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

As these islands encounter increasingly erratic weather patterns, extreme droughts and floods will force the animals to seek forage and refuge outside the protected areas.  Here they will be met by more desperate and suffering people who, too, try and eke out an existence in harsh and hostile environments.  It requires no imagination as to who will “win” this immediate clash.  Humans will.   But winning the battle isn’t the same as winning the war.  In the long term, sustainable human societies act as a barometer of healthy wildlife populations and vice versa.  At least this is true in Africa – all we need to do is look to the Sahel for recent examples.   So people, their domestic animals and wild animals are in the same boat – Noah’s Arc?  I think this is a very important theme to admit and carry in our imaginations, if we are to take the sensible fork in the road ahead. 

The idea of conservation corridors is to link the islands of protection so that animals can move between them as climate dictates.  Richard Leakey has pronounced how important the corridors are to conservation.  Conservation International is currently implementing one such corridor between the Central Kalahari Game Reserve and the Kgaligadi Transfrontier Park; which brings me to the news of the proposed new veterinary control fence to be erected in Botswana, just north of the Kalahari Corridor. 

Veterinary control fences are not new to Botswana.  They have been a method of controlling cattle disease for many years.  But what is behind the cattle “industry”?  And why is the normally level-headed Government of that country prepared to risk the damage that it will do to its natural heritage, to its environment and to the future health of its people?   After all, beef is a terribly inefficient method of protein production.  And Botswana doesn’t exactly have high rainfall. 

When you look at the figures, beef exports account for a paltry 2.5% of GDP.  And mining and, yes, WILDLIFE tourism account for 30% and 12% of GDP respectively.  But reading the literature you learn that the importance of cattle to Government is that it “remains a social and cultural touchtone”, which in a democratic country, one cannot ignore. 

What a hard place for Government to be.  It knows that climate change is rearing its ugly head and that Botswana will be terribly affected by drought and spreading desertification.  But the rural people, those who vote, probably haven’t even heard the words “climate change”. 

I remember Edward de Bono, the renowned lateral thinker, asking “What is wrong with democracy?”  Here’s one answer, Mr. de Bono.  Or put another way, how do you save people from themselves? 

So while countries in Africa with a checkered democratic history are coming to the realisation, albeit slowly, that there is an interdependence between human beings and nature; Botswana, the model democratic country, is going the other way as a consequence  of democracy.  There is some irony in that.