Response to Conservation Claims Regarding African Penguins by Professor Emeritus Doug Butterworth

Introduction

Professor Emeritus Doug Butterworth from the Department of Mathematics and Applied Mathematics at the University of Cape Town has recently addressed comments made by SANCCOB and Birdlife in relation to African penguin conservation efforts. His remarks were published in the Fishing Industry News article titled “Will ‘Biologically Meaningful’ Island Closures Save the African Penguin?” on February 5, 2025. The discourse surrounding the closure of fishing areas to protect the African penguin has raised significant scientific and ethical questions that warrant careful examination.

Clarification of Scientific Assumptions

In their response to Professor Butterworth’s critique, SANCCOB and Birdlife assert that their proposed fishing closures are based on actual foraging routes of African penguins, rejecting his assertion that their calculations imply penguins swim at speeds comparable to those of a Boeing aircraft. This rebuttal raises concern, as it suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific methodology underlying their calculations.

While it is true that real-life telemetry data has been utilized to determine penguin foraging areas, the interpretation of this data is crucial. The telemetry data reflects the penguin’s position at the time of transmission, yet it necessitates assumptions about the penguin’s location during the intervals between transmissions. These intervals, generally around two minutes, necessitate estimates about how far a penguin may travel in that brief period. SANCCOB and Birdlife’s calculations assume distances exceeding 20 kilometers, which, based on simple arithmetic, would require penguins to swim at speeds akin to those of airplanes. This discrepancy fundamentally undermines the validity of their court application, as the areas proposed for fishing closures may be disproportionately large compared to the actual foraging range indicated by the telemetry data.

Implications for Conservation Strategies

The implications of these flawed calculations are significant. The areas identified by SANCCOB and Birdlife as necessary for closure may not align with the actual foraging needs of the penguins. A scientific paper submitted to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries, and the Environment (DFFE) highlighted these concerns, suggesting that the assumptions used in calculating penguin foraging areas were scientifically unsound. Despite efforts to initiate dialogue on these issues, including outreach to various environmental NGOs, there has been a notable lack of response from Birdlife and others regarding alternative mechanisms to justify their assumptions.

This raises critical questions about the scientific competence and ethical responsibilities of organizations involved in conservation efforts. When the scientific basis for a court application is called into question, particularly one that seeks to impose significant restrictions on fishing activities, it becomes imperative for those advocating such measures to provide robust evidence to support their claims.

Addressing Penguin Population Decline

Beyond the technical inaccuracies in the calculations, other comments made by environmental NGOs regarding the primary threats to penguins merit scrutiny. For instance, WWF’s Craig Smith claimed that competition with the small pelagic fishery remains the largest unresolved threat to penguins. However, research indicates that predation by seals, which has increased significantly since the 1970s, accounts for penguin population decline to a far greater extent than fishing competition. Specifically, the data suggests that a mere 0.01 penguins are lost per seal annually, raising questions about the validity of claims regarding the fishery’s impact.

In light of the International Panel on Penguins’ report, which has gone unaddressed for nearly two years, the urgency to confront the primary causes of penguin decline is more pressing than ever. The ongoing focus on a court application, which lacks scientific justification, detracts from essential discussions and actions needed to support penguin conservation.

Conclusion and Call for Evidence-Based Action

Given the significant discrepancies in the scientific rationale underlying the proposed fishing closures, it is in the best interest of penguin conservation that the court application be withdrawn. This action would allow for a return to evidence-based scientific discussions aimed at addressing the genuine threats to the African penguin population.

As we move forward, it is crucial that conservation efforts are anchored in sound scientific principles and transparent methodologies. The responsibility to protect vulnerable species like the African penguin must be accompanied by a commitment to rigorous scientific inquiry and ethical advocacy. The future of penguin conservation hinges on our ability to engage in informed discussions that prioritize the best available scientific evidence.

References

Butterworth, D.S. (2024). Are current mIBA-based proposals for closed areas around South African penguin colonies flawed? Document submitted to DFFE for the attention of their planned Penguin Scientific Working Group, November 2024.

Butterworth, D.S. (2025). Understanding the decline of African penguins, a call for evidence-based action. Argus, 3 January 2025.

Butterworth, D.S. & Ross-Gillespie, A. (2023). Exploration of a MICE approach to evaluate the impact of fish abundance on penguin survival. DFFE document FISHERIES/2023/NOV/SWG-PEL/25rev.

Rogers, J. (2018). Judgment in Case No 11478/18 before the High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division).

In conclusion, the call for evidence-based action in conservation efforts is paramount. The interplay of scientific discovery, ethical considerations, and advocacy must guide our approach to protecting the African penguin and its habitat.