What SANBI’s National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 means for angling and South Africa by Ian Cox

Southern African Flyfishing Magazine was invited to the launch of SANBI’s National Biodiversity Assessment 2018 (“NBA 2018”)on 3 October 2019. This took place in Pretoria so we could not attend but the synthesis report is available online. It is bad news for recreational angling in South Africa, for environmental management under the Constitution and the rule of law. It is another milestone in South Africa’s journey towards an increasingly racialised autocratic and corrupt South Africa. It is another milestone in the destruction South Africa’s constitutional dream by the capture of state institutions that are opposed to a human right based system of government under the rule of law.

SANBI is described as the “scientific authority” in government circles. Its statutory role is to advise government on biodiversity management. It is thus a powerful influencer embedded within the structures of government.

SANBI perspective is not constitutionally aligned. The Constitution and NEMA require a reasonable and principled people first approach to environmental management. But SANBI along with DEFF adopts a fundamentally conservationist approach to biodiversity management that regards human beings and human activity as foreign or alien to nature.

Recreational anglers largely target what invasive biologists call “alien fish” A species is considered alien according to invasion biology thinking if it is introduced into an area where it did not previously occur at any time as a result of human activity. Invasion biologists believe that these human introductions are unnatural and thus foreign and something that is essentially hostile and thus to be feared. Hence the use of the term “alien”.

There are many definitions of what invasive species means. The definition preferred by SANBI and South African invasion biologists says that an alien species is invasive if it is capable of establishing and spreading in the wild. This is not the legal definition of invasive. It is also incompatible with the environmental right set out in section 24 of the Constitution. But these legal norms or what DEFF’s Dr Guy Preston calls “legalise” are ignored by invasion biologists and government when implementing South Africa’s laws. Hence my reference to state capture earlier in this article.

This is why DEFF regards all alien fish as invasive and is calling for their eradication wherever this is possible. This is in line with NEMBA and our international treaty obligations which requires government to rollout extensive invasive species control and eradication plans and for land owners to take steps to control and eradicate invasive species on their property. However, no country in the world has an anti-alien law such as NEMBA and no country defines invasive species as SANBI wants South Africa to do.

The importance of eradication of alien fishes is emphasised in NBA 2018 which notes the success of such eradication measures and recommends that these initiatives be continued and expanded. This is why DEFF is trying to list trout as invasive and why trophy bass in internationally renowned fishing venues such as Loskop Dam are being specifically targeted for eradication.

SANBI and DEFF justify these actions claiming that one third of native fish are threatened with extinction. MPTA’s Andre Hoffman justifies spearfishing for trophy bass in Loskop dam on the basis it is also home to 23 native species.

However, closer examination of the data backing these claim shows that 40% of the native fish species SANBI claim to be threatened with extinction are not listed on the IUCN Red Data List as such. This is because SANBI has its own list of

threatened species. Unlike the IUCN, no rules exist for determining how a species is listed and there is no process in terms of which these findings can be challenged. SANBI is the scientific authority and its opinions must be regarded as law.

The fact that alien fish species often cohabit with native ones and have become naturalised is also ignored as are other factors that threaten both native and alien fish species. Thus, trout are still regarded as invasive even when they have not become established in the wild and despite the fact that the distribution range of trout is reducing. The fact that they are alien and have established in the wild is sufficient for scientist at SANBI and SAIAB to condemn them as invasive.

SANBI goes on to claim that a total of 81% of South Africa’s freshwater fishes of “conservation concern” are threatened by non-native invasive fishes. These fish include the ubiquitous Barbus anoplus or chubbyhead barb which exist in abundance in many of Kwa Zulu Natal’s trout dams.

This claim also ignores the major threats of pollution, water abstraction and habitat loss which are significantly downplayed throughout NBA 2018. For example, the word "invasive" is used 145 times in NBA 2018 whereas “pollution” is only used 5 times. “Habitat loss” is used 61 times and “abstraction” 29 times. The speaks to an obvious and gross mischaracterisation of the true nature of the environmental harm that we are experiencing.

The fanciful nature of the alien threat which underpins the thinking behind NBA 2018 is one of the main reasons why DEFF cannot comply with the public participation requirements prescribed in the Constitution and other laws. The harsh reality is that its anti-alien approach is essentially a xenophobic or, one can even say an apartheid inspired, one that does not survive constitutional scrutiny.

This is why SANBI and DEFF’s efforts are directed at creating an extra legal permit driven system of government that can operates outside the realm of constitutional and legal oversight. The trout case which is slowly making its way through the legal process is FOSAF’s attempt to defend the constitutionally ordained process of public participation in law making. FOSAF’s application was brought against the DEFF minister but is being opposed by DEFF’s Dr Preston who claims that it is impractical to expect the minister to explain why she wants to list a species as invasive. The fact that a scientific authority such as SANBI thinks this should be done or that SANBI’s definition of what is invasive is very different to the legal one, are all irrelevant in his opinion. So, it seems is the participation of the DEFF minister who has still not filed an affidavit in the matter despite being the only respondent.

This is the future that awaits South Africa if nothing is done to stop this state sponsored attack on the Constitution and the rule of law. Reports such as NBA 2018 will take on the force of law through the application of a discretionary permitting regime that makes it a criminal offence to use biological resources without a permit. I am not making this up. The laws that enable this regime are already written into NEMBA. Moreover, DEFF has spent the last 10 or so years building a network of extra legal planning tools that were not adopted in terms of any public participation process that it can apply and change at will when considering whether to grant or withdraw a permit.

The extensive reference to critical biodiversity areas and important or fish sanctuary areas in NBA 2018 is one example of this. There is no legal basis for these areas. Public participation rules apply to the functionally similar system of protected ecosystems prescribed in NEMA. DEFF has avoided complying with these rules by simply changing its name. SANBI is complicit in this illegitimate endeavour.

This is the true face of environmental management in South Africa . DEFF and SANBI is getting away with it because it advances the radical economic transformation strategies that the ANC adopted in the run up to the Zuma years. Environmental authorities and state science institutions like SANBI like to portray themselves as the good guys but when you shine the light of the Constitution on what they are doing a very different picture emerges. It is easy to show that their actions place them firmly in the camp of state capture and the resultant corruption xenophobia, oppression and economic decay