Has South Africa’s Booze Ban Helped in the Fight Against COVID-19?

To slow the spread of COVID-19, the government banned alcohol sales. Now, the country asks, “Was it worth it?”

A South African enjoying a glass of wine. World Bank Photo Collection. CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

South Africans woke up before dawn to line up in front of liquor stores. Since March 27, alcohol sales had been prohibited to curb the spread of COVID-19, but on June 1, nine long weeks of sobriety ended. With the threat of another surge in cases—and another prohibition on booze—looming over the country, drinkers nationwide stocked up while they had the chance.

The ban was a forceful and unprecedented measure for a country that has suffered the most cases of COVID-19 in Africa. The long lines demonstrated the important role alcohol plays in South African culture and social life, as does the annoyed reaction of many citizens. In a crowded country with many shared living spaces in urban areas, the ban on alcohol has often been viewed as an extraneous measure that has endangered innumerable small businesses and infantilized the South African people.

Alcohol figures into the country’s history in a variety of ways. Under apartheid, Black South Africans were forbidden from buying or consuming alcohol, so its consumption became an act of rebellion against racial injustice. For mixed-race workers in rural areas, many were paid in liquor rather than money, leading to dependency on the substance for thousands. In other areas, traditional methods of brewing beer have long provided locals with their own source. Under the ban, South Africans of every background, race and class have had to cut their consumption down to zero.

A South African woman brewing umqombothi, a traditional beer. GioRetti. CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0

The logic behind the ban was simple: limit alcohol use and more hospital beds will remain open. Though most abstain from drinking altogether, the World Health Organization (WHO) classifies the majority of those who use alcohol as binge drinkers. As a result, drinking-related incidents account for 40% of all of South Africa’s emergency hospital admissions. In addition, crime fell by 29% over the course of the ban, including rates for domestic abuse and sexual assault. It is estimated that because the ban allowed more space for COVID-19 patients, 515 lives were saved.

A similar logic was used to implement a ban on cigarettes. Citing research from the WHO, the government has claimed that the ban is necessary to slow the spread of COVID-19. Cigarette smoke can carry the virus in air molecules for longer distances, and smoking itself weakens the lungs and makes the body more susceptible to severe symptoms. While the ban on cigarettes was lifted on Aug. 18, its implications continue through a vibrant black market.

Smokers found numerous ways to buy cigarettes under the table, leading many to question whether the ban actually curtailed the spread of COVID-19. Cigarette dealers interact with dozens of clients a day, creating the potential to hasten the spread of the virus. 

The growth of the black market has been an unforeseen consequence of the alcohol and cigarette ban, but it will have lasting repercussions on South Africa’s economy. Illegal operators have gained a significant foothold by doing business with thousands of drinkers and smokers who previously had no interaction with South Africa’s criminal underworld. Reversing the growth of these criminal enterprises is predicted to take years.

Moreover, the South African revenue service lost out on a total of 12 billion rand, equal to $726 million, in taxes it would have collected had alcohol never been banned. This loss of revenue is all the more frustrating when the government has struggled to provide hospitals with the necessary supplies to handle COVID-19. On a smaller scale, too, the economy has been devastated. Innumerable businesses face financial ruin since restaurants derive roughly 60% of their profits from alcohol sales. 

A street party on Long Street in Cape Town. Flowcomm. CC BY 2.0.

It is impossible to say whether the alcohol ban will ever be implemented again; this largely depends on whether South Africa experiences another surge of cases. When cases spiked a second time this summer, the ban was reimplemented from July 12 to Sept. 20. There is no guarantee that the ban will not be needed again. 

If it does become necessary yet again, many have learned how to fulfill their desire for a drink without liquor stores. Homebrewing has enjoyed a resurgence because of the nationwide prohibition. City dwellers have begun experimenting with beers typically made only in rural areas. Online video guides for brewing pineapple beer and a traditional corn and sorghum beer known as “umqombothi” have garnered thousands of views. Try as the government might, South Africa’s thirst for alcohol will most likely prove insatiable.

Michael McCarthy

is an undergraduate student at Haverford College, dodging the pandemic by taking a gap year. He writes in a variety of genres, and his time in high school debate renders political writing an inevitable fascination. Writing at Catalyst and the Bi-Co News, a student-run newspaper, provides an outlet for this passion. In the future, he intends to keep writing in mediums both informative and creative.

Coronavirus: What the Lockdown Could Mean for Urban Wildlife

As quarantine measures take hold across the world, our towns and cities are falling silent. With most people indoors, the usual din of human voices and traffic is being replaced by an eerie, empty calm. The wildlife we share our concrete jungles with are noticing, and responding.

You’ve probably seen posts on social media about animals being more visible in urban centres. Animals that live in cities or on their outskirts are exploring the empty streets, like the Kashmiri goats in Llandudno, Wales. Others that would normally only venture out at night are becoming bolder and exploring during the daytime, like the wild boar in Barcelona, Spain.

Our new habits are altering the urban environment in ways that are likely to be both positive and negative for nature. So which species are likely to prosper and which are likely to struggle?

Hooray for hedgehogs

It’s important to note some species may be unaffected by the lockdown. As it coincides with spring in the northern hemisphere, trees will still bud and flower and frogs will continue to fill garden ponds with frog spawn. But other species will be noticing our absence.

The way we affect wildlife is complex, and some of the changes that we’ll see are hard to predict, but we can make some assumptions. In the UK, hedgehogs are our most popular mammal, but their numbers are in rapid decline. There are many reasons for this, but many die on roads after being hit by cars. With people being asked to only make essential journeys, we are already seeing reduced road traffic. Our spiny friends will have just emerged from hibernation and will no doubt be grateful for the change.

The lockdown could be well timed for hedgehogs emerging from hibernation. Besarab Serhii/Shutterstock

Cities are also noisy places, and the noise affects how different species communicate with each other. Birds have to sing louder and at a higher pitch than their rural counterparts, which affects the perceived quality of their songs. With reduced traffic noise, we could see differences in how bats, birds and other animals communicate, perhaps offering better mating opportunities.

School closures may not be ideal for working parents, but many will use their time to connect with nature in their own backyard. More time spent in gardens (for those lucky enough to have one), perhaps doing activities like making bird feeders, could help encourage nature close to home. There’s been a surge in people taking part in citizen science projects like the Big Butterfly Count too. These help scientists to predict the population trends of different species. The British Trust for Ornithology has just made participation in their Garden BirdWatch Project free during the lockdown, so you can connect with wildlife and contribute to important scientific research.

Desolation for ducks

All is not rosy for wildlife. Many species currently rely on food provided by humans. From primates fed by tourists in Thailand, to the ducks and geese at local parks which have been closed to the public, many animals may be seeking new sources of food.

In the UK, the bird breeding season has already begun for earlier breeders like robins. Depending on how long restrictions last, many birds could ultimately make bad decisions about where to breed, assuming their carefully chosen spot is always rarely disturbed. This could threaten rarer birds which breed in the UK, such as little terns, as dog walkers and other people flock to beaches once restrictions are lifted, potentially trampling and disturbing breeding pairs and their young.

A little tern sheltering eggs on an open beach. BOONCHUAY PROMJIAM/Shutterstock

Dog walkers also enjoy lowland heathlands, especially those near urban areas such as Chobham Common in Surrey. These rare heaths are home to many rare bird species, like Dartford warblers, which could also see their nests disturbed once humans begin to emerge again in larger numbers. People who are enthralled by wildlife venturing into new areas during lockdown will need to carefully manage their return to the outdoors once restrictions are lifted.

Though some species may face challenges in now silent towns and cities, those species that live alongside us do so because they are so adaptable. They will find new sources of food, and will exploit new opportunities created in our absence. Hopefully this time will allow people to appreciate their local environments more, and find new ways to nurture them once all this is over.

Becky Thomas: Senior Teaching Fellow in Ecology, Royal Holloway

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION

India: Maldives: Sri Lanka

India, Maldives and Sri Lanka have been deeply entwined for centuries. The earliest settlers in the Maldives were likely from southern India. Indo-European speakers followed them from Sri Lanka in the fourth and fifth centuries BC. Today, the ethnic identity of these countries is still truly unique, but nevertheless a blend of these cultures reinforced by religion and language. From riding motorbikes to swimming with sharks, follow one man’s journey to all three countries as he explores the city life, wildlife and rural life.

Would You Ditch Your Car if Public Transport Was Free? Here’s What Researchers Have Found

Luxembourg recently became the first country in the world to make all public transport free. As of March 1 2020, all buses, trains and trams throughout the country can be boarded without paying a fare – the largest area to institute free public transport for both residents and tourists so far.

Free public transport, however, isn’t a new idea. Cities and towns have been experimenting with it since 1960 – Luxembourg merely clinches the title of the first country to roll it out nationwide. Today, at least 98 cities and towns around the world have some form of free public transport. In some areas, only residents can use it, or certain groups, such as senior citizens.

It’s often introduced to encourage people to use their cars less – reducing congestion in cities and lowering air pollution and carbon emissions.

But does it work?

Luxembourg is the first country in the world to abolish public transport fares nationwide. EPA-EFE/JULIEN WARNAND

No ticket to ride

Economists tend to argue that free public transport is irrational and uneconomical because it generates “useless mobility”. This means that people will choose to move more simply because it’s free, increasing the costs of transport operators and subsidies for local authorities, while ultimately increasing emissions from public transport.

Perhaps it’s no surprise that introducing free public transport increases the number of people using it. Strong passenger growth has been reported everywhere free public transport has been introduced, and the effects are more evident after several years.

Research has also found that when fares are removed, only a small number of people who previously travelled by car make the switch. New passengers attracted by it tend to be pedestrians and cyclists rather than car drivers. The picture from most cities where free public transport has been introduced is that the increased passenger numbers overwhelmingly come from people who might have walked, cycled or not travelled otherwise.

Three years after fares were abolished in Estonia’s capital, Tallinn, the number of bus passengers increased from 55% to 63%, while car journeys decreased only slightly (from 31% to 28%), together with walking (from 12% to 7%). Cycling (1%) and others (1%) remained the same.

Reducing congestion and air pollution requires fewer cars. Kichigin/Shutterstock

Experts from the Cosmopolis Centre in Brussels agree that the effects of free public transport on car traffic levels are marginal, arguing that by itself free public transport cannot significantly reduce car use and traffic, or improve air quality.

So what can? Well, the researchers found that the behaviour of motorists and the transport mode they choose depends very little on public transport fares. Rather than relying on free public transport to engineer the shift, a more effective way to reduce the number of people choosing to drive could be regulating car use.

Increasing the cost of parking, congestion charging, or increasing fuel taxes could all be combined with free fares to lower car demand.

How successful fare abolition is at tempting people to use buses and trams depends on the quality of the service. Cleaner and more reliable public transport must be a prerequisite for these schemes if buses and trams are to compete with the car, and making it part of a wider investment plan could have a big impact on the sustainability of transport.

Fare abolition can help to make public transport visible as a valid alternative to the car in cities where many residents might have forgotten about it over time, due to chronic underinvestment.

Free public transport may not be effective for making transport sustainable on its own, but it can have plenty of other benefits that make it worthwhile. It can be a progressive social policy, guaranteeing and improving access to public transport for diverse groups that might otherwise struggle to get around.

Enrica Papa is a Senior Lecturer in Transport Planning, University of Westminster

THIS ARTICLE WAS ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED ON THE CONVERSATION