With already constrained capacity, the demands of an upcoming court case about conservation for the African penguin population, and that still required, could surely have been, and would be, better spent by working together across all aspects of the problem, writesKevern Cochrane.
- For climate change news and analysis, go to News24 Climate Future.
The decision by BirdLife South Africa and SANCCOB to take the Minister and Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) to the Pretoria High Court over decisions in 2023 on closures to fishing in the vicinity of penguin breeding colonies has been well publicised, with arguments both for and against this action.
Their complaint is that the set of island closures decided by Barbara Creecy, the minister at the time, is not biologically meaningful and not consistent with the recommendations and suggestions from an international panel convened to consider "fishing closures adjacent to South Africa's African penguin breeding colonies and declines in the penguin population". The case is currently scheduled to be heard in the second half of March 2025.
DFFE and the pelagic industry have formally responded to the court application by BirdLife and SANCCOB, challenging many of their arguments. The likely benefits to penguin conservation and the social and economic costs to the fishing industry of island closures remain highly controversial.
The case brought by BirdLife and SANCCOB is based on their understanding of the suggestions and recommendations made in the report by the international review panel on island closures. It is not the purpose of this article to enter this debate or to express an opinion on island closures one way or another, but rather to question whether the decision to take the minister to court, specifically over island closures, was the right one and in the best interests of penguin conservation.
The international panel concluded that island closures are likely to reduce the decline of the critically endangered African penguin to some extent, but that such closures would provide only a relatively small part of the solution for reversing the decline.
The panel therefore also suggested examining other factors that could be contributing to the fall in penguin numbers, including whether the levels of fishing pressure on penguin prey species could be contributing to the decline, competition with seals for food, predation on penguins by seals, the effects of noise from shipping, climate change and others.
These conclusions and suggestions, which encompass in general terms the current local understanding of what could be driving the decline, highlight that island closures on their own will not be enough to reverse the decline in penguin numbers and that much more will be required.
READ |For 'a fighting chance': Meet the team going to court on behalf of the African penguin
The primary responsibility and onus for ensuring this research is conducted and appropriate action taken lies with DFFE. It is well known, however, that as with so many other government departments, the expertise and capacity in DFFE to undertake this work, and its other marine-related responsibilities, are very tightly stretched. DFFE acknowledges this in its Annual Performance Plan 2024/25, which refers to significant budget constraints in the current economic environment and a resulting reduction in the number of posts in the department.
The updated Biodiversity Management Plan for the African Penguin does not refer specifically to constraints but stresses that government and other agencies involved in implementation of the plan need to ensure the availability of adequate budgets and sufficient resources.
The ongoing constraints in budget and human resources in the department are having a serious impact on efforts to conserve the penguin population, which is evident from the lack of progress to date in reversing the decline. I therefore understand, to some extent, the frustrations of BirdLife and SANCCOB that led them to turn to the courts.
Nevertheless, a critical question is whether the benefits to penguin conservation of going to court, and only over island closures, will justify the costs in time and human resources that this action is imposing upon DFFE. They almost certainly won't if one takes the full range of panel suggestions and the capacity needed to address them into account.
The workload, for both the litigants and the defendants, in preparing for a complex court case like this is enormous.
With already constrained capacity, the demands of the court case must be having an important impact on efforts in DFFE to make meaningful progress in reversing the decline in penguins at the same time. All the effort around the court case, and that still required, could surely have been, and would be, better spent by working together across all aspects of the problem.
READ |Conservationists sound urgent warning as African penguin faces extinction in 10 years
In my view, the single most important piece of advice given by the panel was that "working collaboratively will further enhance the effectiveness and social acceptability of management measures and decisions aimed at mitigating the decline of the African penguin".
Reversing the decline and conserving the penguin population will not happen without that collaboration. It requires a special type of GNU, "Getting to grips with the problem through National Unity in purpose and action".
There is a strong national will to conserve this iconic species and if DFFE, SANParks, the environmental NGOs, the fishing industry, shipping, academics, and other key players could work together in a spirit of cooperation and urgency, the solutions to restoring the penguins, without causing unnecessary social and economic harm in our struggling country, should hopefully be attainable.
DFFE will still need to provide strong and competent leadership to facilitate and ensure this collaborative exercise and must do so urgently and determinedly. Procrastination is not an option.
Kevern Cochrane is a Visiting Professor in the Department of Ichthyology and Fisheries Science, Rhodes University and was previously a Director in the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Italy.
News24 encourages freedom of speech and the expression of diverse views. The views of columnists published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24.
