Since 1992 a lot of effort has gone into re-uniting the elephant population and,  more importantly, developing a comprehensive Management system for Maputaland that is not based on political delineations, but on the ecology of the area. Chief amongst these is the plan to create a Transfrontier Conservation Area that will not only link Tembe and the Maputo Elephant Reserves, but that will also incorporate the community conservation areas between and around these reserves (including the troubled Ndumo Game Reserve). Major achievements include the proclamation of the Futi-corridor and the Ponta do Our Marine reserve and the incorporation of some 10,000ha of communal land on the South African side of the border into the Mega-reserve. However, in Mozambique especially, more effort has gone into getting official proclamations signed than ensuring community participating and support for the process. This could prove disastrous as there are so many case studies from across the world that show that Parks are for People and without community consent and support they are doomed to failure. The time is right to mobilise civil society action at a community level in Mozambique and I was extremely fortunate to meet some of the local groupings doing just that when I visited the country last month. My biggest surprise was running into Geraldo Palelene from LUPA, a newish NGO in Mozambique that traces its roots to years of work done by Helvetas in the country. Geraldo and I met when I was a young Masters student studying human-elephant conflict in southern Mozambique. Geraldo was a community development worker with Helvetas and introduced me to the intricacies of a country that has since become my second home. He and his associates are working with a series of other small civil society organisations to give the local community a voice in the development of the Transfrontier Park, ensuring they support and benefit from the proposed developments. This is radical in a country where civil society had no role to play, and was in fact illegal, as little as 15 years ago! They are making amazing head ways and have partnered with Wildlands and the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund to support their work. This gives me great reason to visit the country more often to celebrate the proof that it is a country according to Frank Zappa and hopefully to also see the finalization of work I was fortunate enough to play a starting role in when I started my professional career.

In 1986 the nations of the world formally banned all commercial whaling. This followed centuries of increasingly unsustainable whaling, which peaked in the 1930’s with over 50 000 whales being harvested annually. The first South African whaling station opened at Beacon Island in 1806, followed by the establishment of a number of land based stations along the coastline. By the middle of the 20th century it was apparent that whale stocks were no longer being replenished and global populations were declining. South Africa had depleted its populations of Fin, Sperm and Sei whales, ultimately ticking along by hunting the much smaller and less profitable Minke whale. At the same time offshore whaling was decimating southern hemisphere populations of the Southern Right Whale, Humpback Whale and Sperm Whale. By 1976 the South African whaling industry had effectively died and in 1979 the South African government was one of the first countries to comprehensively ban whaling in its waters.

The figures are staggering. Estimates are that over 725 000 Fin whales, 255 000 Sei whales, 200 000 Humpback whales and 150 000 Southern Right whales were harvested globally over two centuries. The hardest hit were Southern Right and Humpback whales with less than 300 and 5000 animals respectively left by the time whaling was eventually banned. The ban followed decades of intensive lobbying and advocacy. Since then the majority of whale populations have shown strong recovery and there are currently estimated to be around 12 000 Southern Right Whales and over 45 000 Humpback whales.

We’ve been privileged in South Africa to have been able to personally share in the recovery of these great creatures. Whaling tourism is an anchor industry in many coastal communities, and Hermanus is recognised as the whaling capital of the world, drawing visitors from across the world for an up close and personal experience with Southern Right Whales. Even Margate is developing a reputation for wonderful shore based whale watching during the Humpback migration season.

Human greed could have driven all the large whale species to extinction. However, a few courageous and visionary individuals managed to mobilise a global campaign that has saved these magnificent creatures. Right now we need to do the same for another species that is threatened by human greed and ignorance, our rhino. We need to find a “rhino solution”. This is not necessarily a ban, as regulated trade could well be part of this solution. I have been heartened by the incredible way in which South Africans are mobilising to stop the scourge of rhino poaching. There are some great websites that provide information and platforms for you to get involved, including www.projectrhino.org, www.stoprhinopoaching.com and www.rhinoconservation.org. I want to challenge you to get angry and to stand up for what is right. Let me know what you’re going to DO: andrewventer.wordpress.com.

The “top ten” fresh water flood losses in history paint a particularly scary picture. 7 of the 10 events happened in the last decade and 3 in the last 18 months! These include the December 2010 floods in Queensland Australia, the January 2011 floods in Victoria Australia and the July to November floods in Thailand. The insured loss of the two Australian floods was over US$ 4 billion and the Thailand flood was over US$ 12 billion. Time will tell whether this pattern is a fluke or a long term trend which is going to get worse. Climate Change projections suggest it is a pattern which is going to get worse.

Over the December 2010 to January 2011 period, flooding in South Africa affected 33 Municipalities, highlighting that South Africa is flood prone and that we have limited ability to deal with disasters of this nature. KwaZulu-Natal is particularly vulnerable in this regard as we are not only likely to see an increase in rainfall, but more regular cyclone action and increased intensity of rainfall events. I don’t believe that we’re ready for an increase in flooding events. Furthermore, I’m really not convinced that we’ve factored in the projected impacts of Climate Change into flood management measures. A simple example is the River Horse Valley development in Durban, situated on the banks of the uMhlangane River. This development has been a primary development node for the City over the past decade, effectively covering the river’s floodplain with a mix of light industrial complexes. The uMhlangane has a history of spectacular floods, including the 1996 flood which saw the river rise 2 metres. Theoretically, the flood protection measures associated with this development take floods of this nature into account, having been designed to protect the estate from a 1:100 year flood. The question is whether a 1:100 year flood projection is still relevant. With the increased rainfall and storm projections, a 1:100 year flood may well now be a 1:75 or 1:50 year flood!

If the uMhlangane River “overwhelms” the flood protection mechanisms, we’ll not only lose a massive economic hub, but we’ll also be left with a downstream river and off shore pollution nightmare. Surely, this is not the sort of risk we should be taking? The River Horse Valley development is fait accompli. At the time that the decision was taken to proceed with this development, Climate Change was a far more distant threat and environmentalists were simply annoying. Today, Climate Change is an emerging reality and environmentalists are indulged with “slightly” more respect. Unfortunately, I’m not convinced that this is enough to stop another River Horse Valley development. Let me know what you think: http://andrewventer.wordpress.com/  

TKAG have done an amazing job, on a voluntary basis, bringing this issue to the forefront of public awareness. There is no doubt that fracking prospecting rights would have already been issued and that South Africa’s next “mega” investment deal would be well underway. Given our “get rich quick” mentality, it is almost certain that this deal would have been loaded for the personal benefit of a few well placed individuals, as South Africa’s fracking opportunity sits up there with the Arms and emerging Nuclear deals, in terms of its “get rich quick” potential.

There is no doubt that Shell and its fracking allies are determined to persevere despite the concerns that have been raised. Government are also very keen and are doing everything in their ability to fast track this opportunity. This is understandable, to a limited extent, as many of the wealthiest economies have been built off the back of fossil fuel and it could be very short sighted for us to forego the associated economic opportunities. If we had oil, we’d probably not have many of our existing poverty challenges, although this is not a given. Simply look to West Africa to see the negative impact of oil based economies. We do have coal and we’ve definitely worked hard to maximise the economic potential of our coal resources. Presumably, we’d apply the same diligence to natural gas. This in itself is worrying, as “we” have demonstrated reckless disregard for both the local and global environment in realizing this potential. The Witbank area, South Africa’s coal capital, is widely recognised as one of the most degraded natural environments in South Africa. This due to large scale mining related air and water pollution, and our coal based CO2 emissions have made a very significant contribution to global warming woes.

The motivation was and still is economic development and job creation.  The Econometrix report actively promotes the perceived economic benefits. This report, commissioned by Shell, states that fracking “could generate massive contributions to GDP (Gross Development Product) and create many hundreds of thousands of jobs”. There is no doubt that fracking would boost our GDP and create jobs. However, there is significant doubt as to the realistic scale of this impact. The Econometrix report has been widely criticised as not only being biased (which is to be expected) and also unrealistic in its projections. A simple example is the job creation projection of 700 000 jobs. This seems fanciful, given that our entire coal mining industry, which is far more labour intensive than fracking, only employs around 50 000 people!

More importantly, evidence is piling up around the world that fracking not only leaves behind an environmental mess, but also only provides transient economic benefit. Simply put, the wells will run dry within 5 – 10 years, the local operation will then be shut down, locally – employees contracts terminated and local water resources – more than likely – contaminated. How can this be constructive and who will pay for the on-going rehabilitation efforts, especially given that it is highly unlikely that the water contamination can be reversed?  Should we be encouraging such a reckless and short term approach? I don’t think so, especially when we have abundant offshore gas resources that can be harvested with minimal environmental impact. Let me know what you think: http://andrewventer.wordpress.com/

Despite their highly endangered status, the largest cycad habitats are currently not conserved. The Lubombo Mountains, which forms one of very few natural borders on the continent, is home to some of the most valuable biodiversity on the planet, including a number of cycad species. Due to the inaccessibility of the mountains, these plants have been left relatively unharmed. However, as with all wild lands, this area is slowly being transformed due to human settlement and development pressures. If left unabated, we should ensure there are very good photos of the cycads in the museums as they probably won’t be there for too much longer. In the years I visited the area, I have seen bakkie-loads being removed by illegal harvesters for trade in the cities of South Africa. These trees did not end on the indigenous medicinal markets, but are traded to the landscaping industry – pretty vain!

Luckily, there is some hope. Last week I visited a new conservation project in the eastern side of Swaziland. Here conservancies, local communities, conservation authorities and commercial farmers are joining forces to conserve the Lubombo Mountain range in Swaziland. I had lunch with this motley group to discuss their project, which will be funded by the Critical Ecosystems Partnership Fund. In essence, they aim to create a protected landscape all along the mountain range that will safeguard the biodiversity, ensure the functioning of the ecosystem and so secure the benefits this natural area holds for people and all the other living things. If this could be duplicated on the opposite sides of the border, which is the commitment given by South Africa and Mozambique, the cycads of the mountains may yet survive the current onslaught. Hopefully, one day in the future, when some other evolutionary beings have replaced us, like we did the dinosaurs, they too can note that these cycads were around when people roamed the planet, and despite their hunger to have one in every garden, they have survived due to dedicated conservation initiatives.

The reality is that cyclone activity is a characteristic of southern Mozambique and northern KwaZulu-Natal. These storms originate off Madagascar and gather strength over the Mozambique channel, where high water temperatures (29^oC⁺) feed the development of tropical storms into full blown cyclones. Mozambique experiences the impacts of these storms every year and northern KwaZulu-Natal experiences a serious storm roughly every decade. Global warming will change this pattern, as increasing sea temperature which will result in these tropical storms venturing further south more often. So, we need to get used to the fact that we’ll have cyclone activity more frequently.

Against this background, I’d like to flag my ongoing concern with the EXXARO Fairbreeze mining proposal. EXXARO have consistently refused to undertake a comprehensive Environmental Impact Assessment for their planned mining operations. Last year, they submitted a Basic Assessment to the Provincial Department of Environmental Affairs. This was rejected and EXXARO have since submitted a second version of this assessment, which continues to avoid addressing a number of fundamental issues. In my opinion, the most significant of these issues is their insistence on proceeding with a mining operation which will leave a legacy of two “mega slimes dams”, especially given that one of these dams will be 12 stories high 5km long and 1 km wide! Alternative methods apparently exist that could allow them to avoid this legacy, yet they steadfastly refuse to explore these alternatives. These slimes dams will not only scar the Mtunzini landscape, but will be an environmental liability forever!

They have not demonstrated that it will be possible to effectively “rehabilitate’ these mega slimes dams. Their own efforts at  Hillendale mine continue to falter and Trevor Arran (EXXARO Hillendale General Manager) has publicly admitted that they are not sure about how they will rehabilitate the Fairbreeze slimes dams. On a recent Carte Blanche program, screened on the 12^th February 2012, he was asked: “You can’t actually tell me (Bongani Bingwa, Carte Blanche presenter) that you know for sure that this (the rehabilitation process) is going to be able to be done on a massive scale?” He responded by stating: “And I wouldn’t try and convince you otherwise. And unfortunately, Bongani, that will only come in the fullness of time … time, and the effort that we’re putting in right now”.

Why should we, the residents, of KwaZulu-Natal be expected to take this risk, especially in the face of increasing mega storm impact and activity? What if they’re not able to “rehabilitate” their two mega slimes dams in the “fullness of time?” What if their engineering solutions can’t withstand the impact of a future cyclone? The reality is that the failure of either of their two proposed slimes dams would be catastrophic. They would not be able to repair this damage. As such, I’d like to challenge the Provincial Department of Agriculture and Environmental Affairs to visit Hillendale mine this coming week, to determine what damage Cyclone Irina has done to EXXARO’s rehabilitation efforts at this mine. I believe it is in the public interest that they do so, as I’d be very surprised if they don’t find extensive damage to the existing rehabilitation efforts. How will EXXARO explain away such damage? Will they argue that Cyclone Irina was an unusually intense storm? Can they demonstrate that they can design a slimes dam that will survive the impact of the next “Cyclone Domoina”? If not, then I don’t believe that they should be allowed to proceed on the gamble that they’ll find a solution! Especially given that our children will inherit the Fairbreeze legacy, not current decision makers or EXXARO shareholders. Let me know what you think: andrewventer.wordpress.com.

In 2002, we ranked 47^th out of 142 countries. So we have definitely slipped, and slipped badly! This is still counterintuitive and I felt it would be useful to interrogate this ranking process, to understand where we are really doing badly. In doing so I realised that we’re actually doing poorly overall. Our best three ratings are Air (effects on human health) (78^th), Water Quality (86^th), and Biodiversity and Habitat Conservation (86^th). Our worst ratings are Environmental Burden of Disease (113^th), Climate Change (114^th) and Air (effects on ecosystem health) (121^st).

As I started working through the various rankings, alarm bells started going off. In practise, the rankings clearly demonstrated that we have ignored the health of our ecosystems over the past 12 years, whilst we focused on “development”, this despite hosting the World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002. The nett effect is that we have set our sustainable development potential back significantly. A simple example is air quality. The air quality effect on human health is measured on the basis of indoor air pollution and the concentration of particulate matter in the air we breathe, whilst the effect on ecosystems health is measured on the basis of Sulphur Dioxide emissions per capita. So not only do we breath in some of the worst air in the world, but we are also clearly poisoning the systems that we live off.

I believe that this message is not getting the coverage and profile it needs. This past week we have seen a succession of Government presentations profiling National and Provincial commitment to creating jobs and improving infrastructure. Clearly this is a strategy aimed at dealing with our unsustainable unemployment figures, and particularly the “youth time bomb”. We have to start profiling the “environmental time bomb” in these discussions. Last year we were nearly there, with COP 17 triggering intensive debate around the potential of a “green economy” and the “green jobs” revolution. What happened to this discussion? Why is it not at the anchor of the State of the Nation and State of the Province speeches? I know that Government is still pursuing this agenda. Is the environmental time bomb so unpalatable that it is politically impossible to profile, or is the green economy agenda simply the old development at all costs agenda with a green hue? Let me know what you think – andrewventer@wordpress.com.

One story which got a lot of attention was Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife’s Makasa rhino hunting story. Makasa Game Reserve is a 1 700 ha reserve adjoining Phinda Private Game Reserve in northern KZN. I was personally involved in the establishment of this reserve, helping facilitate the negotiations with the KwaMduku community, the custodians of the land, which saw them agree to set aside a significant piece of their land for conservation. This was nearly 20 years ago. At that time the KwaMduku community bought into a vision for their future, which saw “their” game reserve underwriting their sustainable development. They bought into a partnership proposal which saw the old Natal Parks Board stocking their land with game, including rhino, with a view to sustainably harvesting this game to generate income for their schools, clinics and other development needs.

At the time this partnership was negotiated, the KwaMduku community was much smaller than it is today and their lands were relatively wild. Today, Makasa Game Reserve represents the last wild area under their custodianship and there is no doubt that it would be densely populated today if it wasn’t for the Makasa partnership. Thus, the fact that they are able to secure R 1 million through the hunting of 1 of their rhino should be celebrated as a massive conservation success. Their vision is coming to reality. Not only have they helped secure an important conservation area, but it is generating meaningful income for their community.

Now, I am not a hunter but I am firmly in favour of hunting where it is fair, ethical and in support of conservation. At least 50% of the land currently conserved in South Africa owes its existence to hunting, and South Africa’s rhino conservation success story has been underwritten by White Rhino hunting. This is a reality, albeit it an uncomfortable reality in the light of the campaign to stop rhino poaching. At first it appears contradictory to be promoting the hunting of rhino whilst promoting efforts to stop the killing (illegal) of rhino. Surely a dead rhino is a dead rhino!. Yes it is, but we have been successfully and sustainably harvesting White Rhino in South Africa for decades. This has placed a significant commercial value on White Rhino, allowing conservation agencies and private farmers to expand rhino range and invest in their security. Banning hunting game simply strips White Rhino of their value, making it very unattractive for private farmers to keep their rhino and virtually impossible for existing rhino custodians to secure their animals. They simply won’t have the funds to cover the exorbitant security costs. So the banning of hunting will actually speed up the demise of this magnificent species.

I’m well aware that a small element of the hunting fraternity have been involved in poaching. However, a knee jerk reaction to their activities makes no sense. What we should be doing is addressing the core issues whilst investing in the business of conservation. This is happening. Over the past two years the State have invested heavily in conservation law enforcement, investigation and prosecution, and we’re starting see the impact. The number of rhino poached from Provincial reserves dropped from 105 animals in 2010 to 58 last year, in direct response to the significant reinvestment in the Provincial agencies law enforcement abilities. The number of rhino poached in the Kruger National Park increased from 146 to 250, illustrating the vulnerability of this park through its extensive Mozambique border. However, the army is back in Kruger and the South African National Parks are also investing heavily in their anti-poaching ability. I have no doubt that we will see the impact of this investment this year.

Unfortunately, the number of rhino poached from private reserves increased from 82 to 121 animals. This is a worrying statistic, as the ability of private reserves to protect their rhino is directly linked to the return they get from their rhino. So banning hunting will reduce their ability to protect them and is likely to lead to even more rhino being poached from these reserves. This is tragic as it will deter private land owners from investing in rhino. It will simply will make no financial sense for them and thus, in the absence of significant philanthropic investment, we’re going to see a progressive reduction in rhino range. By implication our ability to continue growing a healthy and robust rhino population will be stymied. Let me know what you think

I thought I’d start this journey by figuring out how to take our house “off grid”, i.e. use solar and / or wind energy to provide the power we’re using. I started this process with an internet search for solar panels, wind turbines and DIY installation advice. I’m no electrician, and so I was rapidly befuddled by the many websites offering me panels, turbines, batteries, invertors, regulators and all the other bits  and pieces available to the “green” enthusiast. I realised that I was out of my depth, or literally in the dark. One of the websites pointed me at local expert, who very kindly agreed to come out to my house and to walk my wife and I through the basics of alternative energy. He had a quick look around and then sat us down to break the news that it was going to costs us upwards of R 300 000 to take us off grid, if we continued to use energy the way we were. This made no sense as it would take us over 15 years to recover this investment through our ESKOM savings. Chatting to him it became apparent that we should focus on reducing our consumption before worrying about going off grid.

Now I’m one of many environmentalists who promote energy “reduction”, so it was rather embarrassing when he began to point out the many ways in which we could reduce our energy use! We thought we were doing quite well. We’d changed the majority of our lights to CFL’s bulbs, adjusted our geyser thermostat and switch off lights and appliances when we’re not using them. What we’d never done was actually try to understand our energy use.

This is where the WATT comes into its own. Energy use is measured in watt’s, more specifically, 1 watt is the use of 1 joule of energy per second. Every appliance is labelled with a watt use indicator. Now we’ve used the term for many years, e.g. we’d often talk about the light difference between a 60 watt and 100 watt light bulb. We just never understood what it actually meant. In practise, if we use a 60 watt light bulb for 4 hours each day, we’ll use 240 watt hours per day or around 7 200 watt hours per month (7.2 kilo watt hours (kwh’s). In Pietermaritzburg we pay around R 0.52 per kwh, so we’d pay 7.2 x R 0.52 to use this bulb, or around R 3.50 per month per bulb. A TV uses around 150 watts per hour, so 4 hours TV per day is the equivalent of 18 kwh’s or around R 9.00 per month. A kettle uses 2 000 watts per hour, so assuming we use a kettle for 30 minutes each day, then we’re talking about 30 kwh’s per month or around R 15 per month.

I apologise if you already know this, but understanding this was definitely a “light bulb” moment for us. In fact it helped us understand why we’d taken out all the old style (60W and 100W) light bulbs and replaced them with CFL (Compact Fluorescent Light) bulbs. We knew we were saving energy and simply did the “sheep” thing. CFL bulbs are commonly 15 watt bulbs. So we save around 5 400 watts and R 2.50 per month per CFL bulb that we use for 4 hrs per night. The latest innovation is LED lighting, which allows us to replace the 15 watt CFL bulb with a 4 watt bulb. This will save us a further 1 800 watts and R 0.68 per month.

So we’re now working on our lights, making sure that we minimise our lighting related energy use. Next step geysers and then appliances. At the moment we use around 3 000 kwh’s per month and hope to have reduced this by at least 60% by the end of our “reduction journey”. We’ll then go back to figuring out how to go off grid. I’ll keep you posted and would like you to share experiences, advice and guidance on my blog: andrewventer.wordpress.com.