Bitter Sweet
Sugarbirds pay the price of perfection *
By Jennifer Freeman, Africa Birds
and Birding
Annually, the fresh cut-flower protea export trade is worth some R62-million
to South Africa. Protea farming is viewed as an eco-friendly and sustainable
method of farming, but it appears that one of southern Africa's endemic bird
families, the sugarbirds, could be paying a high price for its dependence on
proteas. Jennifer Freeman reports.
Our farm in the Western Cape includes a section of mountain ground that is
potentially suitable for protea production. Having already experienced problems
with bird and insect damage to our export fruit crops, we were concerned about
facing similar problems with cut-flower farming. The presence of Cape Sugarbirds
on our property is unmistakable, as is that of baboons, antelope, small mammals,
rodents and a wide variety of insects.
The Fynbos Research Unit at Elsenburg College, outside Paarl, advised us
that, along with many environmental elements, birds are a very real factor in
protea farming. I then contacted a recommended industry consultant, and was more
than taken aback when I was advised to use poison to control the birds.
The advice given was to sprinkle a solution of a pesticide, with the active
ingredient monocrotophos, onto second-grade protea flowers and attach these to a
few bushes in the orchard. I must, however, 'keep it quiet' and be sure to bury
the doctored flowers and dead birds afterwards. Monocrotophos is an
organophosphate poison with mutagenic effects. Although developed as an
insecticide, it is highly toxic to birds.
In effect, cut-flower producers are at liberty to use poison indiscriminately
in order to 'sterilise' the growing area. Poison has been and still is used for
the control of birds in fruit crops, but it is viewed as completely
unacceptable.
Before going ahead with any development on our farm I visited and spoke to
many farmers and industry officials in a bid to discover the extent to which
bird poisoning is practised within the protea industry, and whether or not the
environmentally friendly programme for fruit could also apply to the cut-flower
industry. Although many farmers were emphatically anti-poisoning, most of my
enquiries were met with suspicion and brought me no closer to establishing what
proportion of producers use poison to control birds. Growers were, however,
happy to discuss control measures for other 'pests', ranging from baboons to
insects.
Members of the South African Protea Producers' and Exporters' Association
(SAPPEX) produce a variety of flowers and green foliage for the lucrative
ornamental cut-flower industry. Active in researching production methods and in
promoting the commercial value of other fynbos species, SAPPEX plays an
important role in fynbos conservation. At present, 55 Cape plant cultivars are
registered with plant breeders' rights, making growers in Hawaii, New Zealand,
Australia and Zimbabwe potential clients, as well as industry competitors (and
competitors that don't have to contend with inherent fynbos pests).
Although producers are encouraged to grow formally planted protea orchards,
flowers and 'greens' are still harvested from the veld. Protea growing may seem
relatively trouble-free, but most farmers struggle against a host of potential
setbacks; the strong winds typical of the fynbos region, the large numbers of
insects present in protea veld and the scourge of Phytophthora (a fungus
often present in soil water) all combine to increase investment risk.
Export flowers are subject to inspection by the Perishable Products Export
Control Board (PPECB) and for this purpose the protea flower is divided into
three sections: the top third, the middle section and the lower third (which
includes the stem and leaves). Should any of these sections bear significant
'injuries', the flower will be rejected. Misshapen leaves qualify for rejection,
as does a stem which deviates more than 50 millimetres in any direction along
its length. 'Injuries' may include rub marks from wind, insect-chewed leaves –
or scratch marks from sugarbirds. These scratch marks, which resemble fine brown
hairs, are always located on the upper third of the flower. In effect, this
means that there is a good chance that any protea bud or flower on which a
sugarbird has perched will be considered unsuitable for export.
The sugarbird family, Promeropidae, is represented by only two species, both
endemic to southern Africa. The Cape Sugarbird Promerops caffer is
restricted to the fynbos biome, and Gurney's Sugarbird P. gurneyi to the
eastern escarpment of southern Africa. Both have long brush-tipped tongues and
extremely sharp claws which enable them to feed on a variety of nectar-producing
plants in even the most inclement weather.
The evolutionary relationships of the sugarbird family have long been a
source of speculation. The recent discovery of blood parasites in South African
sugarbirds, identical to those present in Australian honey-eaters and never
previously recorded on the African continent, was revolutionary. With the help
of DNA sequencing, positive links with the honey-eaters, or Meliphagidae, have
now been established, putting sugarbirds on the evolutionary map as an ancient
lineage.
In autumn, when the grey-green protea scrublands of South Africa's fynbos
region break into a sumptuous show of pink blooms, the breeding season of the
Cape Sugarbird begins. The flowering proteas attract the sugarbirds by offering
both a rich supply of nectar and a profusion of nutritious insects. The birds
defend breeding territories, but forage communally at rich food sources such as
flowering proteas. They form lifelong pair-bonds, raising two broods per year if
conditions permit. Juveniles join the throng of other sugarbirds feeding in the
nearest protea thickets. A single sugarbird can visit and potentially pollinate
as many as 300 protea flowers in one day. The birds probe bowl-shaped proteas,
such as the king protea Protea cynaroides, as well as chalice-shaped and
cup-shaped proteas, P. neriifolia and P. nitida respectively. They
do also feed from pincushion proteas, but do not damage the flowers
significantly because the bracts are too narrow to be pierced or scratched by
the birds' claws. Various Aloe species, red-hot pokers Kniphofia,
Cape honeysuckle Tecomaria capensis, several Watsonia species, and
the Australian bottle-brush have also been recorded as food sources. Sugarbirds
eat insects as well as nectar, and mostly feed insects to their chicks.
As spring approaches, protea blooms become scarcer and the birds move off to
new feeding grounds on higher slopes or in gardens. Cultivated proteas flower
extensively in summer, becoming an ideal and irresistible food source for the
birds in the months before the breeding season.
Deliberate poisoning of sugarbirds at this time could have severe
repercussions, not only due to the deaths but also to the breaking of
pair-bonds.
It is difficult to determine whether or not sugarbird populations are
currently decreasing or have done so in the past. We know that neither Cape nor
Gurney's Sugarbird is classified as threatened in any way (The Eskom Red Data
Book of Birds of South Africa, Lesotho and Swaziland), but further than
that, no population statistics are available.
Dr Terry Oatley, an expert in avian demography, points out that data recorded
in The Atlas of Southern African Birds do have the potential to give a
medium-term indication of sugarbird population trends, if not actual numbers. It
should be noted that the Cape Sugarbird is only one of six bird species whose
world ranges are confined to mountain fynbos. At least two more of these
endemics (Orange-breasted Sunbird Anthobaphes violacea and Protea
Seed-eater Serinus leucopterus) are strongly dependent on proteas.
Bird-friendly alternatives to poison do exist. Protea farmers who experience
severe loss through bird damage and/or frost can use wax paper bags or pantihose
off-cuts to protect the flowers. Bags have to be put on early in the season as
bract damage can occur at bud stage, as well as when birds feed on the open
flowers. Research is currently being carried out to discover the most
appropriate bag material, as the original models tended to disintegrate and blow
away. Heavier grade papers are, naturally, more expensive.
I was relieved to discover that the paper-bag method is used locally for
flower protection and to talk to several producers who had no bird problems and
hadn't heard of avian pesticide use. Other growers felt that with the emergence
of the United States export market in the late 1990s, stringent quality
requirements had pressured them into using more and more chemicals.
Some farmers acknowledged that while they had used pesticides within the past
two years, they had now stopped because of the devastating effect on local bird
populations. The use of poison was described as 'the lazy man's way' and is
considered to be both unprofessional and detrimental to the industry. I was
urged to expose the seeming lack of environmental concern. Apparently, many of
the larger producers still use poison because the cost of bags and labour is
prohibitive. Bagging is also seen as being impractical, with producers having to
bag every flower in their protea orchards, whereas poison application was needed
once or twice a week and cleared the growing area of bird activity within hours.
One PPECB inspector, who had 15 years' experience in the Eastern Cape, claimed
that growers had 'raped' the fynbos environment by using poison and by
encouraging children to kill the birds for pocket money.
The Elsenburg Fynbos Research Unit informed me that organic production of
proteas is unrealistic because of the high number of pests in the cut-flower
environment, but they did encourage farmers to use environmentally friendly pest
controls. The removal of dead flowers, for example, is recommended to prevent
possible rodent or ant damage to export-quality blooms. It is not clear,
however, how often such advice is put into practice.
Internationally approved accreditation systems which advocate responsible
environmental and social management of farms are available to South African
protea growers. Under such schemes, retailers and consumers are assured, by
means of an annual producer audit and certification system, that certain
requirements have been met by producers. Stipulations include keeping accurate
spray records, responsible disposal of waste, and safe work environments. SAPPEX
is investigating accreditation options but has yet to reach consensus on which
system to use. Apparently the cost of accreditation and the paperwork involved
in keeping records makes promoting the concept difficult. In the fruit industry
compliance with these standards is mandatory and farms that cannot meet the
criteria immediately need to have a detailed plan showing how and when changes
will be made.
SAPPEX has been offered participation in a Netherlands certification system
called Milieu Programma Sierteelt (MPS), designed specifically for the
cut-flower industry, but insufficient interest has been shown by growers,
despite the fact that only 10 farmers are needed to initiate the MPS pilot
project. I found its protocol to be very similar to that of EUREPGAP which is
used by the fruit industry. (EUREPGAP was started by the Euro-retailer Working
Group EUREP and is seen as a minimum standards benchmark for Good Agricultural
Practice by European retailers – the same retailers that buy South African
proteas.)
In order to save on accreditation cost, I raised the possibility of including
flower farming under our EUREPGAP fruit accreditation umbrella. I was surprised
to be told by a protea industry representative 'not to worry about it' because
consumer pressure had not yet been brought to bear on South African flower
growers. Because cut-flowers are not a food product (for humans), there are few
regulations enforcing good production practices. There are no established
guidelines or prescriptions on the use of spray material, and any farmer who
wishes to produce proteas or harvest them from natural areas on his/her property
can apply for a permit to do so. Nature Conservation extension officers assess
the area to determine which protected plant species are present, but no
Environmental Impact Assessment is necessary. Once the permit is approved and
paid for, no laws other than those that relate to protected species prescribe
management. The fate of the ecosystem concerned rests with the farmer.
Where agriculture provides a supply of food for humans, the killing of birds,
rodents, reptiles and insects for the sake of production is tolerated, even
expected. The impact of agriculture on the environment is somehow justified
because food needs to be provided and livings have to be made.
Although everything has to pay its way in today's climate of 'sustainable
development', we cannot afford to look at the commercial value of an indigenous
product without taking into consideration impacts on other indigenous species.
In the case of South African protea production, a unique ecosystem is being
compromised to produce a luxury item. Just how much damage is being or has been
done, I have not been able to determine. What is without doubt, however, is that
the guidelines, support systems and checks necessary to ensure environmentally
responsible production are lacking in the extreme. The reasons for the protea
industry's delay in embracing good farming practice may be understandable, but
ultimately, they are inexcusable.
It is easy to lay the blame at the feet of the farmers but, as participants
in the business cycle, consumers are equally responsible: farmers will supply
according to buyer demand. My aim is to highlight the potential for flower
buyers to create a demand for 'sugarbird-' or 'fynbos-friendly' proteas. But I
also hope that the South African protea industry will take the initiative to
promote its valuable product as being authentic, unique and responsibly
produced, instead of waiting for consumers to force them to do so.
Article courtesy of Africa Birds and Birding
* Please see here for additional commentary on
the above
|
