Theme – Krantzkloof – A Nature Reserve near Durban

“…As we distance ourselves further from the natural world, we are increasingly surrounded by and dependent on our own inventions. We become enslaved by the constant demands of technology created to serve us…”

David Suzuki

David Suzuki is a Canadian academic, science broadcaster and environmental activist who has inspired me, personally and professionally, for many decades. As a modern-day thinker, he has frequently spoken about the importance of keeping sight of human dependence on the Environment for the survival of humankind.  As an environmental activist, he has spoken out frequently about the human impacts resulting in climate change and the importance of communing with Nature and the Environment.

I thought about Suzuki when I heard that the previously harmonious relationship between Ezemvelo Wildlife and the Kloof Conservancy was deteriorating. It appeared that Ezemvelo Wildlife (the managers of Krantzkloof Nature Reserve) was not listening to calls from the surrounding communities for better access to the reserve. Fencing and gates were becoming onerous and limiting community access. Whilst issues such as crime and non-payment of entry fees are important, it is also important for managers of reserves to listen to their users and work with them to improve access and usage.

If all humans disappeared today, the earth would start improving tomorrow. If all the ants disappeared today, the earth would start dying tomorrow.

David Suzuki

Krantzkloof enables us to refresh our contact with the environment and remind us that we are part of Nature, not controllers of it. Our “stuff” pollutes, poisons and contaminates the organisms and ecosystems that depend upon Nature for survival. If we lose sight of the basics which support our survival, extinction starts to become a reality.

That contact with our natural environment through, for example, visits to Krantzkloof or other conservation areas is a way of refreshing and reminding us of the environment that we ultimately depend upon. This can be carried forward by the reminder that we should do our best to plant indigenous and endemic species in the spaces and areas that we occupy. (And, of course, remove the exotics!)

Planting native species in our gardens and communities is increasingly important, because indigenous insects, birds and wildlife rely on them. Over thousands, and sometimes millions, of years they have co-evolved to live in local climate and soil conditions.

David Suzuki

Going back to a part of Suzuki’s first quotation, “the constant demands of technology” create pressures on resources and energy, resulting in the severe impacts that we are experiencing due to climate change. The recent release of the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Report in August 2021 has underlined this. The report and its supporting documents make heavy reading, but the World Resources Institute has published an article called “The 5 Big Findings from the IPCC’s 2021 Climate Report”. The five findings are: –

1. We’re on course to reach 1.5 degrees C of warming within the next two decades.

2. Limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C by the end of the century is still within reach but requires transformational change.

3. Our understanding of climate science — including the link to extreme weather — is stronger than ever.

4. The changes we are already seeing are unprecedented in recent history and will affect every region of the globe.

5. Every fraction of a degree of warming leads to more dangerous and costly impacts.

It is now critical that we reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and cut back on unnecessary use of energy. Whilst it is difficult for individuals to influence fossil fuel usage, everyone CAN cut back on unnecessary waste of energy. The obvious strategies include saving energy by cutting wastage (don’t leave lights and appliances on unattended or unused), switching to using solar geysers, planning car trips to carry out multiple tasks, saving on extra journeys, and using low energy or energy-efficient appliances and equipment.

As Kloof residents, we are fortunate to have a nature reserve (Krantzkloof) right in the middle of our suburb. It’s there to help us understand the world we live in and give us the pleasure, relaxation and inspiration to ensure that our place in the Environment is as a part of the Ecosphere, not a consumer of it. Furthermore, by saving energy, we can all do our part in reducing the human impacts causing climate change.

Our personal consumer choices have ecological, social, and spiritual consequences. It is time to re-examine some of our deeply held notions that underlie our lifestyles.

David Suzuki

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with 40 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2021.

We have been pummelled in the Media by the so-called “New Normality” that appears to have emerged from Lockdowns associated with the Covid-19 Pandemic. Has it affected you?

Lockdown

Analysing the positive practicalities that have been experienced, I identified the following:

Homebound

The forced “imprisonment” of families in their homes during Lockdown levels 5 and 4 forced families to associate more together. Please note that I did not say “talk” more because feedback from many households was that Social Media took the place of any face-to-face talking.

Activities

In some families, Lockdown resulted in the revival of activities such as reading and hobbies. This may have extended to a resurgence of “family activities” such as playing games together. Some families had topical discussions on conservation and biodiversity. Others were more active, catching up on the household and family chores that have been “promises” for longer than most would care to remember.

Ways of Life

In some cases, individuals and families revisited some cornerstones of their ways of life. Reports of families going back to basics and starting food gardens to augment food supplies. Stories abound of family members rediscovering the flora in their garden and the birds surrounding their homes.

New Normality or Old Normality?

If you sit down and think, you can probably add dozens more examples to the shortlist above. As you read this several months after the commencement of Level 1 Lockdown, how many of these activities have been sustained? Has the “New Normality” gone back to the “Old Normality”? Has life improved or regressed? Have you thought about why? If it has improved, will you continue the momentum to improve other areas? Or if it has regressed, are things on a downward spiral?

Gaia Concept

One of the topics that I thought about during the Pandemic isolation was the Gaia Concept. The Gaia concept was initially conceived by a chemist, Dr James Lovelock, and added to by microbiologist, Lynn Margulis. Lovelock proposed the hypothesis that living organisms interact with their inorganic surroundings on Earth to form a synergistic and self-regulating, complex system that helps to maintain and perpetuate the conditions for life on the planet. Biodiversity is thus, a critical “maintenance” component of “spaceship Earth’s” functioning to ensure that the stock of genes is maintained to cope with changes that may occur which need rectifying to restore the equilibrium of the Earth. There are many arguments for and against the concept, but it does help to explain the interdependence of organisms and their physical environment. The Concept has been redeveloped and redefined by Lovelock himself, as well as other scientists and thinkers.

Zoonotic Diseases

Why did I go back to thinking about the Gaia Concept? It was primarily because of a piece written by Jane Goodall, the renowned primatologist and “Gorilla” person. She was writing about what she called the “callous and immoral attitude” of humans towards Nature. She referenced the Covid-19 Pandemic and commented that it had been predicted by epidemiologists studying zoonotic diseases (i.e. those that jump from animals to people). She added, “…We have increasingly been creating conditions in which this can happen, including [animal] trafficking which brings animals together from different parts of the world, destined to be sold for entertainment or food…also the factory farms all over the world where we breed cows, pigs and chickens in the most terrible conditions…”

Other Pandemics

We are struggling, and have struggled, to find vaccines and cures for pandemics such as Covid-19, Hong Kong flu, Swine flu, Lassa Fever, Ebola and SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome). Should we perhaps go back to basics and revisit the need for active and realistic biodiversity protection and development programs to protect current and future generations.

Does the “New Normality” include the forgotten thinking about Gaia and biodiversity and are we going to lapse back into the “Old Normality” of laissez-faire?

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2020.

Lockdown, COVID-19 and Change

By the time you read this column, the pain of Lockdown and COVID-19 will, hopefully, have lessened. We still have to come back to some sense of normality, whatever that is. However, that normality will be different because of the changes that we have all had to make.

Human beings abhor change and often it is only some drastic event, occurrence or experience that will nudge folk to make any changes to their life, behaviour, perspectives or actions. So, has COVID-19 changed your life? Have you thought about whether this has been in a good or bad way? Have you learnt anything from your experiences? Have you taken responsibility to make any changes, rather than have them imposed upon you? Will you do anything different from now on?

Let me put forward some thoughts which may be controversial but need to be aired. We are living in a world that is overcrowded, resource pressurised and, for some, highly mobile. We have been watching a virus spread throughout the globe at a frightening rate, affecting millions and killing hundreds of thousands. It has also been reported extensively that there are very few places on earth that do not have evidence of human presence, activity, goods, or process.

We, as humans are beginning to overwhelm the Earth with our presence and our “baggage”. This has been noted for decades and evidence of the negative elements of human activity is beginning to pile up. (Please pardon the pun!) Climate change is an established fact. Whether you think it is caused by humans or not is not the point of discussion. The point is that climate change is affecting the way we live and negative effects of weather, extinction, pollution, etc. are worsening. Just like the effects of pandemics such as COVID-19 and TB are worsening over time. This has been highlighted by the decrease in pollution levels during the period of extensive global activity lockdowns.

Change is necessary.

Can you change anything to lessen your impact upon the environment?  Has the Lockdown made you think about your use of resources? Have you found that there are things that you can do without? Have you noticed that you don’t need so much “Stuff”? (Remember “the Story of Stuff” from 2007 on YouTube.com?) In fact, much has happened since the making of this first, ground-breaking, video and it is well worth looking at the videos that they have produced since 2007 to illustrate just what we are doing to this little space we live on called Earth.

WHOSE JOB IS IT??

This is a story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody and Nobody.  There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure Somebody would do it.  Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it. Somebody got angry about that, because it was Everybody’s job. Everybody thought Anybody could do it but Nobody realised that Everybody wouldn’t do it.  It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done.

The journey of change begins with that one first small step.

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2020.

Global Footprinting – Do we know what our Impact REALLY is?

Where does milk come from?

A few years ago, I was working with some children in a school in Hillbrow, Johannesburg and we were discussing environment and conservation and I detected a degree of scepticism from the youngsters. I decided to test this so I asked one 15-year-old, “Where does milk come from?” His reply was quick and clear. “From the café, of course.”

Why should I conserve?

This reply illustrates a common trait that people do not appreciate where the goods and services that they rely upon for survival come from, or the amount of energy, effort and natural resources that are needed to produce them. This means that there is no incentive to conserve those resources and prevent wastage.

“The world has enough for everyone’s need, but not enough for everyone’s greed.” Mahatma Ghandi

Human Consumption versus Ecological Recovery

We rely upon the earth to provide us with the means to live through use of air, water, food and energy. Human beings have grown in numbers to such a degree that the increasing demand to feed, house, clothe and occupy all of those people has put enormous pressure upon the earth’s ecosystems. One man and an organisation, Mathis Wackernagel and Global Footprint Network, set out to quantify the effects of humankind on global ecosystems in an effort to understand how human consumption was affecting those systems.

Ecological Footprint

The impact of human activities measured in terms of the area of biologically productive land and water required to produce the goods consumed and to assimilate the wastes generated.

Mathis Wackernagel and Global Footprint Network developed a system called “ecological footprinting” to measure the impact of the human “footprint” upon the earth. Using available data and eventually influencing the development of additional indicators and data sets, they were able to develop systems to measure, globally and nationally, human ecological footprints. This developed as a kind of ecological accounting, rather like financial accounting. They also looked at the resilience of ecosystems and their ability to “recover” from use of ecosystems resources.  Financial systems talk about financial deficits, ecological systems experience ecological deficits. They very quickly realised that humankind was using global ecological resources faster than the global ecosystems could replace them (“unsustainable consumption”).

“…Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery…”

Mr Micawber in Charles Dickens’ “David Copperfield”

Earth Overshoot Day

This was then translated into the concept of “Earth Overshoot Day” or when does the earth start using more resources in the year than global ecosystems could restore or replace. The 2019 Global Overshoot Day, or when we began to start using our “Ecological Overdraft”, was 29^th July.  This translates into the statistic that the earth is using 1.75 earths every year, as per 2019 calculations and measurements. South Africa’s Overshoot Day this year was the 8 July. The table below shows how over successive years since 1971, the date of Global Overshoot Day has moved.

With acknowledgment to Global Footprint Network:

Personal Ecological Footprint

The Global Footprint Network has honed its tools to the point where they can provide a means for people to calculate their own personal ecological footprint and overshoot day at https://www.footprintcalculator.org/.  They have also made freely available, the National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2019 Public Data Package at https://www.footprintnetwork.org/licenses/public-data-package-free/

How much Nature do we have?

In a TED Talk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3M29BY86bP4 ), Mathis Wackernagel said the following, “…while in 1961, the Earth’s biocapacity was higher than the resources demanded by human population, now 85% of the population live in countries that use more resources than their ecosystems can renew. In fact, there is an overarching trend. It’s true, Earth biocapacity has increased by 25% over the last 50 years. But our Ecological Footprint has grown even more (2-and-half-fold). The result is that now we use 60% (using 2016 data, this is now 75%) more resources than our planet can offer us…”

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2019

“A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step”

Chapter 64 of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu

Load shedding reared its ugly head again in the first quarter of 2019, the Department of Water and Sanitation is deeply concerned about where the water is coming from to supply the country’s growing future needs, and at the end of April, we were hit by rain and floods of a magnitude and ferocity that we haven’t seen since 1987.

As a prelude to our procrastination, we can come up with a myriad of reasons and excuses as to why these things have happened: climate change, the government’s ineptitude, lack of planning, the end of the world. Take your pick. The point however, is not why did they happen but what are we going to do about them?

Reflecting on these events, it becomes clear that we must take a greater responsibility for our lifestyles and our basic requirements. Simplistically, Maslow’s hierarchy demonstrates that once we are past the “food, shelter, survival, procreation” stage, we have spare energy and resources to do things that we want to do. That’s often the start of wastage. Perhaps the time has come to reflect on what we really need and how we can manage our lives in a more sustainable manner.

Let’s take the topics that I have mentioned above. Our solar panels and batteries at home get us around the two hour load shedding windows that occur and don’t occur, depending upon how you view the promises of ESKOM. At least, we are not scrabbling for torches and trying to watch DStv movies on tiny smart phone screens. If the load shedding periods start to extend to 5 hours, we will be in trouble but for the time being, we’ve managed our power consumption, marshalled our reserves and yes, we saved electricity by generating 50% of our monthly consumption using the sun. It is a single step but we are beginning to see the journey ahead of us.

Have you considered how much treated potable water you use and how much you waste? Do you think you could survive on less if you analysed your usage and reduced the wastage?  If you installed rainwater tanks on your gutters, how much of that water could replace the treated potable water that you use? It could save on toilet flushing for a start. Then there’s washing the car and the dog, watering the garden, cleaning the walls, and so on. Have you measured how much water you use or is it too cheap for you to worry about? It will get more expensive, just like electricity. Scarcity increases price.

You may have watched the floods in the lower parts of Durban and thought, “ahhh it won’t happen to me.” So thought I. At the height of the monsoon-like rain storm, my wife and I were out in the pouring rain sweeping water away from our house to prevent it flooding. I thought I knew where water drained around my house but I hadn’t checked where the low and high points were in relation to entry to the house. It was a sobering lesson that no one is completely free from the impacts of Nature. I recall thinking that we couldn’t have got wetter if we had jumped, fully clothed, into a swimming pool.

We live in a high consumption Society which has got used to acquiring and using more “Stuff”. The negative consequences of that “stuff” are direct and indirect. More people are aspiring to more “Stuff” and the origins of the resources that produce the “stuff” are taking strain: can you help reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Can you save water? Can you use less plastic and recycle more? Can you use less electricity by using less appliances or harnessing solar power? Are you willing to take the first steps of your sustainable journey?

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2019

Ecosystems Services – what are they and why are they so important?

By Arend Hoogervorst

Ecosystem Services?

Ecosystem services are services provided by natural capital (“Nature” or “the environment”- see Explanations below) that support life on earth and are essential to the quality of human life and the functioning of the world’s economies. For example, forests help purify air and water, reduce soil erosion, regulate climate and recycle nutrients.

Ecosystem services are the benefits provided by ecosystems that contribute to making human life both possible and worth living. Examples of ecosystem services include products such as food and water, regulation of floods, soil erosion and disease outbreaks, and non-material benefits such as recreational and spiritual benefits in natural areas. The term ‘services’ is usually used to encompass the tangible and intangible benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems, which are sometimes separated into ‘goods’ and ‘services’.

The use of the term “natural capital” is developed from “capital” used in economics and human financial systems. It is a means of drawing human and environmental systems closer together and to encourage more integration in thinking and practice. Some have said that ecosystem services thinking is a means of placing a monetary value on “the environment”, although the mechanisms are currently imperfect and incomplete.

Explanations

 Ecosystems

In terms of “Nature”, an ecosystem is a biological community of interacting organisms and their physical environment; for example, “the marine ecosystem of the northern Gulf had suffered irreparable damage”. In broader, “non-natural” terms, an ecosystem is a complex network or interconnected system; for example, “Silicon Valley’s entrepreneurial ecosystem”.

Ecosystem services

Ecosystem services are the conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that make them up, sustain and fulfill human life. They maintain biodiversity and the production of ecosystem goods.

Natural capital

Natural capital can be defined as the world’s stocks of natural assets or environmental resources which include geology, soil, air, water and all living things. It is from this natural capital that humans derive a wide range of services, often called ecosystem services, which make human life possible.

Built capital

Built Capital is defined as any pre-existing or planned formation that is constructed or retrofitted to suit community needs. (In other words, it is any human-made environment.)

Human capital

Human capital is the stock of knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labour so as to produce economic value.

Social capital

Social capital broadly refers to those factors of effectively functioning social groups that include such things as interpersonal relationships, a shared sense of identity, a shared understanding, shared norms, shared values, trust, cooperation, and reciprocity.

Sustainability

Sustainability means that a process or state can be maintained at a certain level for as long as is wanted.

Sustainable development

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

The concept of ecosystem services considers the usefulness of nature for human society. The economic importance of nature was described and analysed in the 18th century, but the term, ecosystem services, was only introduced in 1981 through the work of ecologists such as Paul Erlich and HE Daly. In the latter part of the 20^th Century, the observation of significant and extended damage to ecosystems caused by human impacts began to highlight the ‘real’ role of ecosystem services, resulting in more study and focus.

Be aware that ecosystems have different functioning levels (See figure 1) and for the sake of clear explanation, this article focuses on high level discussion. The figure demonstrates the different functioning levels that occur in typical ecosystems.

Figure 1: levels of organisation in an ecosystem

Source: eSchooltoday

Ecosystem Capital

Figure 2 (developed by Costanza et. al.) below illustrates the interrelationships between the different types of capital in the environment. Built Capital represents the built environment (human and non-human), Human Capital represents the knowledge, habits, social and personality attributes, including creativity, embodied in the ability to perform labour and Social capital represents the factors of effectively functioning social groups that include such things as interpersonal relationships, a shared sense of identity, a shared understanding, shared norms, shared values, trust, cooperation, and reciprocity, all of which are contained within Natural Capital. The interaction of some or all of these different forms of capital contributes towards the goal of sustainable human well-being and is enhanced by ecosystem services.

Figure 2 – Interrelationships between different types of Natural Capital

Ecosystem Services Classification  

Ecosystem services have been classified in various ways, including:

• ‘Functional groupings’, such as regulation (controls e.g. climate), carrier (e.g. pollination and seed transport), habitat, production (e.g. food), and information services
• ‘Organisational groupings’, such as services associated with certain species that regulate external inputs into a system, and those related to the organisation of biological entities
• ‘Descriptive groupings’, such as renewable resource goods, non-renewable resource goods, physical structure services, biotic services, biogeochemical services, information services, and social and cultural services.

Functional Grouping

The most widely adopted classification is the ‘functional grouping’ where ecosystem services are divided into four categories.  Some overlap occurs between categories but the four main groupings include:

• Provisioning services which are the products that are obtained from ecosystems, such as: genetic resources, food, water, fuel, bio-chemicals, fibre, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals, and building materials.
• Regulating services which are the benefits obtained from the regulation of ecosystem processes. These include: climate regulation, water regulation and purification, air quality maintenance, erosion control, waste treatment, regulation of human diseases, biological control, pollination, and protection from extreme weather and climatic events.
• Cultural services which are nonphysical benefits that humans obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences.  These services are connected to human behaviour and values, as well as institutions and patterns of political, social and economic organisation.  Cultural services include: cultural diversity, spiritual and religious values, knowledge systems, educational values, inspiration, aesthetic values, social relations, sense of place, cultural heritage values, and tourism.

Spaceship Earth

It is important to recognise that humans are integral elements of global ecosystems and that dynamic interactions take place between them and other parts of ecosystems. The ever changing human condition drives ecosystem change directly and indirectly, thereby bringing about changes in human well-being. Concurrently, economic, cultural and social factors, independent from ecosystems, influence the human condition, and natural forces shape ecosystems.

Ecosystem services influence human well-being, which is assumed to possess multiple constituents, including: basic materials to support a good quality of life, such as secure and adequate livelihoods, ample food, shelter, clothing, and access to goods; health, including well-being, a healthy physical environment, such as clean air and water; good social relations, which includes social cohesion, mutual respect, the means to assist others and provide for children; security, including secure access to resources, personal safety, and protection against natural and human induced disasters; and freedom of choice and action, which are the opportunities that enable individuals to achieve what they value doing and being.

The earth is not an “infinite resource” and it is important to recognise that polluting or damaging our “Spaceship” or not respecting its needs and limitations could have significant impacts upon its ability to sustain our lives in the future. As the earth’s human population continues to grow exponentially, future problems affecting the survival of human beings can be expected as various ecosystems services begin to break down, fail and become less sustainable.

Ecosystem Disservices

Ecosystem management, in some cases, may lead to possible ecosystem disservices.  Examples of disservices can include: increased prevalence of allergens; promoting invasive species; hosting pathogens or pests; inhibiting human mobility or safety; bringing about cultural and psychological effects that negatively impact human well-being; or increasing the necessity for using natural resources (i.e. water) or chemicals (i.e. pesticides and fertilisers).

Supporting Services

Supporting services are those which are necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services.  They differ from other services as their impacts on humans are indirect, or occur over a long time period.  Some services, such as erosion control, can be categorised as a supporting and regulating service (depending on the time scale and immediacy of their impact on humans).  Examples of supporting services include: production of atmospheric oxygen (through photosynthesis), primary production, soil formation and retention, nutrient cycling, water cycling and provisioning of habitat.

Direct and Indirect Services

Some ecosystem services involve the direct provision of material and non-material goods to people and depend on the presence of particular species of plants and animals, for example, food, timber, and medicines. Other ecosystem services arise directly or indirectly from the functioning of ecosystem processes. For example, the service of formation of soils and soil fertility that sustains crop and livestock production depends on the ecosystem processes of decomposition and nutrient cycling by soil micro-organisms.

Stricter Focus

Some scientists have advocated a stricter definition of ecosystem services as only the components of nature that are directly enjoyed, consumed, or used in order to maintain or enhance human well-being. Such an approach can be useful when it comes to ecosystem service accounting and economic valuation. This is because some ecosystem services (e.g. food provision) can be quantified in units that are easily comprehensible by policy makers and the general public. Other services, for example, those that support and regulate the production levels of crops and other harvested goods, are more difficult to quantify. If a definition based on accounting is applied too strictly there is a risk that ecosystem service assessment could be biased toward services that are easily quantifiable, but with inadequate consideration of the most critical ones for human well-being.

Debate and Publications

The concept of ecosystem services has prompted an increasing number of academic publications, international research projects, and policy studies. It is a subject of intense debate in the global scientific community, from the natural to social science domains. It is also used, developed, and customised in policy debates and considered, if in a still somewhat sceptical and apprehensive way, in the “practice” domain—by nature management agencies, farmers, foresters, and the corporate world. This process of bridging evident gaps between ecology and economics, and between nature conservation and economic development, has also been noted in the political arena, including in the United Nations and the European Union.

Areas of Discussion

The concept appears in four major discussions:

• Academic: the ecological versus the economic dimensions of the goods and services that flow from ecosystems to the human economy; the challenge of integrating concepts and models across this paradigmatic divide;
• Social: the risks versus benefits of bringing the utilitarian argument into political debates about nature conservation (Are ecosystem services good or bad for biodiversity and vice versa?);
• Policy and planning: how to value the benefits from natural capital and ecosystem services (Will this improve decision-making on topics ranging from poverty alleviation via subsidies to farmers to planning of grey with green infrastructure to combining economic growth with nature conservation?); and
• Practice: Can revenue come from smart management and sustainable use of ecosystems? Are there markets to be discovered and can businesses be created? How do taxes figure in an ecosystem-based economy? The outcomes of these discussions will both help to shape policy and planning of economies at global, national, and regional scales and contribute to the long-term survival and well-being of humanity.

Final Thoughts

“Ecosystems services” is a concept which may help to bridge the gap between the traditional economists (“Air soil and water are “free” goods which must be freely accessible to all.”) and multi-disciplinary decision makers (“There’s no such thing as a “free” lunch.”). After 20 years, the concept is still being hotly debated at many levels. It has perhaps resulted in the beginnings of consensus that there is need for a new economic paradigm which puts “Nature” at its core. It certainly is beginning to walk hand-in-hand with the “People, Planet and Prosperity” themes that emerged from the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg in 2002 and the subsequent UN Sustainable Development goals. There is no doubt that current economic systems and thinking needs to be changed to cope with the 21^st century issues that need to be faced.

Note

This article is designed to provide basic explanations and stimulate thought rather than going into excessive detail. Other authors have written tomes on ecosystem or nature services and there are many academic articles of different viewpoints on this subject. For the sake of brevity, this author has applied his view on certain elements of the topic for which he takes full responsibility.

References

Braat, L.C., Mar 2016. Framing Concepts in Environmental Science, Policy, Governance, and Law, Management and Planning, Sustainability and Solutions, Online Publication.

Brundtland Commission, 1987. “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development”. United Nations.

Daly, G.C., 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems. Island Press.

Costanza, R., de Groot R., Braat L., Kubiszewski I., Fioramonti L., Sutton P., Farber S., and Grasso M., 2017. Twenty Years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystems Services, 28, 1-16.

De Groot, R.S., Wilson, M.A. & Boumans, R.M.J., 2002. A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services. Ecological Economics, 41, 393–408.

Norberg, J., 1999. Linking Nature’s services to ecosystems: some general ecological concepts. Ecological Economics, 29, 183–202.

Moberg, F and Folke, C., 1999. Ecological goods and services of coral reef ecosystems. Ecological Economics, 29, 215–233.

Tyler Miller, G & Spoolman, S.E., 2018. “Living in the Environment”. 19th Edition, Cengage Learning.

“A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.”

Aldo Leopold

Wilderness

It is always interesting to be reminded of those events, activities and people that triggered change in views and perspectives on environmental matters. I have always been inspired by the writings of the American author, philosopher and conservationist, Aldo Leopold. Leopold first coined the term, “Wilderness”, not as a preserve for hunting, but as an area managed as an arena for a healthy biotic community. He brought focus on the importance of range and land management, as opposed to land mining and raping. His book, “A Sand County Almanac: with essays on conservation from Round River”, although first written in 1949, contains some wonderfully simple and wise thoughts on the changing seasons and how our human activities need to adjust to Nature’s varying demands and bounties. Ironically, effective protection of forests and wildlife on federal lands in the USA only began through the efforts of President Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919).

Pesticides

Rachel Carson published “Silent Spring” in 1962: A book which scientifically documented the pollution of air, water and wildlife from the widespread and uncontrolled use of pesticides such as DDT. She and her book were directly responsible for raising public awareness in the USA of pollution problems and subsequent better regulation of pesticides and herbicides.

South African climate change

Leonie Joubert, a South African freelance journalist and science writer, wrote a powerful book, “Scorched – South Africa’s changing climate” in 2006. The book spelled out the facts about climate change in this country but it had little if any effect on our regulators. She makes use of anecdotes to tell hard hitting stories about how climate change impacts every part of our life and functioning. Although 12 years old, this book still has a powerful and important message for us to consider in the way we run our lives. She quotes naturalist and writer, John Muir (1838-1914), “…When one tugs at a single thing in nature [one] finds it attached to the rest of the world…”. This important lesson is also reflected in the way in which current globalisation affects us all.

Uranium Road

South African researcher and writer, David Fig, wrote “Uranium Road” in 2005. His questioning of the development of nuclear technology and power generation in South Africa through an explanation of the secretive nuclear industry in the country created a basis for many activists to develop from. Once again, although this book is 13 years old, its chronicling of the nuclear industry is a real eye opener. Much of what David spelled out led to grassroots activists, Makoma Lekalakala and Liz McDaid building a broad coalition to stop the South African government’s massive secret nuclear deal with Russia. On April 26, 2017, the High Court ruled that the R1 trillion nuclear power project was unconstitutional—a landmark legal victory that protected South Africa from an unprecedented expansion of the nuclear industry and production of radioactive waste. The two were recognised by being awarded the 2018 Goldman Prize, the environmental activist equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize.

Environmental Management in South Africa

“Environmental Management in South Africa” (2018) edited by ND King, HA Strydom and FP Retief is a doorstop of a book (1,387 pages!) which documents environmental management and law in South Africa and is THE environmental reference work for the country. Sadly, it highlights the fact that we have the legislation but not the means (or possibly the political will…) to apply it all.

Other Books

I don’t have the space to discuss other South African environmental books such as, “Vanishing Waters”   by Bryan Davies & Jenny Day” (1998), “Ecological Intelligence” (2005) by Ian McCallum, “Coming Back to Earth: South Africa’s Changing Environment” (2002) by James Clarke and David Holt-Biddle,  and “Invaded – The Biological Invasion of South Africa” (2009) by Leonie Joubert.

They are gems which have been written with passion and commitment.

Final Thoughts

Our lives are rushed, hurried and often we function on “putting out fires” rather than reflecting upon the matters that we need to act upon with deliberation, prioritisation and commitment. Many of these books give us insight into where the future lies for ourselves and our children and their children. We need to spend more time thinking about where we are and where we want to be. Life is not about being carried by the currents, it is about taking actions that will steer our futures. Take some time to read some of these types of books and think about where you want to be instead of where others are driving you to go.

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 35 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2018.

“The Source and Fate of Things”

 Have you ever considered what would happen if you were made to take responsibility for the sourcing, content and fate of all the “things” that you acquire?  That means being held accountable for the impacts of mining raw materials, their transport, the manufacture of the goods and their distribution and finally, their disposal.

One can imagine that if this happened, the first thing that everyone would realise is that in the vast majority of cases, they do not know what “things” are made of and what goes into their manufacture. If you knew what went into many products, you might decide not to buy them. At the moment, you don’t have that choice because in many cases, you have no way of knowing what they are made of.

The most common example of this is food. Labelling laws in South Africa are very weak compared to most European countries. (If you want to check, look at the ingredients on the side of a local can or container of processed food and compare it with a similar container imported from Europe – the difference is startling.) We eat a considerable amount of processed food and many allergies are triggered by the multifarious additives, preservatives, colourants, flavourants, flavour enhancers, sweeteners, thickeners, stabilizers, emulsifiers, antioxidants, acidity regulators, curing agents, etc. that are included.

The same applies to many of the goods that we buy. You may recall the uproar that occurred, internationally, not so long ago regarding certain additives in plastics that were found in children’s toys, especially baby toys.

This is not just about what we eat (or put into our mouths…) and its impact upon our health. The same applies to what the waste material (when we throw it away) puts into our soil and water when it leaches out from landfill sites. It is probably fair to say that many fair-minded people would not purchase products that contained hazardous chemicals, if they knew that the chemicals were present and if they were given the choice of less hazardous alternatives.

As you might imagine, the rest of the world has given this problem some thought and come up with a way of better understanding the “ingredients” of their “things”.  They use what is known as Life Cycle Assessment or Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), sometimes also known as “cradle to grave” investigation.  LCA is a way to investigate, estimate, and evaluate the environmental burdens caused by a material, product, process, or service throughout its life span.  Environmental burdens include the materials and energy resources required to create the product, process, or service, as well as the wastes and emissions generated during the process (See side bar).

By examining the entire life cycle, one gets a more complete picture of the environmental and health impact created and the trade-offs in impact from one period of the life cycle to another.  Results of LCAs can be useful for identifying areas with high environmental or health impact, and for evaluating and improving product designs. In its advanced computerised form, the data from LCAs can be used to compare and contrast different products and services to help chose those with the least or most benign impacts upon health and the environment.

We still have a long way to go before LCAs become an important part of our choices for purchase and use of goods and services. However, the first step is to look carefully at labels, contents and ingredients lists and materials of manufacture. If these are not clear, or missing, search for information using the Internet. You could also see if you can find if any LCAs have been carried out on your product or service. There are a growing number of LCAs freely available. They may not necessarily give you all the answers that you require but they certainly will give you the means to ask focussed and pertinent questions of your suppliers.

Arend Hoogervorst is an environmental scientist with some 30 years of experience in South Africa in environmental management and sustainable development in local and central government, commerce and industry and private practice.

© Arend Hoogervorst, 2018.