Response to sardine mortality must be grounded in science and evidence

Your opinion piece, Government gambling with species extinction, published on 12 October 2026, regarding concerns about the critically endangered African penguin, treats preliminary observations as evidence of widespread penguin starvation caused by the sardine mortality event, and presents a moratorium on directed sardine fishing as the only scientifically defensible response. The evidence currently available does not support either conclusion.

The opinion piece includes undated photographs supplied by the Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds (SANCCOB) and refers to rehabilitation records describing penguins as thin, emaciated or underweight. Such cases are concerning, but they do not establish that emaciation has increased unusually or widely, nor do they establish its cause. 

SANCCOB participates in meetings of the Small Pelagic Scientific Working Group, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment’s technical advisory body responsible for evaluating scientific information and making evidence-based recommendations on the management of sardine, anchovy and other small pelagic resources. 

SANCCOB’s representative has not presented the working group with systematic evidence of increased penguin emaciation attributable to the sardine mortality event.

‘Lack of transparency’

The opinion piece also alleges a lack of transparency because the department’s 4 October 2026 media statement did not communicate an updated management decision following the Small Pelagic Scientific Working Group’s meeting on 29 September 2026, overlooking the internal process required to turn scientific advice into a management measure. 

The working group submitted its recommendation after the meeting, and approval was granted on 3 October 2026, after which individual limits had to be calculated from catch records up to and including 2 October 2026, and formally communicated to rights holders. Only then could this information be made publicly available.

Hence, the 4 October 2026 statement dealt with the scientific investigation while the management process was under way. The approved measure, its duration and the date of the next scientific review were communicated in the department’s weekly media statement on 11 October 2026.  

The preliminary penguin-weighbridge information cited is still being analysed. The patterns are not consistent with prey scarcity across all monitored colonies and cannot yet be attributed to the sardine mortality event. 

The Small Pelagic Scientific Working Group requested further analysis from the data providers for consideration at its next meeting. Had the author sought an update, the preliminary status and current limitations of the analysis would have been apparent.

Some conservation scientists did advocate that sardine fishing be stopped entirely. Their proposal was based largely on the assumption that South Africa might have experienced sardine losses comparable to the 60-70% estimated for severely affected regions during the 1998/99 Australian mortality event. 

The Small Pelagic Scientific Working Group considered that scenario, but found no evidence that those highly uncertain estimates could be applied directly to South Africa. It therefore evaluated a moratorium alongside other possible responses, rather than accepting it as the only action warranted by the evidence.

What level of precaution was justified?

The question was therefore not whether precaution was warranted, but what level of precaution was justified. The precautionary principle requires uncertainty to be addressed through timely, cost-effective action. It does not mean that every activity that could potentially contribute to harm must be stopped completely. The response should match the likely level of risk, reduce that risk where possible and be adjusted as new evidence becomes available. 

Rather than allowing unrestricted fishing to continue, the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment limited the rate at which the remaining directed sardine allocation could be taken, retained the bulk of the uncaught allocation pending further review, and identified circumstances that could trigger stronger action. 

Continued fishing at this restricted level also provides samples and observations from fishing grounds, including information on sardine occurrence, catch rates, size composition and infection status. 

Interpreted alongside fishing effort, spatial coverage and fisheries-independent survey results, this information will help inform future management. The approach also recognises that complete closure would affect fishers, factory workers and the coastal communities that depend on the fishery. 

The article provides no analysis showing that the additional ecological benefit of complete closure would justify these costs when compared with the restricted and reviewable approach adopted.

Evidence vs claims

The claim that penguins are starving because of “depleted prey availability” also requires qualification. The mortality event demonstrated that substantial numbers of sardines were present along most parts of the coastline during late July and August. This evidence is not consistent with persistent claims that penguin prey has been depleted. 

One also cannot simply assume that every sardine left uncaught will result in more food for penguins. African penguins feed predominantly on anchovy and sardine, but squid and other prey can also be important. Food availability also depends on the abundance and accessibility of several prey species and their proximity to penguin colonies, not simply on sardine biomass. 

Accordingly, while a moratorium was one possible precautionary response, it was not the only defensible action, and it is not accurate to portray a proportionate, temporary and reviewable restriction as the government “gambling with species extinction”. DM