Biodiversity Stewardship Stakeholder Engagement
Written by Ivan Latti
Hi All
I attended the above Workshop in Pretoria on 4 September on behalf of the Hartebeestfontein Conservancy. Some report will follow from the organizers, so here are only some initial observations of the event and the issue. I believe that the wider and deeper the understanding of the Biodiversity Stewardship process becomes, the better for nature and all its stakeholders. So I send you these first impressions to post the topic in your minds and to raise the level of debate and dialogue concerning it. Comments as to where I am wrong in my thinking expressed here and what you consider important will help in stimulating sensible dialogue.
The event was well attended; I noted our Conservancy’s friends Helen Duigan, Mercia Komen and John Wesson there among many others. The proceedings were well organized and the presenters spoke clearly on their enthusiastic views regarding a topic that is not yet fully shaped as to how it will affect us in Gauteng. The event was led by GDARD or the Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, which replaces GDACE and will be important in our Conservancy’s life in future. Note that Environment is apparently sitting in a different Department these days.
Biodiversity protection is based on identifying about 10% of SA land that holds irreplaceable value in natural resources of some kind and making deals with owners to protect nature there especially, as there isn’t money or even a logical possibility of the State buying so much land for conservation by the State directly. The deals are based on winning friends in the broad populace, convincing them to agree to conserve their land voluntarily on a four tier system, ranging from conservancies at the lowest, ‘most free’ level, up to formally declared nature reserves, fully under State control. The target is set by National Government, but for Gauteng 158 000 hectares or 9% of the province’s land has been determined. Whether specific land has been identified in all cases is unclear, probably partly, but inspection of targeted land is foreseen to allow for an offset principle, i.e. if some target land cannot be used for some reason, arrangements for replacing it by other land must be considered. (How this will work is one aspect for the next planned steps to be finalized in a Biodiversity stewardship Manual that will spell out how Gauteng will implement this process.)
These things are being shaped currently by tentative efforts at provincial level to seek what is most workable in practical terms. The workshop was aimed at gaining thoughts from diverse parties, building relationships, getting buy-in regarding the appropriate conservation strategies, disseminating information about the field and building the base for implementation of a Gauteng plan. Some other provinces have already gone further with this and some of the knowledge being used involves consultants like Brian Reeves, a speaker on the day, who previously worked in the rest of the country on these matters. Gauteng wit its vast population in a comparatively small area has special threats, but also special natural resources that will take wisdom to conserve.
There will be much consultation it seems on the shaping of the Biodiversity Stewardship Manual. This framework/rulebook document will then be implemented and must surely be enforced by the Provincial Government through GDARD. At the lower of the four conservation agreement levels there will be flexibility by agreement, i.e. if both parties have ideas there will be give and take. (If parties ignore the process they might not like the product!) The higher the level on the 4-point scale, the longer the fixed agreement (up to 99 years, as opposed to 5 years at the lowest level, as the talk is going at this stage).
To emphasize: If the owners/the public say nothing about the draft manual, the system may not be so balanced, flexible or agreeable. So we have to listen, think, and work actively in what is presented in future to safeguard interests and to have stewardship arrangements which are reasonable, enlightened in terms of all stakeholder considerations and balanced in terms of long term trust relationship with the authorities that will be in place to ensure implementation and to enforce the necessary measures.
Some motivational sweeteners (apart from consultation to shape the process by consensus) are being sought to make the stewardship concept attractive and to convince landowners to participate in agreements, such as possible tax concessions, but these will function only for landowners who are getting an income from the land (and in some cases maybe from any source, but that seems to be unclear and SARS may not listen much to the Department dealing with conservation, one thinks).
If you are very green, well off enough to allow your land to be largely devoted to nature conservation, you may find the proposed arrangements light, acceptable and even a great step forward. If you have to earn a living from the land in question, you may have to listen very carefully and define exactly what freedoms you need to protect for balancing your lifestyle with that of your resident frogs, beetles and bushes! A good farmer understands dependence on nature, but the market sometimes pulls his/her thinking to other considerations, some of which are basic to food production, whilst others have already destroyed natural resources in the past. Balance means understanding both sides; conservation means commitment and continued dedication by all stakeholders!
Watch this issue of biodiversity stewardship unfold and be active and reasonable in making it a constructive and successful part of our future lifestyle in ensuring quality of life for the coming generations.
Regards
Ivan Latti
