SWC ~ Sustaining the Wild Coast ~ » At what cost the loss of the PCE (Pondoland Centre of Endenism)? By Val Payn

At what cost the loss of the PCE (Pondoland Centre of Endenism)? By Val Payn

‘And I had done a hellish thing,
And it would work ‘em woe:
For all averred, I had killed the bird
That made the breeze to blow.’

Coleridge –The Rime of the Ancient Mariner

In the debate raging about the pro’s and cons of whether a Toll road and mining is appropriate as a means of development in the Pondoland center of Endemism (PCE), a crucial question that does not seem to have been adequately addressed, except in the most vague, general terms, is whether the region, and South Africa, can economically afford not to conserve the natural assets of the PCE. Proponents of the Toll rd and mining have sung about the economic advantages of mining, and of a toll road through the region, but the extent to which costings have weighed the true economic value of any environmental loss the schemes may result in is questionable.

This article is not an attempt to put an economic value on the natural assets of the PCE, which would be impossible anyway without data to quantify exactly what the PCE contains in the way of flora and fauna, and the existing and potential use by local communities, but to point out the dangers of assessing development schemes without doing a holistic cost benefit analysis which takes proper economic account of environmental loss as a result of any developments proposed.

In traditional economics the holistic quantification of the value of natural resources to human societies has been largely overlooked. This means that in assessing the relative merits or not of development projects, traditional methods of economic assessment give a false accounting in that they seldom, if ever, accurately account for the value and benefits of natural resources to communities, nor adequately reflect the loss of these to the economy when ‘balancing the books’ of potential of development schemes. This gives rise to a weighted accounting of the relative merits or not of any particular development.
Perhaps this is because, historically, the abundance of natural resources had made us perceive them as ‘for free’ (and often ‘free’ seems to serve as a pseudonym for ‘limitless’). With the global environment in crisis as a result of the abuse of natural resources, partly because the true value of them has never been properly accounted for, traditional economic methods clearly fall short when used to assess the merits of proposed schemes.

For instance, mining is traditionally considered a highly profitable industry, and some people, and countries, have amassed great wealth on the produce of mines. But the accounts of mining companies never reflect the losses that mining cause to the environment and to society–the permanent loss of productive land to mine dumps, the economic cost to society of air and water pollution as a result of mining activities and the health implications thereof, the social and development costs when mines close because the resource is depleted or through mine related injuries, or the social and economic costs when communities are moved or disturbed because of mining activities. If mining companies had to bear the cost of these factors and pay compensation for the loss of these to society, would mining be considered such an economic ‘gold mine’?

Considering that the well –being of all of humanity depends upon the optimal functioning of natural systems this seems a horrendous oversight, though one which is gradually being recognized as the world finds itself running into an ecological crisis through high overdraft in the environmental bank. ‘Including the value of natural resources and our social capital in national accounting is a vital step to achieve economic growth that is sustainable’ Achim Steiner, Director General of the World Conservation union, is quoted in the World Bank report 2005. (Policy and Law Online News in review 2005. Developing countries still in the red –World Bank report, www.polity.org.za. )

Of course numerous difficulties face anyone trying to measure the potential economic value of natural resources, one of which is that traditional market systems (and by association traditional economic assessments) have a perverse instinct not to give much value to things that are easy to come by, or are seemingly acquired for’ free’. Markets, whatever economists might tell us, do not place much value on abundance. In the market place scarcity is generally accorded a higher value than abundance. So, perversely, the more abundant things are- the less they cost us and more freely acquired- the more markets tend to take them for granted and so give them a ‘cheap’ monetary value. And the more we term them ‘cheap’, or for ‘free’, the more we are likely to abuse them. In terms of natural resources, this often means we only begin to value those resources when they become scarce to the extent of being endangered, or through scarcity threaten the survival of economies that have depended upon the resource.
When, at the beginning of the 18C, great yellowwood forests spread along most of the Cape Coastline, from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth and beyond, yellowwood was treated as a cheap wood, and used much as we today use commercially grown plantation pine. One finds old yellowwood used for mundane objects such as the beams and floorboards of old cattle and railway siding sheds, wagon wheels and storage boxes. If it was used for furniture at all, it was for poor mans and servants furniture, or hidden away in the utilitarian kitchen, its ‘cheapness’ often disguised by being painted white or stained to resemble darker more valuable woods like oak and mahogany. One would never have found it used for prized furniture in the homes of the wealthy if other more prized woods were available. Now that the great yellowwood forests are no more, obliterated except for a few pockets around Knysna, yellowwood is astronomically expensive and that self same ‘servants wood’ is highly prized in the wealthiest of homes.
So anyone trying to value natural resources for purposes of comparison in economic terms finds themselves in the contradictory conservational conundrum of scarcity having a higher market price than abundance. But scarcity in the natural world, which is geared toward abundance, is often a danger signal that the balance of natural systems is on the brink of collapse. In other words, markets will put a high economic value on natural resources only when those resources are highly disturbed and are often no longer operating at their optimal efficiency.

Another problem with trying to put a value on natural resources is that one cannot treat them as a ‘pick a box’. As all aspects of natural systems are interlinked in a system of interdependency, with impacts on one aspect affecting all the other parts, one cannot select out those items that one feels might have some economic usefulness and discard the rest as of no value Traditional economics tends to be selective in its assessment of the relative value of natural resources, giving a higher value to those that have some usefulness to human society, and disregarding the rest as valueless, without considering the domino effect which occurs in eco- systems if any one part is severely degraded.
An instance of the domino effect is the way the thinning of the ozone layer due to chlorofluorocarbon pollution lead to a 15 -20 percent loss of sea surface phytoplankton, a sort of sea algae, and one of the planets main converters of carbon dioxide into oxygen. Excessive carbon dioxide is one of the main causes of global warming, so less phytoplankton means more carbon dioxide means more global warming means less phytoplankton………Phytoplankton is also the oceans equivalent of grass and one of the main food sources in the ocean, so a radical reduction in phytoplankton will affect every other sea creature. (James Clarke. Coming Back to Earth)
Although traditional economics might assign phytoplankton a valueless market price in that it is neither traded nor useful to man, a radical reduction in phytoplankton has the potential to disrupt every sea produce reliant economy in the world.
Carbon trading is now a reality, principally because heavy industrial polluters are unwilling to pay the price to curb their air pollution so, rather like medieval folk who thought they could buy absolution in heaven by buying tokens and reliquaries from the church, they pay someone else so they can continue with their dirty work with a clean conscience! Individuals and countries can earn money by planting carbon dioxide absorbing forests. In South Africa the currency is something like R52 a hectare of trees. One wonders if in the not too distant future those countries that make an effort to protect phytoplankton by reducing water and air pollution will not be paid carbon trading fees for their efforts? One wonders how much revenue those long lost yellowwood forests might have earned in carbon currency?

The Pondoland Centre of Endemism, though extremely small in geographic terms, is extremely wealthy in environmental terms. Much of its environmental wealth is also highly ‘site specific’ i.e. the particular set of geographic circumstances of the region has resulted in high numbers of endemic species, generally contained in very small populations, making it an ecology extremely sensitive to disruption. Although no extensive and comprehensive study has ever been done on the natural assets of the PCE, an area of 1880 square kilometers, a recent study of the flora of 4 sites in the area, namely Mkambati, Oribi Gorge, Umtamvuna Nature Reserve and Port St Johns revealed 2 252 species of which 196 where endemic. For purposes of comparison, the Kruger National Park only contains 1 400 species as does the whole of the United Kingdom (Mkambati and the Wild Coast. De Villiers and Costello. ISBN 0/62035 320/1)

As I have mentioned before, this article is not intended to determine the value of the environmental wealth of the PCE in economic terms.
However, there is every indication that in a global economy in which natural assets are increasingly being depleted, such assets are likely to be increasingly viewed as valuable to economies.
‘ Every day, decision makers in developing countries are faced with difficult choices regarding the exploitation of natural resources and the environmental impacts of development programs and policies…. But the tools currently being used are leaving out the natural resource stocks and intangible capital such as knowledge and skills. Sound management of eco-systems is key to a responsible path to growth’ (Ian Johnson. World Bank Vice President for Sustainable Development as quoted in Policy and Law Online News)

In proposing a holistic cost benefit analysis as the only way to determine the true economic merits or not of proposed developments, it is interesting to view available figures of the economic benefits of other regional natural resources to economies, which may be pertinent to the current and future development economics of the PCE, assuming policies and programmes are put in place to optimize the benefits of the natural resources of the region.

The Biodiversity and Heritage Review 2000 -1 (www.environment.gov.za/Documents/Publications/AnnualReport2000 -01/BioHer.h) gives the following figures.
Foreign birders annually bring R10 to R25 million into the economy. Income from the Cape Wild Flower Industry is estimated at R150 million a year, of which 80% is foreign exchange. The local trade in indigenous medicinal plants is estimated at R1.6 billion a year. The value of indigenous plants used for food or beverages is unknown.
Biowatch South Africa gives the following figures.
In 1993 tourism in protected area contributed R6.9 billion to South Africa’s GDP and created some 17 000 – 148 000 jobs. The Wild flower industry, mostly based on fynbos, exported some R70 million worth of cut flowers and provided 20 -000 to 30 -000 jobs.
Figures obtained from the South African Botanical Society (SANBI) indicate that the value of indigenous medicinal plants traded in KZN in 1998 was R60 million per annum and for South Africa totaled R270 million ,though it is also unlikely that such trade is sustainable, with many plants facing extinction due to over harvesting.
Plants serve as the basis of about 1 in 4 basic ingredients used in pharmaceutical drug manufacture, yet no more that 17% of known plants have been investigated for medicinal properties. The Dutch sell R300 million South African Freesias annually, and cultivate huge areas of gladioli, Zantedeschia (Arum lilies), Nerine and other plants of South African origin. 5 000 of the 7 000 succulents in cultivation in the world originate from Southern Africa. The sale of Pelargoniums indigenous to South Africa in the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium approximates US$6 billion, more than the revenue of South African gold.
These figures indicate that the economic potential for sustainable use of natural resources in the PCE with its rich natural heritage is immense, that as a natural bank it has the potential to generate great profits for the South African economy, provided an adequate development plan is put in place to safeguard for perpetuity the reservoir of natural wealth the region contains.

Conversely, when natural resources collapse the economic effects can be disastrous, sometimes in unexpected ways. In South Africa in 1968 Professor Jan Lochner warned that the sardine shoals off Namibia were in danger of collapse through over-fishing although, if properly managed, they could yield a sustainable annual tonnage of 2.5 million tones. The authorities choose to ignore the warning. In 1970 the fish cannery at Walvis Bay, the worlds largest, expanded. In 1977 the fishing quota was increased. In 1978 the season stopped halfway through from inadequate catch. In 1981 Namibia’ s last fish factory closed. 8 000 people lost their jobs. The tomato industry in Mpumalanga was thrown into turmoil because 80% of the crop was for sauce for tinned pilchards. (James Clarke – Coming Back to Earth)

In developmentally poor but environmentally and scenically rich area’s such as the Wild Coast, where options for land use are limited due to the regions peculiar geological set- up, properly managed sustainable use of natural resources has the potential to bring immense benefits to poor communities. Conversely, in poor communities that rely heavily on natural resources as a means of sustenance and income, environmental degradation can have disastrous results. Along the Wild Coast, it is obvious to any casual observer that gathered ‘sea produce, ie limpets, mussels, fish, rock lobster, forms a major part of the protein of subsistence coastal communities in the area. It is also likely that ‘wild food’, gathered wild fruits, herbs and edible leaves forms an important part of the diet variety and helps contribute to the health of communities in the region. In the face of increased human populations and without adequate controls it is debatable how long current ‘harvesting’ can be maintained, but there can be no doubt that the collapse of these would have dire implications for subsistance communities.

A comparative case study by Professor Blignaut into the economic potential of community conservation initiatives as alternatives to subsistence farming in the Bushbuck ridge area adjacent to the Kruger National Park gives an indication of the potential value of natural capital when it is used as a community upliftment tool. (Quantifying the potential of restored natural capital to alleviate poverty and help conserve nature; A case study from South Africa. James Blignaut and Christina Moolman www.sciencedirect.com) and suggests it is a viable tool for poverty relief programmes. By implication, it also gives an indication of the potential for economic loss suffered by communities as a result of extensive environmental degradation. There are obviously many variables between the situation at Bushbuck Ridge and the PCE, but there are also similarities. Both areas are in former ‘homelands’, with resultant lack of development programmes, both are communal land in which subsistence activities (i.e. the reliance on natural resources for basic sustenance, income and other uses) is high. A significant difference is that at Bushbuck Ridge the natural environment is highly degraded and population densities are high, while in the PCE the natural environment is still relatively intact and population densities are low. Any change to the status quo of the PCE that impacts negatively on the environment without the backup of a large scale regional development plan therefore has the potential to increase levels of poverty amongst Pondolands subsistence communities. Environmentalists have long argued that the proposed route of the N2 through the PCE has the potential, through a combination of immediate and secondary impacts, such as ribbon development that commonly occurs along roads in communal areas, to severely degrade the PCE. It is questionable, due to the climatic, soil and other factors, whether any rehabilitation is possible after open cast dune mining in the area. Richards Bay minerals, after investigating the possibility of mining the area in the 80’s, concurred that rehabilitation was not feasible. Neither of these development projects occur in conjunction with holistic regional development plans.

In trying to determine a maximumally efficient alignment for the N2 Toll road The South African National Roads Agency (SANRAL) has made broad use of the computer engineering programme Quantm. SANRAL has also indicated that it has a limited budget for road construction projects which limit its options when it comes to selecting alternative routes for the N2.

While road engineering software such as Quantm is no doubt highly beneficial in assessing the relative engineering and construction cost benefits of any particular route, it should not be assumed that maximal road efficiency translates into the best economic solution for the region. An engineering programme such as Quantm cannot measure or assess multi –dimensional socio -environmental impacts or the socio -economic cost of the loss of well functioning environments. SANRAL maintain that the software has been programmed to take account of degrees of environmental sensitivity, but cannot answer what value has been accorded to degrees of environmental sensitivity. Without this knowledge, any decision weighted by the calculations of a programme such Quantm should be viewed with extreme caution when deciding if any particular route is in the best interest of the region. The best route in terms of road engineering and construction economics does not automatically translate into the most beneficial route for the economy of Pondoland or, for that matter, for South Africa. At the very least, having an incomplete assessment of the economic and eco- environmental stakes one is dealing with in such an environmentally rich area as the PCE should ring warning bells to the proponents of projects such as the N2 which have the potential to degrade environmentally rich but ecologically sensitive areas.

Without a long term and holistic development programme which takes cognizance of the peculiarities of the PCE, and puts into place adequate measures to protect the environment, it is likely that the natural reservoir of wealth the PCE contains, and hence the sustainable future of its people, will be jeopardized. It would be a pity if the future economic development potential of Pondoland were gambled away on short term stakes. One cannot bring species back from extinction, and the communities that depend for a livelihood upon the PCE cannot afford development mistakes. Nor, for that matter, can South Africa.

Posted on April 15th, 2007
Filed under: Articles