the port, Durban and the region as a whole. The draft report details three alternative courses of action, with their consequences. He says the first course would be that phase 1 should not proceed. The second that it should proceed as proposed and the third that it should proceed on condition that it is configured differently.
Ecological effects of phases 2, 3 and 4 have insignificant ecological impact, his report concludes.
Meanwhile a group of leading ecologists warn that these developments will cause permanent and devastating damage to the region's ecological balance.
They call for an alternate route for the proposed phase 1, with the quay being built in a north-west direction, one that will reduce the controversial central sandbank by half.
"Don't dismiss our objections out of hand, as the ravings of intransigent Greenies," they implore.
BY TERRY HUTSON
