The one remaining elephant in the Knysna forest is the last of her kind, as her lineage is now functionally extinct. The African penguin is now in such rapid decline that it too could become functionally extinct within the decade.
What do we do?
In the case of the Knysna elephant, the most humane course of action is to leave her alone, let South African National Parks monitor her from a distance as they have, and allow her a peaceful eventual death. We are simply too late – any intervention now will add stress and possibly hasten her demise. In the case of the African penguins, for them to have a chance of survival, we know what must be done. We have to stop grinding their food into chicken meal. And we have to make the seas quieter.
But the mediated attempt by Minister Creecy, who sought to ground her approach in the best science and a collaborative engagement, now seems to have stalled on the intransigence of the pelagic fishing industry, and the eventual closure of areas is likely to be too little too late. Furthermore, it’s unlikely the maritime industry will convert their drive chains to electric simply to save a few penguins. For them there isn’t a saving-the-penguin line in their profit and loss accounts. And so for the penguins it may be a case of too little too late.
Species at risk of extinction
South Africa is a biodiversity hot-spot. According to the 2018 National Biodiversity Assessment (NBA) we have some 67 000 species that find a home within our land and sea boundaries. Of those, just over 23 000 have been threat assessed and some 3 157 (14%) taxa of those assessed are deemed to be at risk of extinction. In simple terms, species like the Roan antelope, Mountain reedbuck, African wild dog, the Short-eared trident bat, the Tree hyrax (dassie), the Western leopard toad, the Pufadder shyshark, the Twineye skate, and the Black rhino, amongst other, stand at the edge of the extinction precipice. But so too does the Drakensberg Suikerbossie. Ever heard of it? It’s a butterfly. Is it worth saving?
The recently released Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) strategy document on the “National Biodiversity Economy” comes at this question sideways. It’s one key imperative is to “leverage the biodiversity economy to promote conservation and species and ecosystem management, thereby ensuring a positive feedback loop”. In short, it’s trying to get conservation to pay for itself. And at its core is the notion of “sustainable use”.
We have to act now
The idea that we can harvest natural resources in a way that doesn’t wipe out the resource, but by limiting the off-take to match the resources natural growth rate ensure the resource remains viable for our children and theirs. The proposed goals of the strategy are to scale up: ecotourism; the “consumptive use” of game; the consumptive use of sea and river based resources (e.g. fish, mussels, seaweed); bioprospecting/biotrade (e.g. pharmaceutic use and food supplementation). And the plan is to do so through “effective and efficient” regulation and policy implementation; increasing capacity, innovation, and technological support; stimulating financial support; and ensuring market access for previously disadvantaged communities. Underlying all of this, is the recognition that the “biodiversity business value chain” needs intact ecosystems, healthy species populations, and genetic diversity. And therein the chicken and egg dilemma. Our ecosystems are not healthy, nor intact, and genetic diversity is decreasing at a rapid rate. But we don’t have the money, nor time, to restore those ecosystems to a sustainable-use level of health. We have to act now.
State owned parks and reserves under strain
The release of the strategy has amplified a few familiar emotive binaries: “pragmatic” hunters vs. “idealist” animal lovers; white privilege and capital vs. black empowerment; competent private conservation vs collapsing and incompetent public conservation; and “good” science vs “paid-for” science. While it’s very true that private efforts have vastly increased species and habitat conservation, that same commercial imperative has led to canned lion hunting, lion bone trade, and the fashionista breeding of black impala and golden wildebeest. There’s no doubt that state owned parks and reserves are under strain, but without state assets the white rhino would not have recovered, nor our elephant populations. Perhaps then, the greatest threat to our biodiversity is not land use, or pollution, or climate change, or alien species, but rather the moral high-grounding that separates us into the typical action-movie script of good guys vs. bad guys. All-of-society solutions are founded on common purpose and collaboration, working in alignment, not on defeating the other side.
But the moral high-grounding aside, at the heart of the strategy lies the assumption that it’s best to set a thief to catch a thief. There is no doubt that the (Western) “economy” is why we have a climate change, pollution, and biodiversity loss that’s collapsing our ecosystems. Indigenous communities typically don’t destroy their ecosystems. And on the global trading floor, Rhino horn has economic value, the Drakensberg Suikerbossie does not.
Who will save the Puffadder shyshark?
So if we give nature a Rand value and put it into a regulated above-board market, will we save our biodiversity? No. Abalone (perlemoen) is the case in point. What if we burn effigies of the Minister, and tar and feather hunters? Will that save the Puffadder shyshark? No. The shyshark is not a targeted species, its slide into museum artifact status is from climate change and our use of the seas that’s destroying its habitat. Similar to why there’s only one Knysna elephant – we’ve destroyed its original habitat. Its retreated into the forest to survive. Ok then, what if we hand back all of the land the colonialists stole to indigenous communities, will that bring back the African penguin? No. We cannot sustain 60 million citizens off indigenous production systems. We can certainly transform value chains to reshape their beneficiaries, but indigenous systems don’t force-feed the excess our agricultural systems depend on.
And therein the difference, nature is cyclical, it works on boom and bust variations and its ecosystems have adapted to the flux. Very little in those systems goes to waste. The western economic model however tries to control the variables, to create an ongoing growth cycle of excess that can be wrapped in single plastic for consumers and sold for an increasing profit. But at some point we run off a limits-to-growth cliff – we live on a finite planet.
Policy position on the sustainable use of elephant, lion, leopard and rhino
The DFFE has also subsequently released its policy position on the conservation and sustainable use of elephant, lion, leopard and rhino’s. Its intent is to end captive lion breeding, to phase out rhino captive breeding, and to enhance leopard and elephant conservation. All of this comes from an extensive consultation process and the commitment to international agreements on climate change and biodiversity loss. Minister Creecy has the unenviable task of steering the sustainable use policy ship through some very loud trophy hunters and animal rights sirens, and should be evaluated on the range of policies, strategies, and initiatives government has driven, not by a single document or article. But this is not meant as a defence of the minister, rather to point to a point so obvious we all rush past it. Our ecosystems are failing because of us. We have to change the way we live. Which means we have to think differently about our place within the planet. We are part of nature not separate from it. The minister cannot do this alone.
Dr Gary Koekemoer (Chairperson WESSA EGC – Environmental Governance Committee)
in response to Daily Maverick