Public Comment Invited: Proposed Road and Bridge Works in the Boosmansbos Wilderness Area

A Draft Environmental Maintenance Management Plan (EMMP) has recently been released for public comment regarding proposed repair and maintenance works to the Barend Koen track and bridge within the Boosmansbos Wilderness Area, which is also a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

The proposal has generated significant discussion among neighbouring landowners, conservationists, and members of the broader conservation community — not only because of the practical implications of reopening the route, but also because of broader questions regarding wilderness management, protected area legislation, and the long-term vision for these landscapes.

​This review aims to provide an overview of the proposal, outline some of the key issues being raised, and encourage informed public participation in the comment process. 

Vehicle access presents an important areas of discussion in wilderness areas

​What is being proposed?
The proposal relates to repair and maintenance work on the Barend Koen track, including reconstruction of a bridge that was destroyed by fire approximately 27 years ago.

The route historically provided access into the Boosmansbos Wilderness Area. However, since the bridge burnt down in 1999, the road has not functioned as a vehicular route and has effectively reverted to a non-mechanised track for nearly three decades.
According to the Draft EMMP, the purpose of the proposed works is to restore management access into the reserve for:

• fire management,
• invasive alien plant clearing,
• access to overnight huts and tourism infrastructure,
• and emergency response purposes.

The proposal is currently being processed as a Maintenance Management Plan rather than a full Basic Assessment or Environmental Impact Assessment process.

It is also important to note that the Draft EMMP includes additional proposed road repair and maintenance work within the broader Grootvadersbosch Nature Reserve, including sections of road leading to the well-known Redwoods area.
Unlike the Barend Koen track, these roads do not fall within the formally declared wilderness area and therefore raise a different set of management and legal considerations. The primary concerns outlined in this article relate specifically to the proposed reopening of vehicular access into the Boosmansbos Wilderness Area itself.

​Both EMMP processes are currently open for public review and comment, and members of the public are encouraged to engage with all aspects of the proposals before the closing date for submissions on June 1st 2026.

View of the Boosmansbos Wilderness area

What are some of the issues under discussion?
Several landowners and conservation stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the broader implications of reopening vehicular access into a declared wilderness area.

One of the central concerns relates to the legal definition and purpose of wilderness areas under the National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act (Act No 57 of 2003).

The Act defines a wilderness area as:
“an area designated … for the purpose of retaining an intrinsically wild appearance and character … which is undeveloped and roadless, without permanent improvements or human habitation.”

In addition, Section 26(2)(c) of the Act states that management should aim:

“to provide for the preservation of the area in a natural state… and to control access which, if allowed, may only be by non-mechanised means.”

For some stakeholders, the proposed repair of the bridge — and the resulting reintroduction of vehicle access into the wilderness area — raises important questions about how these provisions should be interpreted and applied.

Maintenance or re-establishment of a road?
Another key question relates to whether the proposal genuinely constitutes “maintenance” of an existing road, or whether it effectively represents the re-establishment of a vehicular route that has been non-functional for nearly 27 years.
One perspective is that the proposed works may not be defined as maintenance because:

• the road has not functioned as a normal vehicle route for decades;
• the surrounding area has effectively reverted toward a more natural wilderness state;
• and the current proposal may therefore represent a material change in use rather than routine maintenance.

This distinction might be important because different environmental and legal processes may apply depending on how the activity is classified.

Leopards are a regular sighting on Barend Koen road

​Questions regarding long-term vision and precedent

Another concern raised by stakeholders is that, while the current proposal focuses primarily on the lower bridge and access section, the practical effect of repairing the bridge would be to reopen vehicle access into the Boosmansbos Wilderness Area for the first time in almost three decades.

This raises broader questions:

• Could this become the first phase of future upgrades deeper into the wilderness area?
• How will long-term vehicle access be controlled and managed?
• Does reopening access fundamentally change the character and expectations of a wilderness landscape?

​Some stakeholders argue that wilderness areas are increasingly rare and valuable precisely because they remain remote, minimally developed, and difficult to access.

Much of the wilderness area is inaccessible

​
CapeNature’s perspective

It is also important to acknowledge that CapeNature has legitimate management responsibilities within this reserve and this road will assist them with these responsibilities.
Protected area management often requires difficult balancing decisions involving:

• fire management,
• ecological restoration,
• invasive species control,
• visitor safety,
• infrastructure maintenance,
• and public access.

CapeNature’s stated rationale for the proposed works includes improving operational access for conservation management and emergency response purposes.

​Supporters of the proposal argue that management agencies require practical access to fulfil their conservation responsibilities effectively. The current public participation process is therefore important precisely because it allows these considerations to be openly assessed and debated.

Road access is important for fire management and emergency access

​Funding and public accountability
It is understood that the proposed works are being funded through the Department of Public Works rather than directly through CapeNature’s operational budget. These funds are allocated through a separate infrastructure funding mechanism and may not simply be transferable to other conservation programmes. Nevertheless, they remain public funds intended to support public conservation infrastructure and management.

As such, there is a legitimate public interest in whether reopening vehicular access into a wilderness area represents an appropriate and strategically justified use of state resources, particularly given the broader funding pressures facing conservation agencies across South Africa.

Some stakeholders argue that, in the current financial climate, any investment directed toward conservation landscapes and protected area infrastructure is valuable and should be welcomed. Others question whether, within a constrained conservation funding environment, the long-term ecological and policy implications of reopening this route into a wilderness area have been adequately considered and publicly justified.

Consultation and stakeholder engagement
Given that neighbouring landowners effectively sit at the gateway to these areas and play an important role in the surrounding conservation landscape, they need to be actively engaged in finding an appropriate way forward.

​Why public participation matters
This proposal raises broader questions that extend beyond a single road or bridge.
At its core, the discussion concerns:

• how wilderness areas should be managed,
• how protected area legislation should be interpreted,
• how conservation priorities are funded,
• and how South Africa balances access, tourism, infrastructure, and wilderness protection in increasingly pressured landscapes.

Regardless of one’s position on the proposal itself, these are important public-interest issues that warrant informed discussion and meaningful public participation.

01.wes914f.03_draft_maintenance_management_plan_grootvadersbosch.pdf
File Size:	5338 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

How to comment
Both Draft EMMPs are currently available for public review and comment and can be downloaded above.

The complete reports, including maps and appendices, can be accessed via Cape EAPrac Active Projects Page

Hard copies are also available at the Grootvadersbosch Nature Reserve office.
Comments can be submitted to the appointed Environmental Assessment Practitioner:

Louise-Mari van Zyl
Email: [email protected]

​Closing date for submissions: 1 June 2026

​Members of the public are encouraged to review the proposals carefully and submit constructive, informed comments as part of the public participation process.

PLEASE EMAIL THE COMMENTS TO [email protected]  so that they can be formally documented in the process