The case for the Brenton Blue Butterfly

Introduction

The case for the Brenton Blue Butterfly is based on the abovementioned scientific survey, the efforts to develop a solution for the conflict, and legal research conducted. Reference is made to arguments, summarised in the Addendum, used to demonstrate why the butterfly issue cannot or should not be dealt with.

The biology of the butterfly

The researches were briefed among others, to assess specifically some of the issues addressed in Section B. Only summary responses are provided here.

On moving the butterfly:

The butterfly cannot be moved and the option was eventually discounted also by the DEAT(Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism). Internationally translocation efforts have been met with a very low success rate. At the very best it should be considered a high risk, long-term option that would be completely unacceptable as a solution to the current conflict of interests. As part of a long term conservation strategy the expansion of the butterfly population onto the Regional Services Council land has to be encouraged as it would greatly increase the butterfly’s chances of survival. This cannot, however, act as a substitute for in situ conservation.

On the development not threatening the butterfly:

Vincent’s statement that the butterfly occurs mainly on the Public Open Space (and thereby becomes the responsibility of the Town Council) is factually incorrect. Only a fraction of the butterfly activity occurs on the Public O[en Space and by far the majority of the food plants and eggs on the demarcated stands. The Brenton Blue is a highly vulnerable species and any building activity in that area would severely compromise its chances of survival.

The butterfly is threatened with extinction:

The rumours of ‘other populations’ can be tracked down to two related incidents.

Around November 1995, a single butterfly specimen "looking very much like the Brenton Blue" was discovered in the Kammanassie Mountains. Fearing that the uncertain identity of this single specimen would negatively affect the Brenton Blue Campaign, the Lepidopterists subsequently decided to keep this information secret until they had been able to identify the species. One of them, a retired Cape Nature Conservation officer, seems however to have passed this information on to his colleagues. Somehow the ‘Kammanassie Blue’ became another possible population the location of which is being secret to protect it against collectors. The Kammanassie Blue was later identified by three of the country’s top Lepidopterists as being a new Orachrysops species.

The ‘other population’ issue may have achieved added significance for the political decision-makers when they were informed that Cape Nature Conservation was searching the coastline for other possible habitats and populations. Although it was necessary to conduct such a search only a very remote chance existed of finding anything. Dr Jonathan Ball, one of the country’s foremost Lepidopterists, had been searching the same area specifically for the Brenton Blue Butterfly over a period of 20 years.

On the butterfly going extinct in any case:

Regarding the Argentine Ant: this ant species is not present in the proposed reserve, even though it is present elsewhere in Brenton where it shows reluctance to enter undisturbed fynbos. As long as the reserve is established and adequately protected an invasion is highly unlikely. Even if an invasion were to occur it by no means follows that the Argentine Ant will displace the butterfly’s assumed host ant. Only specific ant species are actually displaced by the Argentine Ant whereas it co-exists with others. As the Brenton Blue’s host has not yet been identified. It cannot simply be assumed that it will be assumed that it will be eradicated by the Argentine Ant.

On the butterfly not being able to survive in such a small area:

One of the main purposes of the scientific survey was to determine whether the proposed reserve is adequate. The currently proposed reserve size is the minimum that can responsibly be advocated and inclusion into the reserve of other properties would further enhance the butterfly’s chances of survival. Habitat modification of the adjoining Regional Services Council land is designed to achieve a greater area of dispersal for the butterfly. The fire regime inside the currently proposed regime can be replaced by manual bush clearing. Appropriate regulation would ensure that other threats to the butterfly, such as pesticides, are controlled.

On the butterfly being a declining species bound to go extinct naturally.

Based on the limited data available at the moment it is deemed more likely that the current limited distribution of the species is related to human activity, rather than an in-built disposition towards extinction. To be able to claim the opposite legitimately population studies over a number of years would be needed.

The technical legal situation

Central Government has many powers which it is in a position to exercise in order to resolve this issue in a manner that is of benefit to all parties and we would like to draw attention to Section 31A of the Environment Conservation Act.

We are of the view that the opinion gained by the Provincial Government on the interpretation of this section did not sufficiently take into consideration all relevant facts and did not properly take into account all the rights of the parties involved.

Government’s capacity to intervene

The solution to the problem developed in cooperation with the Developer does not involve payments being made by Government. If the Developer’s, and the private stand owners’ rights are adequately addressed in the proposal land swop, the costs involved could be limited. In short, Government could implement a win-win solution without any costs and at a low risk.