Article by Georgina van Biljon 28-02-2025
Since starting Intaba as a rehabilitation company 14 years ago we have interacted with diverse groups of people from different levels of education, various countries, cultures, religions, income groups and from a variety of industries. Each have different approaches and this has different effects on the outcome of the projects we undertake.
An approach (noun) in this context, is a way of considering or doing something (Cambridge definition) or a way of dealing with a situation or problem. Other synonyms are: attitude, outlook, frame of mind, point of view, perspective, stance or someone's way of thinking.
Understanding your own approach or perspective towards environmental rehabilitation will assist you in identifying your 'blind spots' or potential challenges you may come across. Furthermore considering other perspectives and possibly changing your own perspective can be even more impactful in this sphere.
Picture above: a group of people listening to a grazing a specialist (from the Dept. of Agriculture) about livestock grazing capacities. Intaba arranged this meeting to assist groups of people to hear another perspective on an environmental issue on site: erosion of river banks due to overgrazing. As a result it was agreed that the number of cattle was to be reduced on the land. In this way the degradation driver was dealt with, which will have long term effects.
In this article we will be outlining some approaches or perspectives to rehabilitation that we have observed and the impact it may have on rehabilitation efforts. Furthermore we will describe an approach that has best supported us in undertaking and achieving successful rehabilitation projects.
Here are some approaches that we have observed.
1. Problem solving approach> If erosion is the problem, then find a solution that can combat that.
2. Cost - saving approach> Focused on the cheapest way to solve the problem.
3. Cost - benefit approach > Weighing up the pros and cons of the different elements and make a decision from there.
4. Result driven approach > Outcome - based or focused. Success can be seen in high % plant survival or plant cover. And in EPWP projects it can be high levels of job creation. Usually some record keeping is involved.
5. Safety approach > This can be motivated by making an environment safe for people. Either focused on reducing crime in a park or making an environment safe after a natural disaster or destruction occurred.
6. Engineering or functional approach> What structures or plants can be use to fix the destruction/issue. This focuses on functional aspects and delivery of services.
7. Ecological approach> What is the ecological disaster/damage and how can we re-create the ecosystem.
8. Integrated approach> Using a mixture of approaches so that all aspects are considered.
Which approach do you mostly have?
A rehabilitation project in De Doorns, where farm workers, engineers, farmers, government representatives and ecological practitioners were involved.
Focusing on one approach can be problematic.
We have noticed that some situations can arise if one focuses on one specific approach.
1. Problem solving approach: For example, the use of vetiver grass (Chrysopogon zizanioides) for stabilising riverbanks. Vetiver is a non-native grass to South Africa, as it originally comes from India. It has a very aggressive and impressive root structure that one could use for stabilising soil. In a problem solving approach it makes sense to use the best soil stabilizer available for erosion. However, is the plant invasive to South Africa? One should be cautious when it comes to introducing exotic plants or even non-local plants into a ecosystem. There is more info on this: https://invasives.org.za/
2. Cost - saving approach: choosing the cheapest option to sort out the problem. In rehabilitation we see this when people just want to buy cheap seed/plants on bulk. If the plant naturally occurs there might not be a priority, so seeds are brought in from unknown sources and might not belong in that ecosystem. This can cause genetic mixing of plant material and potential ‘escaping into nature’ (invasions). This approach focuses more on cost saving, not necessarily on the outcome. For example, a person had an accident in nature which caused damage and are required to fix that damage by law. They do not have a lot of funds available, so they are going to take the cheapest option available.
3. Cost - benefit approach is focused on weighing up costs and benefits, which are linked to goals (which are subjective) and might not necessarily be best for other people or the environment (if that is not a priority). For example, a person wants to save their orchard from destruction caused by flooding. Making a high berm and planting plants on it might protect the orchard in the short term, but the river’s flooding capacity may not considered and not enough space is given for the river to flood. The berm washes away in the next big flood. Or a landowner has leased a piece of land to a community group that want to graze their cattle. After a few years, the herd has increased in size and the landowner notices that the river banks are eroding badly and this is causing issues. The two groups of people need to weigh up the costs and benefits of all groups and consider the environment to achieve a long lasting solution.
4. Results driven (outcomes-based) approach - this is usually target based and has some measurement or record keeping. This can be measured in percentage plant survival or plant cover measurements that need to be achieved. Or if there are no targets, then the site must have minimal plant losses and look good. We usually find this approach for carbon-market projects and clients that are from a financial, agriculture or forestry industry. It is production driven, does not factor in much risk (Eg, natural disasters) and losses need to be replaced at the cost of the contractor. If the outcome/focus is job creation, then the outcome of rehabilitation may be be 'diluted' or could be ineffective in sorting out the environmental issue.
5. Safety approach: If you focus on safety of the environment from crime – this can be seen in using only knee- high plants, lolly-popped trees and the shrub component is removed so that people cannot hide behind them. When trying to address flood prevention in an urban context, the knee-high plants cannot sufficiently slow down the speed of rivers and there is still destruction as a result of flooding. In other instances where natural disasters have occurred and endangered lives or property, for example houses being flooded near rivers or in flood plains. One needs to consider if those houses should be there? Rather than just protecting the houses.
6. Engineering approach – building structures or viewing plants for their functional use may be problematic. For example: using plants to slow down the speed of the river can reduce erosion potential, but they also chanellise or 'choke' the river if not managed. Built structures, for example gabions are useful for buffering floods, however they are not very flexible - unlike dynamic river systems. Rivers change their courses and one cannot be too rigid in ‘box-like’ thinking. Working with nature, rather than against it’s natural design will have longer term success.
7. Ecological approach – it would be wonderful to re-create biodiversity where plants, creatures and abiotic aspects work dynamically together to solve problems and deliver ecosystem services. For example, planting of palmiet (Prionium serratum) creating an excellent habitat for species and reducing flow velocity. However, in many cases budgets cannot afford to have a plant species list of 30+ species. There are plants that are difficult to propagate (Palmiet being one of them) and these may need to be excluded from plant lists. The ecological approach does not necessarily consider practical considerations on the functionality, for example, a road needs to be built over a river or a pump for irrigation needs to be maintained in a river which might compromise ecological functioning. The use of peat in propagating plants for rehabilitation is another hot topic, as peatlands are highly valued and protected ecosystems. Should one use peat even if plants, such as Palmiet grow well in it? There are people researching alternatives to peat, but it remains a well used propagating medium.
Integrated approach:
Using or considering a variety of approaches will make your rehabilitation actions more a success in achieving rehabilitation outcomes and also considering personal goals, budget and other practical aspects. One needs to identify what is your dominating approach and seek to consider other aspects or approaches. Being open to other approaches is the first step and incorporating other perspectives is the next.
From the Intaba team, we would like to thank the people who have challenged our perspectives. It has caused us to learn, be creative and work in a more considerate way to people and the environment.
We wish you all the best with your challenges in your rehabilitation work and in your journey ahead.
We are open to hear your perspective on this article and you are welcome to leave a comment or email at: georgina@greenintaba.co.za
Comments