Ecology versus poverty: The loser is …

Abstract

In the battle between ecology and poverty, ecology will always be the loser. This statement is proved in this article by using the Kruger National Park in South Africa as an example. In recent times, poaching of rhinos, snaring of other wildlife, and the poisoning of vultures have become a serious threat to the wildlife in the park. This is because of the immense poverty of people living adjacent to the park. The best way to address this ecological challenge is to find solutions to poverty. It is widely acknowledged that the government alone cannot solve this problem. Partnerships with other stakeholders are therefore a significant part of the solution. This is where the church, as an agent of change, can play a crucial role in this struggle against poverty and, by doing so, contribute to saving the ecology. After discussing the ecological crisis in the Kruger National Park, the article continues by defining and describing poverty in South Africa. It then explains how the church, as an agent of change, can play a crucial role in preserving the ecology.
Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: The article is based on a literature study of relevant scholarly articles, government reports, and newspaper articles. The author also incorporates paragraphs from a previously published article on poverty in South Africa. The statistics on poverty, however, have been updated.