If you – yes you – are a biodiversity professional and you believe that a “compromise” should be reached on the Tokai Plantation debacle – then please think on this.
Compromise is when both parties have something to ‘give’. Cape Flats Sand Fynbos has around 13% of its historical extent remaining – of which only a tiny fraction is formally conserved. Do you really expect/want/think/demand that this Critically Endangered vegetation type should ‘give’ more?
If you are thinking that it is SANParks or SANBI or any of the other folks who should compromise – then think again. This is not some piece of quarry along Chapman’s Peak or some concrete-canalised river that can be ‘parkified’ – this is a tract of a Critically Endangered vegetation type – listed as such in terms of not one – but two criteria: A1 = “irreversible loss of natural habitat” AND D1 = “threatened plant species associations“.
In this – Cape Flats Sand Fynbos has the dubious distinction (along with two Swartland Renosterveld vegetation types, two other Sand Fynbos vegetation types and Swamp Forest) of being one of only six vegetation types in South Africa to be listed on the basis of meeting more than one criterion in the threatened ecosystems list.
Every single square metre of this vegetation type is required to contribute towards the intended ‘30% of historical extent’ biodiversity conservation target – yet the shortfall is already enormous because of the fact that around 87% of the historical extent is already transformed. This means that even if every single square metre of remaining habitat is restored then the shortfall will still be 17% lower than the biodiversity target.
Cape Flats Sand Fynbos has precious little left to ‘compromise’. It is already so thoroughly compromised that those who actually DO believe in biodiversity conservation are deeply anxious that it might not be restored and conserved in perpetuity. Anxious enough to voice those opinions and concerns very firmly. Anxious enough to consistently assert that the need to restore and conserve this area within the National Park is FAR more important than meeting the desires of a few members of public who prefer shady recreational areas.
It (this Critically Endangered vegetation type) has no voice other than the voices of those who are proud of this their natural heritage and who wish to see some more areas restored and formally conserved in perpetuity within the boundaries of a declared protected area. Cape Flats Sand Fynbos has ‘given’ quite enough.
If you are (or were) a biodiversity professional and believe that this 20ha is “just a little piece of land” – then yes, you might be a biodiversity ‘professional’, but – with all due respect – I seriously question your understanding of biodiversity conservation. I also seriously question your judgement. Maybe your professional interest is (or has been) simply in ‘documenting the demise’ of biodiversity – maybe your interest is (or has been) purely in making money out of biodiversity – but biodiversity conservation is likely not your bag, biodiversity conservation is (or was) more than your job’s worth. Biodiversity I suspect might simply be your way of making money – looking forward to your retirement and travelling in areas that others have conserved. Gosh – look – there goes another Critically Endangered species / vegetation type. What a shame! Someone (else) should have noticed. You would probably have been just as happy being a coin-collector, a second-hand car salesman or auctioneer? Or you just enjoy biodiversity conversation … But you like the outdoors – and maybe you prefer parkscapes? If you are angered or irritated at my assertion that you are a conversationist, a documenter of demise, a jobsworth, a biodiversity trader – then get thinking about how you can change the mindset that thinks that ‘compromise’ is really an option in this instance?
There is so much information readily available online – yet these folks persist in demanding that they should be given shady parkland (so that they can walk outdoors without a hat – lulled into a false sense of security in an artificial sylvan parkscape). This – in place of a habitat that (by the skin of its teeth) continues to support a Critically Endangered vegetation type – Cape Flats Sand Fynbos.
These shadow-seekers will not cease their demands. They are adamant that they must be heard over the urgent voices of those from around the globe who are clamouring anxiously for good reason – determined to conserve this precious habitat remnant. These loud people have conservation in mind. They actually have pursued the suss to recognise the significance of this tract of land, its exceptionally high conservation value AND the fact that it is a chance that should not be missed.
Of course, the fact that many kilometres of treed green belt are within easy distance of this site is overlooked by the shade-lover’s society time and again. Nope – these folks want shade in lower Tokai and NOT fynbos.
The people who desire personal aesthetics (and a deeply false sense of security) over national (global) natural heritage appear to believe that they have a mandate to bring shade back to this area of Tokai once the remaining pine plantation has been harvested. They want a wooded parkland – here on this SANParks-managed land. State land. Critically Endangered habitat land.
If SANParks give in to this crowd of protesting personal-comfort-seekers then they will be denying and abusing their (SANParks) mandate. Chapter 3 , section 17 of the Protected Areas Act (Act 57 of 2003) clearly spells out the reasons for setting aside protected areas (please see the end of this text for the relevant section).
This area continues to support Sand Fynbos species – seeds and geophytes that have survived despite decades of cyclical pine afforestation. This area finally has a chance.
This is our Table Mountain National Park. This is our World Heritage Site. This is our New 7 Wonders of the Natural World. People do NOT visit here for a shadowy park – they visit to see fynbos and vistas. This area would be one of the very few Cape Flats Sand Fynbos remnants that tourists and members of the public would be able to visit freely.
I personally would rather have entry-level housing on this site – to address an iota of the ghastly social injustices of the past – rather than see it turned into a manicured personal comfort zone for those who want to walk in the shadows – but actually this will not – should not happen. Not here at any rate. The area must be restored – as detailed in the Tokai Cecilia Management Framework – and according to the mandate of the SANParks as the custodians and managers of natural heritage on this land.
If SANParks are not allowed to restore this whole tract of land to Critically Endangered Cape Flats Sand Fynbos – because some personal-comfort-seekers choose their own personal comfort and preferred aesthetic over national heritage then this country (and our planet) as a whole will be much poorer for such a decision. A select few – who already live in – or jolly close to – the “green belts” of the City of Cape Town – will crow their delight because their personal comfort zones have been pandered to by squandering the chance to conserve this tract of land.
Our children and their descendants will be the ones who shake their heads in horror when they realise that this generation – our generation – has not been able to meet the challenge of biodiversity conservation. We (some among us at any rate) clearly are the weakest link.
Jou ma se compromise…
As promised – Section 17 of the NEM: Protected Areas Act
Purpose of protected areas
The purposes of the declaration of areas as protected areas are-
a) to protect ecologically viable areas representative of South Africa’s biological diversity and its natural landscapes and seascapes in a system of protected areas;
(b) to preserve the ecological integrity of those areas;
(c) to conserve biodiversity in those areas;
(d) to protect areas representative of all ecosystems, habitats and species naturally occurring in South Africa;
(e) to protect South Africa’s threatened or rare species;
(f) to protect an area which is vulnerable or ecologically sensitive;
(g) to assist in ensuring the sustained supply of environmental goods and services;
(h) to provide for the sustainable use of natural and biological resources;
(i) to create or augment destinations for nature-based tourism;
(j) to manage the interrelationship between natural environmental biodiversity, human settlement and economic development;
(k) generally, to contribute to human, social, cultural, spiritual and economic development; or
(1) to rehabilitate and restore degraded ecosystems and promote the recovery of endangered and vulnerable species.
Fynbos rambles 