The TCMF Review: The silenced view
From a letter to the Minister of the Environment, Forestry and Fisheries, Hon Barbara Creecy
Reading Time: 7 minutes
The need for alternative views to be heard on the Tokai Cecilia Management Framework (TCMF) review process.
Public controversy has marked the management of Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) and, more specifically, the Tokai Cecilia Management Framework (TCMF) now under review. The stakeholder engagement process started on 25 May 2021 and will last 6 months. Although many people have differing opinions about how the land should be used (and therefore how the framework should look), the major conflict centres on whether TMNP should restore fynbos to the Tokai and Cecilia areas or whether transitional planting, defined in the TCMF, should take place.
Transitional planting is defined as the planting of trees, initially proposed to be pines, for one fire cycle, However transitional planting using pines is now illegal under NEMBA 2004, and is ecologically and financially unviable and does not align with the TMNP Park Management Plan. The TCMF, published in 2009, was poorly facilitated and resulted in lingering community conflict often incorrectly portrayed as a battle between the public and SANParks.
Public opinion, divided on the future of these areas, has been fed and swayed by misconceptions of the value of trees, as well as the perpetuation of a problematic global tree-planting frenzy. There are, however, many who would be happy to see the trees go, and indigenous fynbos restored and conserved, but these views are being silenced.
1 Context
Before we get into the specifics, it is important to place this controversy in context. Tokai Park holds global significance as a biodiversity hotspot. It contains critically endangered ‘Cape Flats Sand Fynbos’ and ‘Peninsula Granite Fynbos’ and it connects the mountainous TMNP to the lowlands. It is the only remaining place in TMNP that has a corridor for wildlife from mountain fynbos to sand fynbos. Both fynbos types are extremely rich in terms of plant and animal species. They are also heavily threatened by development.
Worldwide, less than 14% of Cape Flats Sand Fynbos remains – and less than 1% is conserved.
Tokai Park forms part of the area remaining in good condition. More than 550 species of native plants flourish in an area covering only 600 ha, making it one of the most plant-rich places on Earth.
Extinction currently threatens 147 Cape Flats Sand Fynbos plant species, and six are already gone. At Tokai Park, 26 plants are threatened with extinction. The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List also lists two frog species at Tokai as threatened, including the Western Leopard Toad.
The Threatened Species Research Unit at the South African National Biodiversity Institute says the number of species threatened with extinction in Cape Town has increased by 36 in the last decade. Several plant species are already extinct in the wild. Two of them, Erica verticillata and Erica turgida have been reintroduced at Tokai Park. Tokai Park is the last place on earth where populations of Erica turgida have successfully reestablished.
The latest Living Planet Report released by the World Wide Fund for Nature (2020) found that globally monitored wildlife populations have declined by about 68% since 1970. This is mainly due to agriculture, fisheries, mining and other human activities. Alarmingly, this is a 10% increase on the numbers cited in the 2016 report.
South Africa is a signatory to the Rio Convention on Biological Diversity, as well as the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation, and proposes to slow the pace of plant extinction and conserve a minimum of 17% of each vegetation type for future generations. Since only 3% of Cape Flats Sand Fynbos remains in good condition, and only 1% is conserved, our international obligation is to protect and restore it
2 Public opinion or public participation?
Tokai Park contains a large proportion of the remaining area of Cape Flats Sand Fynbos with conservation potential and therefore provides a perfect opportunity to right some of our environmental wrongs in South Africa. However, demands for shaded recreation space are conflicting with initiatives for restoration and conservation.
In 2015, forestry company Mountains-To-Oceans (MTO) decided to remove its Tokai pine plantations ahead of the scheduled 2025 lease agreement. Given fire damage, it made economic sense for the company to harvest what remained of the plantations.
The decision to allow MTO to harvest the remainder of its plantations early, restore the critically important fynbos and exit the park seemed logical and ethical. In addition, Tokai has been shown to have high restoration potential due to viable seedbanks beneath the plantations. However, a lobby group, Parkscape, vehemently opposed the early harvesting of the pine trees and was granted a court interdict halting the felling process.
Parkscape took SANParks to court and has subsequently been spreading misinformation and blocking debate on the future of Tokai Park. Details of its blocking strategies are set out in: Why is Parkscape intentionally blocking understanding, science and open debate around Tokai Park?
Unlike groups intent on draining TMNP management capacity through investigations, complaints and litigation, community-led organisations such as Friends of Tokai Park annually rack up thousands of volunteer hours in support of Park management.
We should, therefore, be careful of whose voices are heard. It cannot simply be the group that shouts the loudest or represents money held by a rich minority. The desire to keep trees at Tokai and Cecilia is only one view held by the public, yet it seems to be receiving the most attention. In South Africa, the idea that trees form an essential part of our landscape is a legacy of colonialism.
3 Our natural fynbos heritage
Fynbos has no trees besides Silvertrees and Waboom and, in Sand Fynbos, neither of these occur. Small pockets of Afromontane Forest, confined to TMNP’s fire-sheltered kloofs, are the only exceptions within the park, and these pockets have been shown to be expanding into the fynbos. Trees in fynbos have a negative effect on biodiversity, increase fire risk and guzzle water. Annually, they cost the South African economy billions of Rands in damages and hundreds of millions of Rands to clear.
We must ask, therefore, why the views of a privileged minority override the views of those who most value our pre-colonial natural heritage? And why so in a post-apartheid South Africa? Surely the manifold ecosystem services and biodiversity value of fynbos outweigh the recreational benefits of plantations?
There is no financial or ecological defence for retaining trees in fynbos.
How does the public feel? Parkscape cites a 2017 petition by 2,065 signatories seeking to retain the pine plantations. A 2016 petition by Friends of Tokai Park, “Help restore our Critically Endangered Sand Fynbos at Tokai”, garnered 2,894 supporters (details can be viewed here). Yet only Parkscape’s narrative dominates mainstream and social media. Why is there no attempt to promote alternative views?
The manner in which this conflict has been handled and the cancelling of alternative views set dangerous precedents in that they allow public opinion, without regard for sound scientific process, to shape the management of our critically important biodiversity areas.
Another matter to consider is that, while public engagement is constitutionally guaranteed and very important, public education must accompany it. We know that if we are not taught about our beautiful biodiversity, we will not appreciate it. In the words of Baba Dioum (1968):
“In the end we will conserve only what we love; we will love only what we understand; and we will understand only what we are taught.
4 Towards congruence and a compliant TCMF
Scientific research, and in this case local ecological expertise, and other perspectives must be given due consideration in informing restoration, conservation and, therefore, management frameworks.
We call for:
- A balance of lobby group inputs with those of significant role players such as the Friends of Tokai Park, the Botanical Society of South Africa, and The Wildlife and Environment Society of Southern Africa.
- The support of SANParks’ conservation and restoration efforts. Fynbos at Tokai Park our natural heritage and it belongs to all South Africans. Our grandchildren and future generations have the right to these species being conserved so that they may either enjoy them or benefit from their possible, still-unexplored genetic and/or medicinal value.
- Action on the spread of misinformation around environmental issues. One study concludes:
“Everyone has a responsibility to combat the scourge of fake news. This ranges from supporting investigative journalism, reducing financial incentives for fake news, and improving digital literacy among the general public.”
One potential intervention is to address the ethics governing media and journalism. Commercial and mainstream media outlets, including radio and newspapers, need to seek out balanced opinions and views on controversial environmental issues. They should respect and understand that government organisations need time to react to demands for a response (e.g. SANParks needs responses to be signed off in triplicate). This is frequently not compatible with the immediacy of an insatiable social media or the timelines of radio or newspaper media outlets. A slow response cannot be inferred by media to be guilt, disinterest, and a lack of engagement or incompetence.
By the same token, SANParks scientists and managers should be allowed to circumvent cumbersome internal processes, enabling them to respond with more agility to the media, to more easily engage the public and to diffuse misunderstanding or conflict.
Lobby groups need to build legitimacy and trust through transparency. The board members, constitutions and organisational e-mails of lobby groups should be publicly available (for many, this is not the case).
This is, globally, an important year for biodiversity and restoration. A new global biodiversity framework will be adopted at the United Nations Biodiversity Conference in China from 11-24 October 2021 (#COP15) and the UN Decade of Ecosystem Restoration will be launched on 5 June 2021.
We should all be doing far more to fight for biodiversity.
Yours faithfully.
Alanna Rebelo, Stellenbosch University (on behalf of the 2,894 people who signed the 2016 petition)
This Post Has 4 Comments
Brilliant letter … to the point and very well articulated. Thank you
It always saddens me when different perspectives are called:misinformation” fake news etc. The truth is that there are various scientific perspectives on this issue. And these appear to me to have not been properly interrogated. Big mistakes have been made in the past. SANP has not been able to manage areas of conservation – look at Noordhoek Wetlands area where the conservation strategies have actually not really helped. Australian spp have grown a lot, the place has many snares…..Further . We know about climate change – and the depletion of nutrients in the soil – reports by scientists have referred to this. There are views on the potential for regeneration of fynbos spp – these views are diverse and it seems that coherence has not been achieved. Often when the diversity of opinion persists – then it means that not all factors are adequately addressed. If people speak of misinformation and fake news ; it may mean that they have locked themselves into positions. And in that position people can become blinded as they defend a position.
Promises and undertakings made by SANP are often just ignored. A situation of trust does not exist.
I smiled at the political references Alana employed so usefully. One seriously bright scientist who understands the politics of persuasion.
Here is what an elder of the Richtersveld National Park said years ago about the botanists and conservation officers:
Hulle gee om vir die halfmens (Pachypodium namaquanum ) maar vir die volmens gee hulle nie om nie. We need to consider the impacts on people. The only approx 5000 signatures for two positions are hardly representive of the populations around the Park and who use the Park. So a reference to number as if this is highly meaningful may simply be a non-sense. The cynical me would say that those signaturies probably come from highly privileged groups. Pale, wealthy, older….
I wonder into how many subsections fynbos can be divided. How many micro systems are identified . If one wants to push for a certain percentage of a regime to be conserved – then it will help to subdivide the systems into as many as possible – thereby being able to argue for even bigger conservation areas. I dont know. What I do feel, is that the perspectives of the different scientists should be explored properly so that the perspectives of one family of scientists: the Ribeiros, in a powerful position within this Park will surely not dominate that landscape.
Thanks Fiona
“As science pushes forward, ignorance and superstition gallop around the flanks and bite science in the rear with big dark teeth.” Philip José Farmer
There are various views, but not many scientific views. For theories to be validated they need to use the scientific method and peer-reviewed process. Unfortunately most opinions are not only fake news but false science. These do not need more airtime: they should be debunked – and do not need to discussed yet again. Opinions based on fake news do not need more attention just because some people refuse to believe that they are fake news. Science is not blind to bad science, it moves forward based on reality and only revisits debunked theories when credible data comes to light.
The argument of splitting into sections is also fake news: based on “make-believe maths”. If a type needs 10% conserved, then dividing it into 10 subtypes does not mean that 100% needs to be conserved: the total remains 10% – and remains so even it is further divided into 100 types. So subdividing types does not change the total target area to be conserved. But it does point out more precisely where the 10% conservation areas should be and why those areas are so important. Conservation priorities are published here: http://biodiversityadvisor.sanbi.org/planning-and-assessment/national-biodiversity-assessment-nba-2018/ (and the Ribeiros are not mentioned).
ta
Tony
Thank you very much for sharing your opinion Fiona. I completely agree that science should be driving conservation and management of Table Mountain National Park (cf: “the perspectives of the different scientists should be explored properly “), and that experts should be consulted around the future of areas like Tokai and Cecilia (much like they are for any other government processes in South Africa). It is odd that the input of experts is so conspicuously absent in this TCMF review process.
Some of your other points need addressing:
1) “It always saddens me when different perspectives are called: misinformation” fake news etc.”
-> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Different opinions and perspectives in themselves are not “misinformation” or “fake news”. I even share my own opinion here: https://tokaipark.com/2021/05/personal-reflections-on-the-tcmf-review/, though you will note it is not included in this statement. However it is when one view is incorrectly marketed as the dominant view, or when one view receives all the media attention, that we start to use terms like “misinformation”. Indeed, I think you have misunderstood this article/letter entirely if you believe that it is suggesting that different opinions are misinformation. When we mention “spreading misinformation”, we are specifically referring to social media campaigns sharing information, for example, on the “value of trees” or “forests”, and inappropriately applying this to the plantations at Tokai Park, with no attempt to balance this with their negative impacts.
2) “The truth is that there are various scientific perspectives on this issue”.
-> There are not many scientific views on this matter, but certainly many personal views.
3) “And these appear to me to have not been properly interrogated”.
-> Different scientific theories must be interrogated by the peer-review process. Any statements made publicly by scientists linked to this debate that do not have scientific publications supporting them, should be critically examined, especially where there are financial gains being made. The scientific literature is unanimous at this stage in demonstrating the critical value of Tokai Park as a core conservation area for the City of Cape Town.
4) “Big mistakes have been made in the past. SANP has not been able to manage areas of conservation – look at Noordhoek Wetlands area where the conservation strategies have actually not really helped. Australian spp have grown a lot, the place has many snares…..”
-> These are extremely sweeping statements. I am personally aware of examples of both successes and failures by SANParks. Your statement that “conservation strategies have not actually helped” is meaningless to me unless I am able to see the scientific publication that demonstrates this, or at the very least the data. Otherwise how do I know that you are not just misinformed? In terms of Australian invasives, once the seedbanks get into the soil, they remain in the seedbanks for hundreds of years. The problem will never go away, not anywhere in the Cape. But we can do our best to manage these invasions, to reduce future seedfall, but this requires an integrated approach, which requires huge sums of money and buy-in from all people. Many landowners are failing to do alien clearing on their land, jeopardizing everyone else adjacent to them.
5) “We know about climate change – and the depletion of nutrients in the soil – reports by scientists have referred to this.”
-> Sorry, which reports? Please link to these when you write, then we can verify your sources. I am not aware of anything peer-reviewed which supports the retention of pines in fynbos under either arguments of climate change or “depletion of soil nutrients”.
And what about climate change? If you are talking about climate change, then the alien pines and gums at Tokai and Cecilia should be removed immediately. They are a huge fire risk, and they degrade soil quality. The soil is though to be one of the largest carbon sinks, more important than vegetation. I’m afraid I don’t really understand what you mean about depletion of nutrients in the soil. Fynbos soils are notoriously nutrient poor, and fynbos likes it this way.
6) “There are views on the potential for regeneration of fynbos spp – these views are diverse and it seems that coherence has not been achieved.”
-> This is your perception I am afraid, and is not the case in reality. The fynbos ecologists are not divided on their understanding of passive and active restoration of fynbos. If you would like to read the scientific literature, we have taken great pains to collect the most relevant papers and have archived them on our website. Please enjoy perusing them: https://tokaipark.com/media/articles/. I am sure you will be much relieved to see that there is a great deal of common understanding and “coherence”. We have even given a talk on this to the public, specifically on restoration at Tokai Park, which you can enjoy here: https://youtu.be/5_6E-aNs5z0.
7) “Often when the diversity of opinion persists – then it means that not all factors are adequately addressed. If people speak of misinformation and fake news ; it may mean that they have locked themselves into positions. And in that position people can become blinded as they defend a position.”
-> There will always be a great deal of diversity of opinion when there is a decision to be made that is important to people. And this is why I do not think we should be using a subjective process to forge the way forward. It should be guided by science and by the experts, and the public should of course be able to have a say, but just in as much as they always do, for example for the City of Cape Town water strategy, or their recent climate strategy, or any of the white papers put out by national government. Why in the case of Toka and Cecilia has a subjective process been chosen to be followed? It doesn’t make sense to me.
8) “Promises and undertakings made by SANP are often just ignored. A situation of trust does not exist.”
-> This is true from both sides. Lobby groups cause a huge amount of havoc and block operations (e.g. the interdict of 2016), various moves to block prescribed burning). Therefore we have to consider the full picture. The public is going to have to work hard to build trust with SANParks, as well as SANParks having to also work hard to build trust with the public. You cannot only look at this from one perspective.
9) “Here is what an elder of the Richtersveld National Park said years ago about the botanists and conservation officers:
Hulle gee om vir die halfmens (Pachypodium namaquanum ) maar vir die volmens gee hulle nie om nie. We need to consider the impacts on people.”
-> This is a really sad opinion, and even sadder that it is being repeated. It is sad that people think that botanists care only for plants. Do they not have family too? Of course they care about people. I think a more sensible way to look at it is that there are many plant species in South Africa faced with extinction. Many critically endangered species. And yet these do not have their own voice. There are a few people who are passionate about these, and who fight to save them from extinction. This may be some botanists (although not all). In fact, I have seen more heartlessness in animal activists towards people, than I have seen in any botanist. The way some of those baboon activists treat people, for example, is shocking. Remember that in fighting to save plants from extinction, people are actually looking out for people! Who knows whether one of these plants could have a cure for cancer, or some terrible disease. If they go extinct (the who species disappears from the earth), we lose this genetic material for good.
I myself am no botanist, I am an ecologist and I am quite passionate about taking a whole system approach: considering both ecology and society. Much of my research reflects this. In addition, I have been involved in many social causes in my short life. I was involved with Adonis Musati Project, caring for refugees, and then after that the street kids of Stellenbosch though Straatlig, and then more recently with Rays of Hope, teaching maths and english in the township of Alexandra. Why then, may I also not fight to save plants from extinction? How would it be right for anyone to say I don’t also care for people? I do, I just have a different perspective. I don’t think people’s recreational desires measure up in importance to plants faced with extinction.
10) “The only approx 5000 signatures for two positions are hardly representive of the populations around the Park and who use the Park. So a reference to number as if this is highly meaningful may simply be a non-sense. The cynical me would say that those signaturies probably come from highly privileged groups. Pale, wealthy, older….”
-> Our reference to this number is to state that our view is at least equal in weighting to other lobby groups. It is not to state that it is representative of the community.
11) “I wonder into how many subsections fynbos can be divided. How many micro systems are identified . If one wants to push for a certain percentage of a regime to be conserved – then it will help to subdivide the systems into as many as possible – thereby being able to argue for even bigger conservation areas. I dont know. ”
-> Please do read some of the scientific literature on this (link provided above) so that you can understand this. It is important, as you are missing the point here. You seem to suggest that people are subdividing vegetation types simply to push for maximum conservation, but what you miss is that so much has been lost already. Even if you just look at Sand Fynbos, there is so little of it left, it doesn’t matter whether we divide it into different types, it would still all have to be conserved. And more importantly, there are species that would definitely go extinct, if Sand Fynbos was lost.
12) “What I do feel, is that the perspectives of the different scientists should be explored properly so that the perspectives of one family of scientists: the Ribeiros, in a powerful position within this Park will surely not dominate that landscape.”
-> Again, if you have a look at the scientific literature, you will see that the “Rebelo’s” do not dominate. There are many other scientists who have published relevant work. In fact, there is no way that scientists can hope to compete with organizations and lobby groups who have hired PR companies to send heir messages out. If I were you, I would be worrying about these groups. The scientific process will take care of itself, it is well established. It is what happens outside of this well-regulated environment which should be concerning us. Public statements made by paid scientists, PR companies supporting misinformation campaigns, the media only reporting one view. This is what should be of concern. We wrote this letter to the minister because we felt that this view was missing from the narrative. So it is very odd that you found our attempt to highlight a silenced view, as a view that is “dominating” the landscape. This simply is not the case.