Endangered Wildlife Trust Archives | Page 19 of 55

The Endangered Wildlife Trust’s Livestock Guardian Dogs protect farmed animals from predation.

In South Africa, poor livestock husbandry practices negatively impact livestock farmers through predation and threatened carnivores through persecution.

In 2008, the Endangered Wildlife Trust’s (EWT) created a Livestock Guardian Dog Project in its Carnivore Conservation Programme (CCP) to provide non-lethal solutions to livestock farmers who had experienced unsustainable losses due to predation by free roaming carnivores. This includes Jackals, Caracals, Cheetah, African Wild Dogs, Leopards and other small carnivores.

Through the project, guarding dogs are placed with livestock as puppies and grow up with the herd. This enables them to bond with the herd animals and thus protect them from carnivores that may try to predate on them. The provision of guardian dogs to farmers ultimately reduces and prevents the retaliatory killing of carnivores.

To achieve the goal of non-lethal intervention, we work together with farmers to, as far as possible, integrate this conflict mitigation methods with their farming practices.

Working with local farmers it had become clear that many lack the skills, knowledge or capacity to employ best-practice livestock husbandry methods to protect their livestock from naturally occurring large carnivores. Instead, they use lethal mitigation methods, such as snaring, shooting, gin-trapping, poisoning and hunting predators with dogs. Most lethal methods used are non-specific which means that any number of other species, and not the target species, are killed. This includes Critically Endangered White-backed Vultures, Hooded Vultures and other wildlife, such as Jackal, Caracal, Cheetah, Leopard and African Wild Dogs.

Since the inception of the project by the EWT in 2008, it became clear that among the farming practices implemented, and which increasingly put livestock at risk of predation, included letting calves that are too young into the fields with the rest of the herd, not kraaling livestock at night and even using inadequate basic livestock husbandry practices.

We have, therefore, been educating farmers and communities about the ecological and economic benefits of co-existing with carnivores. Through workshops hosted by the CCP, communities and farmers are informed about the impacts of killing key species, such as Leopard and Cheetah, and how the use of non-lethal mitigation methods prevent conflict. In the case of livestock husbandry, we reach out to our network of vets and animal technicians to advise and teach farmers how to take care of their livestock.

In order to receive a Livestock Guardian Dog, a farmer must be able to show that unsustainable losses have been suffered and that there is potential conflict between the farmer and wild species predating on his or her livestock.

Our field staff will then conduct a site visit to confirm predation issues and assess the suitability of the farm to host a guardian dog to ensure that the dog’s welfare is prioritised. Once the farmer enters into an agreement with the EWT, a Livestock Guardian Dog is provided to protect his or her animals for 12 months. Within this time, we will, on a monthly basis, provide the farmer with high quality dog food, ensure the dog is treated for both ectoparasites and endoparasites. Any veterinary needs are taken care of by the EWT, at no cost to the farmer.

A field officer visits the guardian dog once a month to check on its well-being and its effectiveness. This provides us with an opportunity to address any issues that may have arisen during the month. Once the farmer and the field officer are happy that the dog is effectively doing its job and that it is well taken care of, the EWT signs the dog over to the farmer and it becomes his or her responsibility.

Although the Livestock Guardian Dog is then no longer our responsibility, farmers are encouraged to continue keeping contact with us for any help regarding any conflict-related issues that may arise, such as conflict between the dog and carnivores. Additional free support is provided to communities to ensure that their dogs are spayed and vaccinated. This reduces the spread of disease and stops the overpopulation of dogs.

Since the inception of the Livestock Guardian Dog project, we have placed 241 guard dogs with over 200 commercial and community farms throughout South Africa, dramatically reducing the level of predation and human-wildlife conflict. The dogs placed as puppies on farms are mostly Anatolian Shepherds and Maluti Shepherds.More than Eighty percent of dogs placed develop into successful Livestock Guardian Dogs. These dogs have reduced predation on farms by up to 90 percent in most cases. This makes this project the most successful mitigation method that we have to deal with livestock predation.

TORTOISE CONSERVATION – A RACE AGAINST TIME

Bonnie Schumann, Nama Karoo Coordinator

Note: Chelonians includes all tortoise, turtle, and terrapin species. For the purposes of this article, we will use the term “tortoises”.

South Africa is one of the most biodiversity-rich countries in the world and is home to no less than two of the world’s most well-known botanical biodiversity hotspots, the Succulent Karoo and Fynbos Biomes. However, few people are aware that South Africa also holds the title as the tortoise capital of the world. The country is home to no less than 13 tortoise species, most of which are endemic.

Tortoises in one form or another have been around pretty much forever if you consider that the earliest known turtle lived 260 million years ago. This little lizard-like creature had a unique characteristic: its ribs curved backwards and were exceptionally thick, forming an armoured dome under its skin. Eunotosaurus was to become the ancestor of all tortoises, turtles and terrapins. Scientists put their secret to outliving even the dinosaurs, which disappeared approximately 65 million years ago, to their conservative morphology and time-tested adaptations.

Incredibly, despite their over 200-million-year track-record of survival, globally tortoises are struggling to persist in the modern world under mankind’s relatively short but deadly reign. The statistics are damning, showing that over 60% of the 357 recognised species have either become extinct or are threatened. Approximately 52% of all assessed tortoise taxa have been classified as Critically Endangered, Endangered or Extinct.

What is driving this global spiral to extinction? Here there are no surprises. The litany of causes is familiar: habitat loss and importantly the degradation of remaining habitat, the impacts of climate change, illegal trade, and a few more locally specific ones, such as uncontrolled fires and electric fencing. However, a relatively new threat that has emerged globally is that of hyperpredation by airborne predators, primarily crows and ravens (part of a group collectively known as corvids).

A recent article by Patrick Moldowan, published in Herpetological Monographs (2023), chronicles the impact of corvid hyperpredation on tortoises globally. Unfortunately, this impact has been poorly documented in many countries, but the evidence is mounting rapidly to demonstrate that without interventions, we will see the extinction of many more tortoise species within our lifetime.

Crows are extremely intelligent, highly adaptable and will eat virtually anything. Crows and ravens have joined the ranks of what are known as subsidised species. Simply put, they are thriving globally on the wide selection of resources human activity has inadvertently provided for them. Their populations are increasing exponentially and expanding into new areas, where they become native invaders.

Hyperpredation occurs when subsidised species exert excessive pressure on prey populations. This effect has been particularly catastrophic for tortoises for several reasons. They are very long-lived but grow and mature slowly and reproduce at a slow rate. Smaller species, like the dwarf tortoises, produce only 1 – 3 eggs a year from the age of around twelve. For a population to remain stable, mature individuals need to reproduce for decades to produce enough offspring that survive to adulthood.

When it comes to crow predation, size matters, as in the case of dwarf tortoises where even adult tortoises are highly vulnerable to crow predation. Crows use their powerful bills to peck through the shells of young tortoises and can fly up with adult dwarf tortoises and drop them onto rocks to break their shells open. The loss of adult tortoises makes the recovery efforts of dwindling populations that much more challenging.

The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), in partnership with Dwarf Tortoise Conservation (DTC) and the Turtle Conservancy (TC) launched a dwarf tortoise project two years ago to locate viable populations and implement conservation action for two species of dwarf tortoises in the Karoo.

The Karoo is home to nine of the 13 tortoise species found in South Africa. There are five species of dwarf tortoise globally, four of which occur in the South African Karoo and one in Namibia. As their name implies, dwarf tortoises rank amongst the smallest of the tortoise species. In fact, the Speckled Dwarf Tortoise (Chersobius signatus), endemic to Namaqualand, is the world’s smallest tortoise species, reaching a maximum length of about 10cm. Dwarf tortoise conservation champion and researcher Victor Loehr has spent most of his life unravelling the secret life of these diminutive reptiles, contributing much of what is known about them to the scientific world. Up to 20 years ago scientists regularly surveyed tortoise populations and during Victor’s early work on Speckled Dwarf Tortoises, they were abundant. However, follow-up work at his study sites 10 years later and his most recent research on the Karoo Dwarf Tortoise (Chersobius boulengeri) has demonstrated an alarming decline in population numbers for both species.

Certainly, the EWT team has struggled to find a single viable population of the Karoo or the Speckled Dwarf Tortoise over the last two years of extensive surveys; these two species are the focus of the initial conservation project. Over 20 surveys have yielded depressingly few live animals; in most cases only shell fragments are to be found. During the most recent survey near Calvinia in April this year, the EWT team recorded the largest number of dead Speckled Dwarf Tortoises at a single location. A total of 45 carcasses were documented under and around a crow’s nest in a dead tree, with another 10 carcasses recorded on the adjacent slope. Five more were recorded elsewhere on the property, bringing the total to 60 dead Speckled Dwarf Tortoises on one property, many of which were mature tortoises. In stark contrast the team found only two live tortoises. It is important to understand that although tortoises occur in some of South Africa’s protected areas, this does not mean we can pack up and go home. If the causes of decline, including hyperpredation by crows, are not clearly understood and addressed, their survival in protected areas is not guaranteed and may have already been compromised.

Currently the only species of tortoise in South Africa with a dedicated conservation project is the Critically Endangered Geometric Tortoise (Psammobates geometricus). We urgently need to implement concerted conservation efforts for the other tortoise species, including all the dwarf tortoise species and other relatively small species such as the tent tortoises. The outlook for all these species is grim without specific conservation interventions. The EWT is collaborating closely with local and international tortoise experts, landowners, and provincial conservation authorities, in a race against time to come up with a strategy to protect South Africa’s remaining dwarf tortoise populations. 20 Years of research in the Mohave Desert, aimed at understanding the raven-tortoise conflict, and to come up with innovative solutions, is helping inform the way forward in South Africa. What is clear though, is that time is running out fast and we cannot afford to be timid in our approach. Tough decisions are going to need to be made when it comes to protecting tortoises from crow predation and any further loss of habitat.

The EWT tortoise conservation work is supported by Turtle Conservancy, Dwarf Tortoise Conservation, Rainforest Trust and the IUCN NL. A special word of thanks to the tortoise survey volunteers, especially the Conservation Biology students from the University of Western Cape and UNISA, and the Ford Wildlife Foundation.

How you can help:

Manage grazing responsibly.
Include the ecology of sensitive species in your fire management plan.
Deter crows; remove unused windmills and telephone poles.
Raise electric strands at least 25cm above ground, switch power off during the day and install offset wire for larger tortoise spp.
Drive with care, especially when in the veld.
Combat wildlife crime by reporting suspicious persons.
Verify people claiming to do research with the organization the claim to be from.
Support local conservation initiatives.

All tortoises are protected species and listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) as well as provincial legislation, such as the CapeNature Conservation ordinance of 1974 and National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004. It is illegal to collect any tortoise species in South Africa, and they may not be kept as pets without a permit.

Speckled dwarf tortoise Picture: JP le Roux
Karoo Padloper
A rare find: A Greater Padloper

Speckled Dwarf Tortoise graveyard
UWC and Unisa students on a field trip to research tortoises in the Karoo

Lions remain listed as Vulnerable in the 2023 Red List Assessment

By Dr Samantha Nicholson, Senior Carnivore Scientist & Manager of the African Lion Database

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (hereafter the Red List), established in 1964, offers a comprehensive overview of global conservation status, covering plants, animals, and habitats.

With 150,300 species assessed globally, 28% are threatened with extinction, including notable percentages in various taxa. These assessments serve as vital tools for conservation efforts, employing standardised criteria to evaluate extinction risk based on factors such as threats, habitat loss, and population trends. This approach, guided by rigorous standards, provides a clear understanding of species vulnerability and aids in prioritising conservation actions.

The Red List’s systematic approach helps identify species at high risk of extinction, guiding global, regional, and local conservation priorities. While appeals are possible, listings are generally accepted by range states, conservation bodies, and international conventions. Red List assessments inform targeted conservation strategies and resource allocation, guiding conservation action for species and habitats. They foster global commitment and unity among range states in addressing conservation challenges. Additionally, the Red List Index tracks overall trends in extinction risk, serving as a crucial indicator for measuring progress towards reducing biodiversity loss on an international scale.

Determining a species’ listing involves a systematic process conducted by expert assessors following IUCN Red List criteria. Assessments consider factors like population decline, current population size and trends, distribution, and population fragmentation. They also incorporate the probability of extinction over a specified timeframe, often utilising modelling techniques. Data from various sources, including scientific studies and expert assessments, inform these evaluations. Assessors apply strict criteria to determine the species’ conservation status accurately.

Data on the Lion, an omnipresent symbol for Africa, was recently updated by several lion experts led by the Endangered Wildlife Trust’s Dr Sam Nicholson.

The Lion, once widespread in Africa, has suffered significant declines in population and range in recent decades. These declines, more severe for lions compared to other large carnivores, have led to consistent Vulnerable listings in IUCN assessments since 1996. The team of assessors found that the extant Lion range in 2023 is estimated to be only 6% of its historical range, highlighting the severity of the decline. The current population of adult and subadult Lions in Africa is estimated to be between 22,000 and 25,000, with an additional ~670 Lions in India. These figures represent a decline from previous estimates and underscore the urgency of conservation efforts.

Various factors contribute to the decline of Lion populations. Habitat loss, primarily driven by human activities such as deforestation and land conversion, is identified as the most significant threat. Depletion of prey bases, exacerbated by poaching and the bushmeat trade, further exacerbates the problem.

Human-Lion conflict, often resulting in the killing of Lions to protect human life and livestock, adds to the pressure on populations. Additionally, the trade in Lion body parts for traditional medicine poses a growing threat, as does poorly regulated trophy hunting, which can lead to population declines if not managed effectively. The impact of violent extremism in certain Lion ranges in Africa is also a concern, as it further jeopardises conservation efforts. Instances of poaching for Lion body parts, particularly in Mozambique, highlight the need for increased vigilance and enforcement measures to combat illegal trade.

Despite these challenges, there have been efforts to mitigate threats and conserve Lion populations. Reintroduction programs in certain areas have shown promise (e.g. Zembeze Delta in Mozambique, Akagera National Park in Rwanda), and recommendations for improved management practices in activities such as trophy hunting have been made. However, more comprehensive monitoring and enforcement are necessary to ensure the long-term survival of the species.

Given the ongoing and increasing threats faced by Lions across their fragmented range, it is recommended that the species be closely monitored, with a reassessment of its threat status after a minimum three-year period, or as soon as new information emerges. The decline in both population and range, coupled with the continuation of known threats, justifies its classification as Vulnerable according to the specified criteria. Urgent action is needed to address the complex challenges facing Lion conservation and secure a future for this iconic species.

The Lion’s Vulnerable status reflects a critical need for long-term survival efforts. The dwindling lion population not only raises ecological concerns, but also has economic and cultural repercussions. As apex predators, lions regulate ecosystems, affecting biodiversity. Economically, reduced lion numbers may impact tourism revenue in countries reliant on lion-based tourism. Culturally, lions hold symbolic importance, and their decline could affect traditions and spiritual beliefs.

The latest Red List assessment provides enhanced knowledge on the status of the species including data gaps, threats, geographic distribution and changes in range. The full assessment is on the IUCN website and can be accessed here

First comprehensive meta-analysis shows conservation action contributes to reversing and halting biodiversity loss

By Eleanor Momberg

A new study published in the scientific journal Science provides the strongest evidence yet that environmental conservation is not only successful, but that scaling up conservation interventions will contribute to reversing and halting biodiversity loss.

“We have shown that across a full suite of conservation actions and intervention types, multiple levels and metrics of biodiversity, and over a century of action, conservation has improved the state of biodiversity—or at least slowed its decline—compared with no conservation action,” the report states.

The findings of the first-ever comprehensive meta-analysis of the impact of conservation action are critical as more than 44,000 species are listed as being at the risk of extinction. This holds tremendous consequences for ecosystems that stabilise the climate and which provide millions of people worldwide with a number of ecosystem services, including clean water and supporting livelihoods.

The research, funded through the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) by the Global Environment Facility, points to the recent adoption by government of the Global Biodiversity Framework aimed at reversing and halting biodiversity loss adding this made it even more critical to understand whether conservation actions are working.

Lead author of the study and executive vice president of Re:wild, Penny Langhammer, said: “If you look only at the trend of species declines, it would be easy to think that we’re failing to protect biodiversity, but you would not be looking at the full picture. What we show with this paper is that conservation is, in fact, working to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. It is clear that conservation must be prioritised and receive significant additional resources and political will globally, while we simultaneously address the systemic drivers of biodiversity loss, such as overconsumption and production.”

The report in Science indicates that although many papers look at individual conservation projects and interventions and their impact compared to no action taken, these papers have never been pulled into a single analysis to see how and whether conservation action is working overall.

Lauren Waller, the EWT’s Regional Planning Coordinator in the Conservation and Science Planning Unit said a meta-analysis of 186 case studies, including more than 665 trials, was conducted to determine the impact of the various conservation interventions undertaken globally. These were compared with what would or could have happened without any conservation interventions.

“The study showed that conservation improved the state of biodiversity, or slowed the decline in biodiversity loss. It also showed that species-targeted interventions were particularly effective,” said Waller, who is also the IUCN SSC Conservation Planning Specialist Group (CPSG) Regional Resource Centre Convenor for Southern and East Africa.

Among the key findings are that in two-thirds of cases, conservation either improved the state of biodiversity or at least slowed declines and that interventions targeted at species and ecosystems, such as invasive species control, habitat loss reduction and restoration, protected areas, and sustainable management, are highly effective and have large effect sizes. This provides the strongest evidence to date that conservation actions are successful but require transformational scaling up to meet global targets, the report states.

Robust impact assessment using a counterfactual approach revealed that conservation action has prevented extinctions and reduced extinction risk for species across taxonomic groups compared with an absence of conservation action. There has been an increase over the last decade in studies evaluating the impact of specific conservation actions from global to local scales using counterfactual comparisons, including effects of protected areas, payments for environmental services, invasive alien species (IAS) eradications and sustainable management of ecosystems.

“This paper is not only extremely important in providing robust evidence of the impact of conservation actions. It is also extremely timely in informing crucial international policy processes, including the establishment of a 20-year vision for IUCN, the development of an IPBES assessment of biodiversity monitoring, and the delivery of the action targets toward the outcome goals of the new Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework,” Thomas Brooks, IUCN chief scientist and co-author of the study, said.

The paper also argues that there must be more investment specifically in the effective management of protected areas, which remain the cornerstone for many conservation actions. Consistent with other studies, this study finds that protected areas work very well on the whole. And what other studies have shown is that when protected areas are not working, it is typically the result of a lack of effective management and adequate resourcing. Protected areas will be even more effective at reducing biodiversity loss if they are well-resourced and well-managed.

Protected areas have been shown to be effective in reducing conversion of natural land cover, terrestrial habitat loss, coral loss, tropical forest fires, species extinction risk, and in increasing biomass and density of marine organisms. The results, however concur that while their effectiveness is not universal, protected areas are an important tool for achieving conservation outcomes. Well-resourced and well-managed protected areas are needed to effectively reduce biodiversity loss, the paper states.

Dr Sam Ferreira, SANParks large mammal ecologist said at the South African National Satellite Event of the World Species Congress, that the global biodiversity crisis, driven primarily by human activity, was accelerating at unprecedented rates.

Human-driven threats such as poaching, habitat destruction, and human-wildlife conflict are increasing with growing human populations, leading to alarming declines in animal populations and ranges. This crisis, irreversible in nature, poses one of the most serious environmental threats to the planet. The interconnectedness of species within ecosystems underscores the significance of biodiversity, with the extinction of one species disrupting the delicate balance of entire ecosystems. For instance, the decline of bee pollinators due to habitat loss, pesticide use, and climate change threatens not only plant species but also other species dependent on them, illustrating the cascading effects of species loss on the web of life, including humans.

“Urgent action is needed to mitigate these threats and preserve biodiversity for the health of ecosystems and human well-being,” said Ferreira.

The meta-analysis adds that although the state of biodiversity is declining across the globe in absolute terms, conservation actions work most of the time. The challenge now is to expand these to the scale necessary to reverse the global biodiversity crisis. That is, conservation interventions are working but there are simply not enough conservation actions implemented or in the right places.

Realising the highly ambitious vision of the GBF will require ongoing assessment of the impact of specific conservation interventions to inform adaptive management with evidence. Importantly, it will require substantially scaled-up funding and commitment for implementation of demonstrably effective conservation interventions—a real transformational change—which in turn depends on increased political will and investment.

Such an increase in conservation action and associated outcomes will require expanded implementation and significant additional investment across many sectors of society, particularly beyond the traditional conservation sector, the report said.

The authors of a meta-analysis contend that more and better counterfactual studies are needed for a wider range of conservation interventions and geographic regions. Particular gaps include assessments of pollution control, climate change adaptation, sustainable use of species, habitat loss reduction (beyond protected areas), actions targeting species and genetic diversity, and conservation actions in the Global South.

The EWT calls for a revision and republication of a completed Draft Biodiversity Economy Strategy for public comment

By Eleanor Momberg

The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) has called for a revision and the republication for public comment, for a period of 30 days, of the government’s National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES).

The Strategy was published for a 14-day public comment period on 8 March 2024. The comment period was later extended to 16 April 2024.

The EWT submitted extensive comments in two parts to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) on 16 April 2024 outlining its general arguments regarding the NBES and detailed comment on specific issues contained in the document.

An initial NBES was published for implementation by the Department in 2016 outlining the steps necessary to ensure the success of the commercial wildlife and bioprospecting industries, as well as the transformation of both sectors of the South African economy. The 14-year plan’s aim was to provide a basis for addressing constraints to growth, ensuring sustainability, identifying clear stakeholder’s responsibilities and monitoring progress of the Enabling Actions. In terms of the first NBES, the goal has been to achieve an average annualised GDP growth rate of 10% per annum by 2030 in the biodiversity economy.

The Draft National Biodiversity Economy Strategy gazetted in March 2024 (link to the gazette) is a revision of the existing NBES and aims to “optimise biodiversity-based business potentials” across most economic sectors “for thriving people and nature”.

“In reviewing the NBES, the Strategy has been broadened to respond to the White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa ‘s Biodiversity (the White Paper) as well as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), whilst incorporating the outcomes of the National Operation Phakisa Oceans and Biodiversity Labs, and addressing opportunities associated with all ecosystems,” the NBES Executive Summary states.

By broadening the terms of the Strategy, it has been “completely reconceptualised as a broad strategy to guide the whole of the biodiversity economy”.

The EWT, in its comments on the latest iteration of the NBES (link to the laws document), recognises the value that ecological sustainable use of wildlife brings to South Africa, and supports conservation practices that, within the scope of the law in the country, promote the ecologically sustainable use of wild animals in natural free-living conditions to the benefit of all.

While the EWT upholds the provisions of the environmental right contained in the Constitution, it does not support the industrial-scale production and management of South Africa’s wildlife when these activities are not in line with the principles of ecologically sustainable use, animal well-being and do not benefit the conservation of the species in the wild.

“These practices may also result in environmental harm and wildlife well-being concerns,” the EWT submission states.

In welcoming the opportunity to play a constructive role in developing an appropriate and equitable biodiversity economy strategy as part of the broader development of a sustainable green economy, while ensuring the enhanced protection of the country’s biodiversity, the EWT submits that the NBES itself is lacking in both content and clarity. Unless revised, it risks impeding ecologically sustainable use.

More information is required on the business cases underpinning the actions listed, and the economic information that has been considered in motivation for these activities.

“Critically, the NBES as it stands lacks SMART objectives, objectives that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and time bound.”

Detailed comments by the EWT deal with the goals outlined in the NBES highlighting various shortcomings requiring attentions. In almost all instances, the EWT points out a lack of clarity on the goals proposed, whether these can be justified, or considered realistic.

The EWT’s response to the first goal related to leverage biodiversity-based features to scale inclusive ecotourism industry growth in seascapes and in sustainable conservation land-use, points out the lack of explanation to justify targets provided, as well as the lack of clarity on what type of ecotourism infrastructure is to be developed in the buffer zones.

Similarly, with the goal to prioritise infrastructure development and viable enterprises in community reserves and areas adjacent to fauna/ Biq 5 areas. Here the EWT states the prioritising infrastructure development on the edge of protected areas undermines the principles of establishing ecological buffers around protected areas, a core principle for retaining the integrity of these areas as illustrated by the spatial structure of biosphere reserves, as well as Ecological Support Areas surrounding Critical Biodiversity Areas. These projects in must comply with environmental regulations to mitigate potential negative impacts on ecosystems, habitats, or protected areas, ensuring compliance with relevant laws and regulations and avoiding residual impacts where possible.

The EWT points out that the second goal of consumptive use of game from extensive wildlife systems at scale that drives transformation and expanded sustainable conservation compatible land-use lacks clarity. It is unrealistic and could potentially undermine sustainable management efforts to expect consumptive use of game from extensive systems at scale to “drive” transformation.

Questioning how realistic the hunting targets proposed are, the EWT points out that the NBES is silent on whether there is in fact a market for the degree of hunting indicated, adding that the quota targets have not been justified with an economic motivation that explains their contribution towards national tourism and or socio-economic revenue. The same applies to the actions related to so-called traditional hunting. If these hunting methods are illegal, unsustainable or do not ensure the well-being of the animal, the EWT cannot supported the action, even if it is considered traditional.

Regarding legislation to guide the implementation of the game meat industry, the EWT states that while it supports initiatives to advance game meat consumption, “we are wholly opposed to the slaughter of wild animals in abattoirs as this fundamentally infringes on their well-being”.

Until the Game Meat Regulations are promulgated and the exception to section 11(1)(i) of the Meat Safety Act 40 of 2000 becomes effective, game meat production as an economic opportunity is not viable. Game meat production can only be commercialised if the legislation governing the slaughter, processing and sale is promulgated, implemented and enforced.

The NBES is also silent on how the well-being of the individual animals will be considered and ensured. It is critical that the well-being of the animals utilised have been addressed with respect to their nutritional, environmental, physical, behavioural and mental health, when placed within these areas for ecologically sustainable harvesting.

The EWT adds that while it recognises the importance of a more inclusive fisheries sector, most of the country’s commercial marine harvesting is already at capacity and there is very little room to sustainably expand this without compromising the stocks and detrimentally impacting vulnerable ecosystems and threatened species. Thus, any strategy developed around sustainable marine harvesting would also need to account for maintaining fish stocks at a viable level to sustain species dependant on them such as the African Penguin.

The organisation also argues that abalone poaching cannot be attributed to “non-transformation of the sector,” stating that enhanced regulation and stringent enforcement is required to curb these illegal activities.

With regard to identifying mechanisms to scale cultivation of indigenous medicinal plants for sustainable use within the traditional medicine sector, the EWT submits that without the inclusion of market evaluations and financial data, it is difficult to evaluate how the number of nurseries identified in the NBES is warranted and can be sustained.

With regard to the resolution of outstanding land claims, the EWT submits that this is a critical barrier to protected area exapansion and proposes that a target be included for provincial proclamations of protected areas It would be beneficial, the EWT statesm if all undeveloped governmentproperties are collated and published for more insight and a review into the realistic opportunity for long-term conservation security.

Clarity is sought to what the NBES regards as “large community owned conservation areas”, as without this it would not be possible to determine whether this objective has been achieved or not.

Commenting on the enabler related to financing of the biodiversity economy, the EWT expressed its concern with the suggestion that this action would pay for conservation alone, without an assessment of the contribution of the full value chain of biodiversity and for the value of all ecosystem services towards the national economy and for human well-being being considered.

Alternative and more creative means of finance needed to be sourced and implemented to ensure the success of the biodiversity economy, and related Strategy.

Although the EWT supports the intention of DFFE to explore and develop economic opportunities relating to the ecologically sustainable and ethical use of biodiversity resources, the draft NBES requires extensive amendment. It is hoped that through the public comments received the present draft NBES would be enhanced before being published for a new round of public participation.

“The NBES needs to be revised, fully completed and republished for public comment for a minimum of 30 days,” the EWT submission reads.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »