Damage control/newspaper reportage

Monday, June 22nd, 2009

I have to admit that my blood ran cold when I read the story on the front page of a local newspaper a few days ago in which a boycott of South African wine was called for. The fact that the protest was about the euthanasia of a group of pilot whales which had inexplicably stranded at Kommetjie and was called for by the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society amazed me. What did one have to do with the other?

Ostensibly nothing! Paul Watson of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society was apparently of the opinion that a boycott of South African wine would bring about changes to staffing and policy of South Africa’s Marine and Coastal Management. Emotive words like “bloodthirsty tyrants” and “mad-dog killers” were bandied about, according to the newspaper report.

A quote attributed to Watson was that “maybe the influential winemakers of South Africa can apply pressure”. Well, hitting them by means of a boycott on their product is a really good way to encourage them to do so, right?!

Another newspaper report on South Africa’s agricultural experts reveals where the nub of this idea was formed. Agricultural exports totalled R33.7 billion for 2007/8, according to figures presented to a joint meeting of Parliament’s agriculture and rural development and land reform portfolio committees on 9 June. Of this, wine was the single biggest export earner – at R5.2 billion for the period.

Everyone the world over is aware of how tough times are at present. Wine sales are declining, people are trading down and are reducing consumption. I would submit that if a boycott were to occur, the labourers and their families who work on South African wine farms are the ones who’d be stranded by the action.

As a rule wine farmers live close to the land and feel deeply about conservation issues. While many are keen fishermen, crayfish divers and surfers it’s noteworthy that the SA wine fraternity has set aside 113 000 hectares for conservation – more than is currently under vine.