23/07/2026
Love our trails supports and appreciated the Sugarbird Project.
A RESPONSE TO RECENT COMMENTS ABOUT UPPER TOKAI RESTORATION
Open discussion is essential in conservation. Unfortunately, the Sugarbird Project has been blocked from commenting on Parkscapes’ page, so we are unable to respond directly to statements made about our work and the restoration of Upper Tokai. We therefore feel it is important to present the evidence here so that people can consider both sides of the discussion.
A recent Parkscapes post argues that restoration in Upper Tokai has failed because blackwood is now widespread, that the biodiversity beneath the plantations had already been lost, that conservation funding would have been better spent elsewhere, and that the 1994 UCT Report intended plantations adjacent to urban areas to remain indefinitely as shaded recreational areas. The post also suggests that decades of pine plantations so altered the soils that meaningful ecological restoration was never realistically possible.
These are important issues worthy of discussion. However, they deserve to be considered in the light of the ecological evidence, the historical record, and the conservation purpose of a national park.
WHAT DOES THE ECOLOGICAL EVIDENCE SHOW?
One of the central claims is that “the biodiversity is gone.” The evidence simply does not support this.
As leading South African botanist and fynbos expert Dr Tony Rebelo explains, following the removal of the plantations, around 700 indigenous plant species have been recorded in Upper Tokai, emerging from the existing soil seed bank and surviving vegetation. That alone demonstrates that the ecosystem was not biologically dead. It had been suppressed beneath plantations, but it remained remarkably resilient.
This remarkable recovery also answers one of the questions raised in the Parkscapes post: “Should we rather clear a site that still has a biodiverse seed bank?”
The answer is yes. Upper Tokai clearly did have one.
The purpose of restoration has never been to create a new ecosystem. It has always been to restore Critically Endangered Peninsula Granite Fynbos where it naturally occurs. Conservation is not about restoring whichever site is easiest or cheapest. It is about protecting ecosystems that are most threatened. If Peninsula Granite Fynbos is not restored where it belongs, there is nowhere else to replace it.
The suggestion that pine plantations should be retained because they suppress invasive acacias also deserves careful consideration. Pine plantations are not self-sustaining. They require continual fire protection, thinning, pruning, harvesting and ongoing management. Black wattle, blackwood and other invasive species readily establish within and around plantations, meaning invasive alien control remains necessary regardless. Maintaining commercial plantations is therefore not a cost-free alternative to ecological restoration.
Nor does the presence of blackwood today mean restoration has failed. Blackwood is undoubtedly a significant management challenge, but restoration is not a once-off event. It requires long-term follow-up, and that is exactly what SANParks, conservation organisations and volunteer groups, including the Sugarbird Project, continue to do.
HAS THE ECOSYSTEM REALLY BEEN DESTROYED?
Another claim is that decades of pine plantations compromised the soils to such an extent that meaningful restoration would be impossible.
Yet the landscape itself tells a very different story.
If the ecosystem had truly been destroyed, how do we explain the return of approximately 700 indigenous plant species? How do we explain the reappearance of wetlands that had been suppressed beneath plantations? How do we explain the return of indigenous insects, birds and other wildlife, and baboons once again thriving in restored fynbos habitat?
Ecosystem processes are driven by living communities of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms. As those communities recover, so too do the ecological processes that sustain them. The remarkable recovery observed in Upper Tokai is therefore not evidence that restoration has failed—it is evidence that restoration is working.
Ecological science continues to advance. While early international studies contributed enormously to restoration ecology, decades of research have since been carried out in the Cape Floristic Region itself. Most importantly, we now have something even more valuable than theory—we have the results on the ground at Tokai.
WHAT DID THE 1994 UCT REPORT ACTUALLY RECOMMEND?
The Parkscapes post also relies heavily on the 1994 UCT Report prepared under Professor Richard Fuggle. It was an important and influential document, but it deserves to be read in its entirety and within its historical context.
As historian, heritage consultant and environmental activist Dr Berta van Rooyen explains, the report required plantations to be assessed for their cultural significance. Under UNESCO definitions, commercial plantations of alien species had, and still have, relatively low cultural significance.
Importantly, the report did not recommend retaining all plantations indefinitely. It recommended reviewing existing plantations to determine which should remain under forestry, which should be managed for recreation and education, and which should be removed for conservation and other purposes.
The report also called for maintaining and enhancing indigenous flora and fauna by preventing habitat destruction, controlling—and where feasible eradicating—alien organisms, managing or removing exotic trees affecting water resources, and preventing ecologically inappropriate forestry practices.
In other words, conservation was already recognised as a legitimate reason for removing plantations.
It is equally important to remember that the report was written in 1994, before South Africa had fully rejoined the international conservation community. It could not have anticipated the environmental legislation, biodiversity policies and protected area management principles that followed, nor the inscription of the Cape Floral Kingdom as a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2004.
Over the past three decades, conservation science, environmental law and protected area management have evolved considerably. Commercial alien plantations have become increasingly incompatible with the legal and conservation framework governing national parks. The UCT Report remains an important historical document, but it cannot be regarded as the final word on how a national park should be managed today.
THE BROADER QUESTION
No one disputes that many people have fond memories of Tokai’s plantations. Recreation, heritage and public access are all important considerations in managing a national park.
But the real question is not whether people valued the plantations—they clearly did.
The question is whether commercial plantations of alien trees should take precedence over restoring one of the world’s rarest ecosystems within a protected area established to conserve biodiversity.
The ecological evidence from Upper Tokai is compelling. Hundreds of indigenous plant species have returned. Wetlands have recovered. Indigenous wildlife is returning. Long-term invasive plant management continues. These are the hallmarks of ecological recovery, not ecological failure.
Reasonable people may differ on how best to balance recreation, heritage and biodiversity, and we welcome respectful discussion on these issues. What concerns us is when ecological evidence is overlooked or historical documents are presented without their broader context.
Conservation decisions should be guided by the best available science, current environmental law and the purpose of a national park. We remain committed to restoring the Cape Floral Kingdom and to engaging openly and respectfully with anyone who wishes to discuss these issues in good faith.
