SA 2014: Programme on ecology a breath of fresh air

Tony Booth is an associate professor in the Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science at Rhodes University. He has published on aspects of fish ecology and biology, and aquatic resource assessment.

An intelligent, rational and - most importantly - non-emotional discussion on an environmental issue is rare. The one screened on SA 2014 and chaired by JP Landman on kykNET on 28th August 2004 was, therefore, a breath of fresh air.

Ecological discussions can often digress into a quasi-scientific diatribe (and when they do it is most unfortunate). This was thankfully absent. Points were clearly articulated, examples used were current and relevant, and insight into the larger picture, particularly from an institutional level, was also provided. The panel comprised experts drawn from a wide variety of sectors (academic, governmental and non-governmental) who all seem to "play off the same sheet of music", and appear to work together towards a common goal of conserving and rehabilitating South Africa's biodiversity and promoting environmental awareness.

The discussion centred on what appeared to be pre-prepared questions concerning freshwater and the conservation of biodiversity - two of South Africa's most precious and threatened resources. The format of the programme somehow worked. Not just because it was well chaired, but because the panel were extrospective and were concerned with fleshing out possible solutions to larger problems rather than bickering about parochial issues.

The phone-in question and answer section, however, failed. The questions by listeners were perhaps too few and far between and were pretty bland. Getting this mix of discussion and Q&A right would help the programme, as it should include listeners rather than relegating them to a postscript. Congratulations must go to Landman for his deft handling of a question that was racially loaded and potentially problematic.

Ecological awareness is of paramount importance in South Africa. We all directly and indirectly rely on ecological sustainability. As Dr Nick King of the Endangered Wildlife Trusts clearly noted, economic sustainability is simply not possible without its ecological counterpart. The three pillars of sustainability were repeatedly stated throughout the discussion. These are social, economic and ecological and all need to be addressed simultaneously and melded together to achieve a common objective. Only by changing South Africans' perceptions and awareness of our common problems and by working together on possible solutions will sustainable changes be made.

Natural resource management has shifted over the past two decades from a biologically-centred approach, where it was the biological organisms and their ecological processes that were managed, to one where the people who are reliant on these resources are managed. Management of natural resources is now all about managing people. With increasing human pressures stemming from a positive population growth rate, natural resource management will only become increasingly difficult. Solutions therefore need to be urgently found and quickly implemented.

Freshwater is a resource in crisis. It is in a precarious position and all South Africans, both poor and affluent alike, need to recognise its plight and change their attitudes towards its consumption. South Africa is a dry country (most of the country is classified as semi-arid) and it has been predicted that there will be critical shortages within 20 years. It must be noted that water is also ludicrously cheap in South Africa (despite repeated whinging by users about its excessive cost), with little difference made between potable and industrial qualities. As a result, drinking water is used to irrigate golf courses, fill swimming pools and wash cars. This will change in the future and the introspective South African public will quickly realise how good things were in the past and taken for granted. The cost of water will undoubtedly increase, most likely on some form of a sliding scale, with excessive consumers paying disproportionately more than light consumers.

The quickest way to conserve biodiversity is to set aside a large proportion of land and dedicate it for conservation purposes. At present 6,4 percent of South Africa has been set aside for conservation and this is to be increased to ten percent by 2010. The government therefore has to secure an additional three million hectares of land to conserve. This is not an easy mandate given the current problems facing land reform in the country. It is comforting to see Dr Razeena Wagiet, a well-known and respected environmental educationalist, now involved at SANParks. Her skills in community-based management will be needed when balancing the need to almost double South Africa's land for conservation within six years while simultaneously obtaining buy-in from local communities. Ensuring benefit-sharing is going to be difficult, very difficult.

All that I can ask is that the land procured will realistically increase South Africa's land under conservation. South Africa's recent proclamation of the Marion and Prince Edward Islands as Marine Protected Areas to increase the proportion of South Africa's shoreline under conservation towards a target of 20 percent is, in my opinion, rather cheeky. Yes, it does technically increase South Africa's coastline but it was pretty much protected already. Unfortunately this area has already had its fish resources raped over the past decade. There will, in my opinion, be little change in the future given the difficulty and excessive costs involved in policing an area 2000 km south-east of Cape Town. We simply need a larger number of Marine Protected Areas between the Orange River and Kosi Bay.

Good ideas need to be implemented, and implementation requires both political will and financial support. It is one thing to propose solutions, but who will ensure that they are implemented, what will the cost be and who will foot the bill? While government has allocated funds for the acquisition of land to become Provincial, National or Peace Parks, these parks needs to be maintained for use as biodiversity conservation vehicles.

National and Provincial Parks are both under-funded and have to derive the bulk of their income from tourism. Only two National Parks - Kruger National Park and Tsitsikamma National Park - are consistently good earners. These breadwinners are then used to subsidise the smaller parks that either do not have the tourism exposure or are too remote to remain independently viable. Cash flow is already a problem in these parks and this will possibly be over-stretched when additional parks are added to the fold. It should be noted that conservation areas are common property for all South Africans. All taxpayers should therefore contribute towards maintaining this heritage without breaking tourism's back as the main income stream.

To conclude, SA 2014 provides an effective and rather unique vehicle for open discussion of topical issues pertaining to South Africa's movements through the next decade. Previous themes in the series have included economics, politics, teaching, land reform and transformation. The inclusion of an ecological component therefore finds a comfortable home. Perhaps we could have some decision-makers next time to provide feedback on current or future implementation initiatives. This could assist in both ensuring governmental transparency and obtaining buy-in from "Joe (-Anne) Public" who is watching the programme.



LitNet: 2 September 2004

Wil jy reageer op hierdie artikel? Stuur kommentaar na webvoet@litnet.co.za om die gesprek verder te voer op SêNet, ons interaktiewe meningsruimte.

© Kopiereg in die ontwerp en inhoud van hierdie webruimte behoort aan LitNet, uitgesluit die kopiereg in bydraes wat berus by die outeurs wat sodanige bydraes verskaf. LitNet streef na die plasing van oorspronklike materiaal en na die oop en onbeperkte uitruil van idees en menings. Die menings van bydraers tot hierdie werftuiste is dus hul eie en weerspieël nie noodwendig die mening van die redaksie en bestuur van LitNet nie. LitNet kan ongelukkig ook nie waarborg dat hierdie diens ononderbroke of foutloos sal wees nie en gebruikers wat steun op inligting wat hier verskaf word, doen dit op hul eie risiko. Media24, M-Web, Ligitprops 3042 BK en die bestuur en redaksie van LitNet aanvaar derhalwe geen aanspreeklikheid vir enige regstreekse of onregstreekse verlies of skade wat uit sodanige bydraes of die verskaffing van hierdie diens spruit nie. LitNet is ’n onafhanklike joernaal op die Internet, en word as gesamentlike onderneming deur Ligitprops 3042 BK en Media24 bedryf.