The crucial word missing from SA’s wildlife debate
South Africa’s bitter arguments over hunting, trade, captive breeding and the wildlife economy tend to revolve around ‘sustainable use’. But that shorthand leaves out a crucial word.
The debate surrounding South Africa's wildlife economy tends to focus heavily on the concept of "sustainable use," a term that encapsulates various activities such as hunting, trade, captive breeding, and wildlife ranching. However, this shorthand approach often overlooks a crucial term: "ecologically." While Section 24 of the South African Constitution grants the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or wellbeing, and mandates the protection of the environment for future generations, it also requires that natural resource use be carried out within ecological limits.
This implies that wildlife use should not be unrestricted, as financial sustainability does not necessarily equate to ecological sustainability. For instance, captive breeding programs might increase animal numbers but fail to contribute to the conservation of wild populations. Similarly, hunting or harvesting can generate revenue while compromising genetic integrity, disrupting social structures, or damaging ecosystems.
Therefore, the primary question should revolve around whether the activity protects wild populations, genetic diversity, ecological processes, and functioning natural systems as outlined by the Constitution. Only by prioritizing ecological sustainability can the benefits of wildlife-based enterprises—such as job creation and economic value—be assured without compromising the long-term health of ecosystems and the wellbeing of future generations.
Brief written by urgent.news from Daily Maverick's own syndicated text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
