South Africa's wildlife debate has become increasingly centered around the phrase "sustainable use". However, this shorthand has led to a crucial word being quietly dropped: "ecologically". The Constitution of South Africa, Section 24, gives everyone the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing and requires that the environment be protected for present and future generations. This section obliges the state to take reasonable measures to prevent ecological degradation, promote conservation, and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources.
The concept of sustainable use has been invoked by various stakeholders, including the government, conservation organizations, hunting associations, wildlife ranchers, and animal welfare groups. However, these groups often have different interpretations of what sustainable use means. Without the word "ecologically", sustainability can be defined in various ways, potentially leading to activities that are financially sustainable but not ecologically sustainable. For instance, captive breeding programs may produce increasing numbers of animals without contributing to the conservation of wild populations.
The use of wildlife can create jobs, generate income, and sustain rural economies. However, the primary question should be whether the activity protects wild populations, genetic diversity, ecological processes, and functioning natural systems as envisioned by the Constitution. Wildlife-based enterprises can provide incentives to retain land for conservation and give wildlife economic value in landscapes where it might otherwise disappear. Nevertheless, these benefits cannot, by themselves, establish that an activity is sustainable.
The government's White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa's Biodiversity, 2023, provides a useful framework for addressing this issue. It defines sustainable use as the use of biodiversity in a manner that is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable. Such use should not contribute to the long-term decline of biodiversity in the wild, disrupt the genetic integrity of populations, or damage the ecological integrity of the ecosystems in which they occur.
The White Paper's definition of sustainable use provides practical meaning to the constitutional principle. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the use of biodiversity is ecologically sustainable and does not harm the environment. This is particularly relevant in the context of South Africa's most divisive wildlife controversies, such as captive lion breeding, canned hunting, lion-bone exports, trophy-hunting quotas, intensive wildlife production, game meat, rhino-horn trade, and elephant management.
A more workable approach to wildlife management is to recognize responsible use as a potential conservation tool, subject to clear ecological, ethical, and social boundaries. Instead of approving or rejecting an activity solely based on its involvement of hunting, trade, tourism, harvesting, or commercial gain, it is essential to ask harder questions. These questions include whether the activity maintains or restores ecological integrity, supports viable populations in the wild, protects genetic diversity and natural behavior, and is humane and consistent with a duty of care.
The importance of applying the test of ecological sustainability consistently cannot be overstated. By doing so, much of the ideological fog surrounding wildlife management can be cleared, leaving room for responsible use where it demonstrably benefits wildlife, landscapes, and people. This approach can help prevent the phrase "sustainable use" from becoming a convenient label for activities that are sustainable only as businesses. Ultimately, the question is not simply between "use" and "no use", but rather what kind of use, under what conditions, with what ecological consequences.
Key points
- The concept of sustainable use in South Africa's wildlife debate has been criticized for omitting the crucial word "ecologically".
- The country's Constitution requires the state to take reasonable measures to prevent ecological degradation and promote conservation.
- A more workable approach to wildlife management is to recognize responsible use as a potential conservation tool, subject to clear ecological, ethical, and social boundaries.
