This was the theme for the recent IAIAsa Conference held at the Skukuza Camp in Kruger National Park from 22-25 September. Over 300 delegates descended on Skukuza to debate where next for integrated environmental management (IEM) in South Africa. Their views were very mixed. Some lauded the success of South Africa’s innovative law and policy efforts seeking to promote IEM, while others viewed it as rather flawed. Professor Alexander Paterson fell more in the latter grouping. He presented a paper at the Conference titled “Realising South Africa’s Contribution to the CBD’s Global Biodiversity Framework’s Area-Based Targets – The Potential Impact of Screening Innovations Linked to Strategic Infrastructure Projects, Zones and Corridors”. The paper explored the apparent disconnect between South Africa’s commitment to contribute to the CBD’s 30x30 area-based target and its domestic initiatives aimed at promoting the roll out of strategic infrastructure projects. In his view, the recent introduction of innovative screening processes delineating strategic infrastructure corridors/zones and either truncating or exempting large-scale infrastructure projects in these corridors/zones from the usual EIA and authorisation requirements, held potential to undermine South Africa’s efforts to conserve areas of high conservation value. The key reason for his concern is the fact that many of the recently delineated strategic infrastructure corridors/zones (and associated EIA fast-track processes and exemptions) directly overlap those identified by national conservation authorities for inclusion in protected areas and/or recognition of OECMs.