To: The Director-General
Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
FAO: Ms Tsepang Makholela
Email:   whitepaper2@dffe.gov.za

Date:     9^th November 2022

Feedback on the revised draft White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity

Introduction

Blood Lions welcomed the first draft White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable use of South Africa’s Biodiversity gazetted in July 2022. We recognised in our first submission that this White Paper had the potential to lay the foundation for a more holistic and contemporary approach to biodiversity conservation and hence a better protection of South Africa’s rich biodiversity heritage. It represented a paradigm shift away from outdated policies and models, and towards more modern approaches to the conservation of biodiversity, founded on the principles of Ubuntu, which we applauded.

It is encouraging to see that the second draft of the White Paper has been condensed significantly, making it a lot easier to follow and digest. We are also encouraged by the renewed focus on equitable sharing and removing barriers for local communities to experience and get involved with biodiversity. This is long overdue to, among others, help raise awareness and change mindsets of local communities towards wildlife and biodiversity conservation in Africa.

We are pleased to see that the principle of “people first” has substantially been reduced in this second draft, however this seems to have been replaced by a strong focus on sustainable utilisation which is still anthropocentric, rather than being focussed on the conservation of biodiversity for present and future generations with an emphasis on the intrinsic and existence values of the environment and its components.

These two key definitions and tenets (intrinsic value and existence value) have effectively been removed from the Guiding Principles and the remainder of the White Paper, which is extremely worrisome. These values have now been reduced to vague mentions in sentences such as “South Africa supports the sustainable use of biodiversity of the intrinsic, relational and instrumental values of biodiversity” and “In addition to these economic benefits, there are a wide range of other values and benefits that people derive from nature, including existence value”.

We strongly recommend returning the clear focus on the intrinsic, existence and ecosystem service values of wildlife and biodiversity, with all the benefits this brings for human health and well-being as well as to the wider economy, as opposed to the existing focus of the White Paper on the commercial value of wild animals through consumptive use. Contribution to GDP should not be the primary measure of the value of biodiversity, as this can also be achieved through non-consumptive uses.

This second draft of the White Paper again puts a lot of emphasis on giving effect to and aligning with Section 24 of the Constitution of South Africa, which is commendable. However, the phrase used in Section 24 of the Constitution is “Ecologically Sustainable Use” and should therefore be used consistently throughout the White Paper document. Currently, the White Paper distinguishes in parts between consumptive and non-consumptive sustainable use, however in other parts the generic term “sustainable use” remains and is sometimes replaced with “ecologically sustainable use” or “sustainable development”. The multitude of terms used for this one concept not only creates potential confusion but can also lead to loopholes in this vitally important document.

Furthermore, animal well-being and sentience have taken a massive step backwards in this second draft and there is no mention of One Health – One Welfare. This is not only deeply concerning from an animal welfare/well-being perspective, but also from a standpoint of human health. Wild animals are believed to be the source of at least 70% of all emerging zoonotic diseases and their commercial trade provides many opportunities for the movement of pathogens across national and international boundaries. Evidence has shown that wild animals involved in sustainable use and/or commercial wildlife trade often experience compromised immune systems when subjected to stressful and substandard welfare conditions, and in particular when kept in close proximity to other wild animal species, which can exacerbate the risk of zoonotic disease transmission. 

The considerable and real risk of the transmission of zoonotic diseases between wild animals and humans should not only receive careful consideration but should be the principal concern of any ex-situ use of animals, as the economic consequences of an epidemic (or pandemic for that matter) are far greater than the economic benefits of the activity itself.

 

You will find below some additional comments and feedback on specific parts of the revised draft White Paper.

Executive summary:

• Page 3 – paragraph 2: The reasons why the White Paper has been developed, “to set the country on a strong path of sustainable development based on the rich biodiversity and ecological infrastructure which supports ecosystem functioning for livelihoods and well-being of people” is too anthropocentric and omits the intrinsic and existence values of the environment and its components.
• Page 3: We are encouraged to see the identification and inclusion of challenges that require policy intervention, in particular points 1, 2, 5 and 6 are welcomed.
• Page 4 – Goal 2: Should speak of “ecologically sustainable use” per Section 24 of the Constitution – see also comment in Introduction above around sustainable use.

 

1. Introduction and Background

• Section 1.1 – Policy Issue Identification: Positive to see the “uneven effectiveness in governance and shortages of human, financial and other resources” acknowledged as a key barrier.
• Vision: The new vision omits a vitally important mandate of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, namely to conserve biodiversity for present and future generations.
• 5.2 Pressures and Drivers (Page 11 – paragraph 1): The sweeping statement “Both wildlife ranching and livestock farming are vitally important land uses for both socio-economic development and biodiversity conservation, but can have negative impacts if conducted too intensively, or inappropriately”:
  • A definition of “wildlife ranching” should be included in the White Paper to provide clarity, a common understanding of the meaning and implication of the term, as well as potential identification of issues such as best practice.
  • The statement that these land uses are vitally important for biodiversity conservation, rather than solely providing socio-economic benefits, should be backed up with solid scientific evidence or otherwise omitted from this sentence.
  • The wording “conducted too intensively, or inappropriately” is ambiguous and subjective, and should be explained further or have examples provided.
• 1.5.3 Benefits derived from South Africa’s Biodiversity: Throughout this section the term “sustainable use” should be replaced with “ecologically sustainable use”.
• 1.6.3 Provincial and Municipal Laws and Policies: The section should strongly promote the updating and alignment of provincial nature conservation statutes with existing national legislation, to avoid conflicting mandates and potential litigation.

 

2. Definitions

• Animal well-being: This definition needs to include the wording in red “…and quality of life and death, including….”.
• Conservation: We are encouraged to see the removal of reference to “sustainable use” and inclusion of “intrinsic value” in this definition.
• Humane: We applaud the inclusion of this new definition, but the word undue in the phrase “undue pain, stress, suffering, or distress” is problematic and ambiguous. The definition also fails to recognise animal sentience.
• Sustainable Use: It is encouraging that the definition now includes reference to ecological sustainability. However, the definition fails to recognise the intrinsic value of individual animals and populations, and not only their humane use.

 

3. Guiding Principles

• General comment: It is hugely disappointing to see that the recognition of intrinsic and existence values and animal well-being, and hence the recognition that animals are sentient beings capable of suffering and experiencing pain, have completely disappeared from the White Paper guiding principles.
• It is encouraging to see the addition of “Good Governance” as a guiding principle.

 

4. Goals and Enablers

• General comment: All reference to human health and the prevention or minimisation of the risk of animal-human transmission and further evolution of zoonotic diseases associated with wild animals has been removed, which is concerning (see also comments in Introduction).
• Goal 2 – Sustainable Use:
  • Should refer to Ecologically Sustainable Use.
  • Paragraph 1 should also include “animal well-being”.
  • Encouraging to see the inclusion in the last paragraph that sustainable use should avoid practices, actions or activities that are inhumane.

• Goal 3 – Equitable Access and Benefit Sharing:
  • We are encouraged to see one of the focal points has moved from “concerns with ownership of biodiversity” to “concerns with access to biodiversity”, something which is vitally important for biodiversity conservation.

• Goal 4 – Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use is Transformative:
  • This goal puts crucial emphasis on environmental rights, as intended in the Constitution, including but not limited to preventing harm to human health or well-being. However, this is not followed through in the remainder of the White Paper, where reference to potential harm to human health from zoonotic diseases is no longer featured (see also comments in Introduction).

• Enabler 1 – Integrated, Mainstreamed and Effective Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use:
  • It is concerning that all reference to funding and resourcing as a key constraint on sustaining the sector, let alone growing it, has been removed. This is absolutely key to the ultimate success of the intent of the White Paper and we would like to reiterate the need for sustainable funding and resourcing. Innovative funding schemes, such as UNDP Biodiversity Finance Initiative, Rebalance Earth initiative, and carbon debt schemes, should be considered to (partly) replace the contested revenue from consumptive use.
  • We are encouraged to see that multi-sectoral approach and cooperation has been adopted.

• Enabler 2: Enhanced Means of Implementation:
  • We support the overall focus on implementation mechanisms, such as mobilising resources, capacity development and knowledge generation. Capacity building and education across the board are essential to ensure conservation of South Africa’s biological diversity sustainably, in particular considering the disconnect between an increasing urban population and the lack of respect and understanding of nature, ecosystems and biodiversity.

5. Strategic Linkages and Impact

• Page 26 – paragraph 2: The old Vision (from the first draft White Paper) has been used in this section and needs to be amended.

 

7. Policy Objectives and Expected Outcomes

• Goal 1:
  • Concerned that prevention of zoonotic diseases has been removed in its entirety (as outlined above).
  • Policy Objective 1.6 – Output 8 and 11: Breeding for commercial purposes (output 11) contradicts the minimization of risk of domestication of wild animals (output 8). Allowing breeding for commercial purposes rather than conservation purposes – even if that is done responsibly, has demonstrable conservation benefits or advances sustainable use – will inevitably lead to domestication. Ex-situ breeding practices should be limited to those circumstances where the conservation needs of the species requires such ex-situ interventions, e.g., breeding for repopulating conservation areas. We therefore recommend deleting output 11.

• Goal 2:
  • Policy Objective 2.5: It is positive to see the promotion of duty of care, including humane practices towards wild animals. However, with the lack of recognition of animal sentience and the use of the word “undue” in the definition of humane, this leaves this policy objective wide open to abuse.
  • The integration of well-being of wild animals and populations into policy, legislation, tools and practices is welcomed, but the proof is in the pudding when it comes to enforcement and prosecution.

• Goal 3:
  • The output (“efficient permitting system to regulate and promote bioprospecting and biotrade, while protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services”) seems to have been removed which is concerning as regulation can only work if a robust, electronic national/central permitting system is put into place. The provincial (often outdated paper-based) systems are not adequate for effective regulation.