Environmental policy: a duty of care to people and nature
Efforts to address South Africa’s past and present injustices are advancing through embracing a duty of care approach in the white paper on conservation and sustainable use of South Africa’s biodiversity that can improve conditions for nature and people alike
Communities in Africa do not always have fair opportunities to benefit from wildlife. For instance, hunters from abroad can pay to hunt in South Africa, but local people living with wildlife cannot manage biodiversity for sustainable use. Further, South Africa’s land ownership legacies and legislation around wildlife ownership creates inequality. As one response to this, SANParks has been implementing a programme in support of transforming the wildlife economy since 2016, focused on loaning or donating game to South Africans that did not have fair chances to take part in the wildlife economy historically. However, this initiative represents only a small first step towards greater inclusivity around wildlife ownership and management.
Recent high-level panel recommendations to the South African government on the conservation of lions, leopards, elephants and rhinos resulted in a White Paper on the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in South Africa. This process has generated the most submissions to an environmental policy ever by South African stakeholders, largely due to contrasting ideologies. In particular, exclusive animal rights orientations versus inclusive human rights aspirations fuelled much debate on the definition of sustainable use in the first draft white paper (Box 1). In particular, paragraph (e1) stirred hefty disagreement as considerations of animal rights and well-being are equated to considerations around welfare.
Animal rights ideology has a strong north-western influence, while human rights values are universally enshrined, but not equally interpreted or effected. In addition, when policies do not consider the people principally impacted, infringement of the right to self-determination can occur (which includes authority over resources that support people). For instance, when stakeholder engagement workshop facilitators did not consider the interest in or the influence that elephants have on people, they concluded that people wanted a better understanding and respect for the existence of elephants. However, when they took the influence of elephants on people into account, it became clear that people in fact wanted elephants within a system where they have a say about and access to elephant benefits, with spinoffs for biodiversity.
Discussions around welfare have primarily focussed on animal welfare concerns, and, are based on situations where animals are under direct management influence. However, in nature, an animal’s well-being and welfare is affected by its environment, and animals experience various forms of stress, whether people are present or not. Thus, for example, there are daily inherent stresses associated with survival and predation fears, stresses associated with food and water availability and meeting basic physiological needs, including temperature regulation. Wild animals’ diverse daily stress experiences have led to evolution of various coping strategies, including mechanisms to cope with nutritional stresses, health challenges, habitat uses, diverse behavioural responses to environmental and social stresses, and strategies to ensure survival of their young and thus persistence of species. Thus, narrow considerations of animal welfare must be expanded to encompass what is now referred to as “a duty of care” towards biodiversity overall.
A duty of care approach calls for and allows reasonable measures to be taken to prevent harm to the environment and to biodiversity. When this cannot reasonably be avoided, harm should be minimised and steps taken to rectify such harm. The latest version of the White Paper accepted by South Africa’s parliament embraces this wider philosophy. This is evidenced in paragraph (e2) of the definition of sustainable use, where biodiversity use seeks to “ensure duty of care towards all components of biodiversity for thriving people and nature”. Thus, conservation in South Africa, as outlined in the White Paper, should improve the well-being of South Africans and the environment on which they depend. It is premised on the notions that both healthy habitats and social cohesion, justice and access have positive outcomes for people and nature alike. Thus, transformation, sustainable use, inclusive governance, and evidence-based decisions are some of the founding principles of the White Paper.
“In nature, an animal’s well-being and welfare are affected by its environment, and animals experience various forms of stress, whether people are present or not.”
Box 1: Sustainable Use. The use of any component of biodiversity in a manner that:
(a) is ecologically, economically, and socially sustainable;
(b) does not contribute to its long-term decline in the wild; or disrupt the genetic integrity of the population;
(c) does not disrupt the ecological integrity of the ecosystem in which it occurs;
(d) ensures continued benefits to people that are fair, equitable and meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations; and
(e1) in the case of animals, is humane and does not compromise their well-being.
(e2) ensures duty of care towards all components of biodiversity, for thriving people and nature.
This article was originally published in the 2022/2023 Research Report.
