The crucial word missing from SA’s wildlife debate

South Africa’s wildlife debate has increasingly organised itself around the phrase “sustainable use”. The government, conservation organisations, hunting associations, wildlife ranchers and animal welfare groups all invoke it, often while meaning very different things.But in the process, a crucial word has quietly disappeared.It is “ecologically”.Section 24 of the Constitution gives everyone the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing and requires that the environment be protected for present and future generations. It obliges the state to take reasonable measures to prevent ecological degradation, promote conservation and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources, while promoting justifiable economic and social development.The Constitution clearly permits the use of natural resources. But it places that use within ecological limits. It does not create an unrestricted right to use wildlife simply because doing so creates jobs, generates revenue or sustains an industry.Once “ecologically” is dropped, sustainability can mean almost anything.A wildlife enterprise may be financially sustainable without being ecologically sustainable. Captive breeding may produce increasing numbers of animals without contributing to the conservation of wild populations. Hunting or harvesting may generate substantial revenue while weakening genetic integrity, disrupting social structures or damaging the ecosystems on which those animals depend.A question of protectionNone of this means that wildlife should not be used. Wildlife-based enterprises can create jobs, generate income and sustain rural economies. But the first question must remain whether the activity protects wild populations, genetic diversity, ecological processes and functioning natural systems as envisioned by the Constitution. They can provide incentives to retain land for conservation and give wildlife economic value in landscapes where it might otherwise disappear. But those benefits cannot, by themselves, establish that an activity is sustainable.The first test must be ecological: does the activity maintain viable wild populations, genetic diversity, natural ecological processes and functioning ecosystems?This is not an argument against development, jobs or responsible beneficiation. Ecological sustainability is the foundation on which all of them ultimately depend. A wildlife economy, the livelihoods it supports and even the option of continuing to use a species depend on healthy populations embedded in functioning ecosystems.Climate change makes that foundation even more important. Degrade the ecological systems on which wildlife and people depend and, sooner or later, the economic benefits built upon them will also begin to fail.That is why Section 24 explicitly refers to both present and future generations.The problem, then, is not use itself. It is the assumption that use is sustainable without credible evidence, effective regulation, proper monitoring and an understanding of cumulative impacts.The government’s White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity, 2023 provides a useful way through this argument.It defines sustainable use as the use of biodiversity in a manner that is ecologically, economically and socially sustainable. Importantly, such use should not contribute to the long-term decline of biodiversity in the wild, disrupt the genetic integrity of populations or damage the ecological integrity of the ecosystems in which they occur. It should provide fair and equitable benefits to present and future generations and demonstrate a duty of care towards biodiversity.That gives practical meaning to the constitutional principle.And it matters because some of South Africa’s most divisive wildlife controversies revolve around precisely this question: captive lion breeding, canned hunting, lion-bone exports, trophy-hunting quotas, intensive wildlife production, game meat, rhino-horn trade and elephant management.Too often these debates retreat into two opposing absolutes: that wildlife use is inherently conservation, or that commercial use of wildlife can never contribute to conservation.Neither position provides a useful basis for policy.Responsible useA more workable approach is to recognise responsible use as a potential conservation tool, but subject it to clear ecological, ethical and social boundaries.Instead of approving or rejecting an activity simply because it involves hunting, trade, tourism, harvesting or commercial gain, we should ask harder questions.Does it maintain or restore ecological integrity? Does it support viable populations in the wild? Does it protect genetic diversity and natural behaviour? Is it humane and consistent with a duty of care? Are benefits fairly shared with communities living alongside wildlife? Is it effectively regulated, monitored and enforced? And would it remain defensible if its full ecological, social and reputational costs were taken into account?Where an activity passes those tests, responsible use can help finance conservation, retain land under wildlife, create employment and sustain rural livelihoods.Where it fails them, it should not be described as sustainable simply because it is profitable or legally permitted.There is another side to this. Where existing lawful industries no longer meet modern conservation standards, change needs to be orderly and fair. Government must provide policy clarity, legal certainty, reasonable timeframes and proper processes for transition.But commercial interests cannot be allowed to determine where the ecological line is drawn. The Constitution places responsibility for protecting biodiversity in the public interest and for generations that have no voice in today’s decisions.So perhaps South Africa has been asking the wrong question. The choice is not simply between “use” and “no use”. The question is: what kind of use, under what conditions, with what ecological consequences?Apply that test consistently and much of the ideological fog surrounding wildlife management begins to clear. It leaves room for responsible use where it demonstrably benefits wildlife, landscapes and people, while preventing the phrase “sustainable use” from becoming a convenient label for activities that are sustainable only as businesses.Put the missing word back and the standard becomes much harder to evade. The test is not whether we use wildlife. It is whether that use is ecologically sustainable. DM