Prof Dave Richardson of the Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology at Stellenbosch University is the lead author of a ground-breaking paper that describes a tool to help policy-makers and scientists employ “managed relocation” to move species into “more accommodating habitat” where they are currently absent.

“We hope that the tool will help to reduce the polarity that has emerged in the debate on whether managed relocation should be added to the conservationist’s toolbox,” says Prof Richardson.

“Scientists are, for the first time, objectively evaluating ways to help species cope with rapidly changing climate and other environmental threats by implementing strategies that were considered too radical for serious consideration as recently as five or ten years ago,” explains Prof Richardson, one of the world’s leading minds on matters pertaining to invasive species.

“Our decision-making tool is ground-breaking because managed relocation has traditionally been categorically eschewed by scientists for fear that relocated species would harm receiving habitats by reproducing wildly out of control, causing extinctions of local species,” says Prof Richardson, who cites the way in which invasive alien trees have reduced water production from mountain catchments in the Western Cape as an example of the damage that translocation can do.

Now that is radical. It seems climate change is so rapid, that a more than 2 degrees C average global temperature increase this century is inevitable, that we are going to intervene radically in ecosystem functioning in order to help our fellow species survive. I wonder where we can relocate the polar bears to?

Ralph Pina is an ecoAfrica.com founder

Over 8 days we literally walked the western rim of the escarpment, taking in majestic and awe-inspiring landscapes and experiencing the utter silence of these mountains. Two days and about 40km short of our objective, a cold front that had been dogging our steps for days finally chased us down the mountain. It was an epic - a walk of no ordinary proportion, as the organisers had aptly described it.

A 3-D Google Earth track, featuring almost every step, waypoints and geo-tagged photos appears in the window below.

If the track doesn’t appear in the window above or you don’t want to install the plugin in your browser, then download the Google Earth Rim of Africa file and view it in Google Earth (download Google Earth).

Ralph Pina is a co-founder of ecoAfrica.com

Recently George Monbiot (UK Guardian) posted on his blog about the supposed (my skeptic kicking in) relocation of the people of the Carteret Islands due to global warming. This little island with its highest peak being a mere 5ft above sea-level is slowly but surely becoming a victim of global warming as the water level is annually rising; causing flooding of crops, etc.

For some this is alarming, 2,600 people after all stay on this island but for others who stay 1000 miles away in their penthouse apartments it might not be. Some extremists even view it as something we deserve.

What interests me the most is the responses you usually read

Now questions can be asked about these findings. For example:

• Living on Earth is like sitting in a tub. If water rises 5 cm in one end, it should also rise 5cm at the other end. Not so?
• Are the Carteret Islands sinking or are the waters rising?

Without a doubt global warming is a problem, but if you based your truths on muddy foundations, the truth gets judged by it and until eventually it loses integrity.

Supporters of global warming should be vigilant against people with muddy facts, because it erodes the truth their foundation is built on and there is nothing left for them to stand on. Then the truth will no longer matter and we will be lost.

It is claimed that besides those being poached, about 300 have been shot for the trade. Should hunting for the trade not cease, the NGOs will approach CITES to upgrade rhino to Schedule 1, effectively banning legal hunting of the species.

Personally, I cannot get my head around why anyone would want to shoot a rhino - or any animal for sport for that matter. Although hunting proponents will often trumpet the sport’s “indispensable” contribution to the financing of conservation, this practice flies in the face of all such claims. It is a despicable practice and is driven by greed.

WESSA also states that rhino poached in Zimbabwe are being “laundered” by South African landowners and outfitters.

EcoAfrica does not promote hunting. But do note that there is a hunting operation that uses our name, despite it being a registered trademark. I suppose that speaks volumes for the ethics involved. We never have, and never will have anything to do with hunting.

White rhino in Kruger National Park, South Africa

The Times reports that:

The number of rhinos poached within SA National Parks’ land increased by nearly 300% in 2008 (36 rhinos) compared with 2007 (10 rhinos);

An estimated 50 rhinos were poached on private game reserves in 2008 ; and

Thirteen rhinos were shot dead on Christmas Day last year, including six on a private reserve in North West.

(Ignore the comments below The Times report - they are indicative of the mindset of disaffected locals who unfortunately have the time to pollute blogs)

Rhino have been to the brink and back before. When the Imfolozi reserve was proclaimed in 1895 it was the last refuge of the southern white rhino, estimated to be as few as 20 in number. Colonial hunters had shot them out throughout southern Africa. Thanks to the efforts Ian Player and those of his ilk there are now some 14500 white rhinos and 4000 black rhinos in the wild (consider however that there were 100 000 black rhino in the wild in the 1960s).

Through successful translocation programmes they have been distributed across southern Africa in national parks, game reserves and private reserves. The black subspecies is still Critically Endangered while the white rhino is classified as “Lower Risk - Conservation Dependent”. Our Kruger National Park Google Earth layer contains a wildlife census layer which shows some interesting distributions of rhino.

The Times story advances various reasons for the increase in poaching, but most worrying is the apparent lack of protection in formal protected areas such as national parks. SANP and agencies such as Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife need to urgently step up their anti-poaching patrols and look to the integrity of their parks and reserves. But perversely it may be the successful translocation of the animals to private reserves that increases vulnerability, as these protected areas are widely dispersed islands of conservation and will often not have the resources to mount effective anti-poaching operations.

Ralph Pina is one of ecoAfrica.com’s founders

Sanbona has brought elephant, herds of springbok, cheetah, hartebeest, white rhino, hippo and lion back, plus introduced some exotics such as giraffe. And some of the lions carry that rare white lion gene. They have recently been released into the wild and are hunting successfully despite being snowy white blobs on a brown canvas. Unfortunately, some of the prize cheetahs have have found themselves on the menu too. Yet, we failed to find them on the game drive, despite their lack of camouflage and despite the fact that they wear radio collars.

The small herd of elephants spends its days chomping its way through the reed beds above the Bellair Dam, while sizeable herds of springbok pronk across the stony flats. We happened upon a cheetah kill in the morning, where three cheetahs had downed springbok. We were able to walk to within twenty metres of them while they fed, as they are habituated to humans.

I would recommend Sanbona for a unique African wildlife experience in close proximity to Cape Town, for its remote silence and to sample the Little Karoo biomes that it protects like Montagu Shale Renosterveld and Quartz Vygieveld. The latter is a component of the southern extremities of the Succulent Karoo biodiversity hotspot, one of three in South Africa and one of eight in Africa. Sanbona also includes Cape fynbos vegetation types, and along with the Renosterveld it is a component of the Cape Floristic Region, another hotspot.

Deforested slopes under cultivation

A few kilometres outside Lilongwe the contrast could not be starker. Lumbering 4×4’s give way to the dominant mode of transport - bicycles. Bicycles by the thousands, bicycles loaded with towers of wood and charcoal, bicycles as taxis. So while the inexorable rise in the oil price over the longer term has serious consequences for Malawi’s small formal economy as it gets priced out of the world oil market - not to mention for the operations of the 4×4-mounted NGOs et al - 85% of the population who live and sustain themselves in the rural areas could well be less affected by peak oil. However, there is a new indirect and perverse threat as indigenous woodland is replaced with Jatropha, a cash crop for biofuel, in a country already suffering severe and accelerating deforestation and destruction of biodiversity. I’ll return to the issue of deforestation later.

Bicycles everywhere

It is difficult to comprehend how dependent Malawi is on agriculture until you have travelled there (of course we all are ultimately; supermarkets alone are not sufficient - Bartlett’s 16th law of sustainability). Agriculture accounts for a third of GDP and 90% of exports. But dependence on agriculture is more fundamental: almost everybody is a farmer and a subsistence farmer at that. Malawi suffers from an ongoing food security crisis that affects more than five million people in the south of the country. Every scrap of land is cultivated, even the road verges in Lilongwe, to feed a burgeoning population growing at 2.39% annually. No wonder that much of the development aid is targeted at developing agriculture. While I am no agricultural expert it did bother me somewhat that the input of chemical fertiliser, which has as feedstock natural gas, to improve agricultural yields is regarded as one of the major interventions. To my mind this creates a new dependency on an imported resource, which is in any case unsustainable, and over the long term and with injudicious use, destroys the soil.

Bags of charcoal at the roadside

Almost as critical as the food security situation is hunger for basic energy in the rural areas. From simple observation I concluded that the average rural peasant’s day consists of cultivating, collecting and preparing food, and collecting building materials, wood and charcoal. Access to electricity, almost all of it generated by the hydro plants on the Shire River, is limited to the towns and cities and to only 7.9% of the population. Ninety percent (90%) of the country’s energy demand is met by burning wood or charcoal. And the effect of this hunger for biomass can be seen in a landscape denuded of woodland. Rural people are having to travel further and further for wood, and the production and sale of charcoal for cash is a serious problem.

At the same time small, informal brickworks dot the countryside and consume massive amounts of wood. Perhaps there is a perception that a house is only truly a house if it’s built from brick.

In summary there seem to be two drivers of deforestation:

1) energy demand: for cooking, for firing bricks, somebody else’s demand for biofuel crops

2) food cultivation.

As we climbed out of Lilongwe on the flight back to SA, the difference in vegetation cover along the border between Malawi - stripped and cultivated - and Zambia - forested - was stark, a light-dark line of contrast. Between 1990 and 2005 Malawi lost 12.7% of its forest cover. The situation is plainly unsustainable.

Charcoal transporter

Firing bricks with forest

All this got me wondering about development projects that address rural energy needs, deforestation and loss of biodiversity. In my short week in Lilongwe and 500kms of driving to Cape Maclear and back I had seen little or no evidence of rural energy projects, although clearly there must be. And there are - as a cursory Google search will reveal.

The obvious solution to the demand for cooking fuel is solar cooking, and it seems to be getting wide attention and government support. An alternative project involves the production of briquettes from wood and paper waste and other agricultural residues, and another promotes the use and manufacture of clay stoves. Clearly a wide array of technologies, methods and resources are being employed to address the problem of basic energy production.

So, if you want to make a contribution to sustainable development and biodiversity conservation in Malawi, make a contribution to these basic energy projects, especially the solar cooking projects. They need to be scaled up drastically to make a substantive difference. Some links are provided below.

Livestock transport

There are alternative paths too. Africans are resourceful and this young Malawian built a home-made wind turbine to power the family compound from what he had to hand from ideas that he read in a text book. You must watch this remarkable story:

Ralph Pina is ecoAfrica’s chairman and is currently studying renewable and sustainable energy

References:

Ndirande Nkhuni Biomass Briquette Programme: http://www.undp.org/energy/publications/2001/files_2001a/06_Malawi.pdf

Electricity Supply Corporation of Malawi: http://www.escommw.com/distribution.php

Programme for Basic Energy and Conservation in Southern Africa (ProBEC): Malawi: http://www.probec.org/displaysection.php?czacc=&zSelectedSectionID=sec1192918473

The World Fact Book: Malawi: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mi.html

Malawi Deforestation Rates and Related Forestry Statistics: Malawi: http://rainforests.mongabay.com/deforestation/2000/Malawi.htm

Malawian Food Crisis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malawi_food_crisis

The Solar Cooking Archive Wiki: Malawi: http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Malawi

I preceded a week’s work in Lilongwe with a weekend on Mumbo, a place I have always wanted to visit since meeting Kayak Africa’s owners some twelve years ago. Kayak Africa runs island getaways and kayaking and diving activities on Mumbo and Domwe Islands in the Lake Malawi National Park.

More… including Google Earth kayak and walking track

So it is with anger that I witnessed the G8 powers’ leaders back away from substantive and immediate reductions in their countries’ emissions and vaguely promise halving of emissions by 2050. Halving with reference to what baseline? 2008 and not 1990? What about intermediate emissions targets? What happened to some of these countries’ undertakings under Kyoto? A spectacle of spinelessness.

Not that China and my own South Africa can simply claim the moral high ground and point accusing fingers at the rich nations. South Africa is one of the most carbon-intensive economies in the world, and China’s aggregate emissions are already approaching those of the USA, albeit on a much lower per capita basis.

But others are able to express outrage and apply pressure better than me. What interests me is the static nature of protected areas (PAs) like the Kruger Park in the face of changing climatic conditions. Protected areas are human creations and like human settlements their locations have been determined by our experience of relatively stable and benign climate conditions over the last millennia, but mainly the last 500 or so years.

In fact many PAs are what and where they are because the areas were less attractive and habitable for humans, more specifically colonial humans. They are opportunistic creations. The lowveld plain east of the escarpment where Kruger is located was a fever-ridden area for the boers at the time (the late 19th century) that the reserves that would make up the park were proclaimed. Modern-day Kruger is a north-south oriented, 300km-by-60 km sliver of land (see our Kruger Park layer in Google Earth for a spatial exploration) jammed between the escarpment and Mozambique. Although relatively large, its ecosystems and wildlife populations are artificially managed - man-made waterholes and fences determine the distribution and movements of wildlife.

Species have always migrated as climate has changed over the millennia, but neither national park boundaries nor national borders will be able to move. They are locked in. That is one problem; another is that climate may be changing faster than species can adapt. There is a further problem too: patterns of human settlement and land transformation have limited the options for natural systems. It is only fairly recently that conservation priorities have shifted away from conserving species and landscapes to protecting the integrity of ecosystem processes that ensure that Nature has options so that species can adapt. Re-establishing migration routes and ecosystem functioning are some of the rationales behind transfrontier parks such as the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park that comprises Kruger, Limpopo and Gonarezhou national parks.

It is predicted that as temperatures rise and rainfall decreases in the Cape, so fynbos plant species will migrate south-eastwards - that is if there are corridors for them to migrate along. Let us for a moment imagine a similar scenario for the vegetation in Kruger, where it migrates eastwards into Mozambique, into its mirror-image park, Limpopo National Park, and beyond. When the fences are eventually down, the herbivores will follow their food and the predators will as well, but Kruger’s tourism infrastructure and its restcamps won’t be able to cross the border. In fact it is highly unlikely that South Africa’s tourism and parks authorities would be pleased about ceding their tourism income to Mozambique. Rather, artificial interventions to retain species within Kruger might be intensified. [Note: this is not a scientific, real scenario, but a thought experiment]

We have fixed cities, parks and borders in space, but the elements and conditions that support life - biodiversity, ecosystems, biomes, climate - are not fixed in space, never have been and never will be.

Ralph Pina is ecoAfrica’s chairman