The Ministry of Fisheries, Forestry and the Environment

[Richprins]

Media Release: WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT REPORT A POSITIVE TRAJECTORY FOR SA

05 May 2021

South African National Parks (SANParks) has welcomed the report of a High Level Panel appointed by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Barbara Creecy to review policies, regulatory measures, practices and policy positions that are related to hunting, trade, captive keeping, management and handling of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros.

Chief Executive Officer of SANParks, Fundisile Mketeni said that as the country's body tasked with the conservation of our natural heritage SANParks sees the release of this report as a historic moment that will assist in enforcing responsible management of wildlife in the country. "This report will assist in building capacity for key decision-makers to understand wildlife legislation and to support responsible wildlife management and environmental sustainability".

Mketeni said SANParks further welcomed the prohibition set on canned-lion hunting. "This paves a positive trajectory for South Africa considering the damaging view many tourists and conservation bodies held against these kinds of activities. However, SANParks hopes that the anticipated resultant growth in tourism will not only save jobs but will create new opportunities for those who depended on values chains linked to canned-lion hunting"

He said the country had found itself on a collision course with many partners in conservation including environmental non-governmental organizations, other member states in CITES and other nature lovers who found activities such as captive breeding of wild animals problematic in various ways. "I have no doubt that this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, we will work hard as a collective to achieve the recommendations of the High Level Panel report".

According to Mketeni, SANParks will play a critical role in supporting the implementation of the recommendations of the High Level Panel report for the protection of the iconic species which were the focus of the report such as rhino, elephant, leopard, and lion. SANParks will do everything within its power to support the transformation of the wildlife sector. "The Wildlife Economy can play an important role in community development, particularly those communities living adjacent national parks."

Mketeni said that "if we are to hand over a better future to our next generation, it is imperative to enhance the responsible management of our protected areas and the conservation of these four iconic species".

"We take note of the great work done by the panel and we support the key recommendations which, in our view, will go a long way towards aligning our country's protected areas with international best practice by giving effect to our national legislation" concludes Mketeni.

For previous media statements please go to:www.sanparks.org

Follow us on Twitter @SANParks Like Us on Facebook: South African National Parks

Follow us on Instagram @sanparks Talk to us directly by joining the parks e-forum:www.sanparks.org/forum/

Issued by:South African National Parks (SANParks) Corporate Communications:

Tel: 012 426 5170

Enquiries:Reynold "Rey" Thakhuli: SANParks GM: Media, PR and Stakeholder Relations Tel: 012 426 5203 cell: 073 373 4999 or email:rey.thakhuli@sanparks.org

[Lisbeth]

Creecy’s expected wildlife policy position paper sparks hope for the future of South Africa’s wild animal management

By Don Pinnock• 10 June 2021


Photos from left: EPA / VASSIL DONEV | JON HRUSA | EPA-EFE / DANIEL BORN | EPA-EFE / KIM LUDBROOK

Environment Minister Barbara Creecy’s report on the use and protection of SA’s iconic wildlife was groundbreaking. But is there the political will to turn its recommendations into policy?

At the launch of the far-reaching report on the management of lions, elephants, rhinos and leopards by Environment Minister Barbara Creecy’s High-Level Panel (HLP) on May 2, she said a Policy Position Paper on the implementation of its recommendations would be issued “in the next few weeks”. That hasn’t yet happened, but there are hopes that it will be unwrapped today (Friday, 11 June).

To both the chagrin and surprise of many lion and rhino breeders as well as civil servants wedded to historic consumptive use of these species, the recommendations went far beyond the specific Terms of Reference of the HLP, which were focused simply on the “management” of these species. It sent shockwaves through an industry often accused of cruelty to wild animals.

However, Creecy is now being frantically lobbied by angry lion and rhino breeders and outfits offering canned lion hunts who stand to lose their businesses if the HLP recommendations are implemented. There’s talk of litigation against the minister by lion farmers, and the Private Rhino Owners Association (PROA) has sent her what amounts to a threatening letter.

Environmental NGOs, which have long been aware of a connection between wildlife breeders and elements within the environmental department, fear the minister is being bullied – by breeders and members of her department – to water down the policy report. There’s general agreement this would be a major regressive step, and many have offered her their support.

The Policy Position Paper is important, being the first stage of turning the HLP report into a White Paper, the prelude to law. It would have to be a finely measured document, considering the wide range of HLP proposals and, following the HLP, would include the following proposals which were defined as “immediate” and are fundamental to transforming the wildlife industry:

• The end of captive breeding and commercial use of lions and working out humane procedures for euthanasia of captive lions which cannot return to the wild.

• An immediate moratorium on permits to hunt captive bred lions, a ban on cub petting and a phasing out of tourist interaction with lions.

• Reduction of reputational risks to tourism from SA’s endorsement of canned lion hunting, cub petting, volun-tourism and lion bone sales by banning these activities.

• Mechanisms to prevent and avoid stimulating the illegal trade in lion derivatives from captive facilities.

• The formulation of a national conservation and sustainable use policy as well as a workable definition of sustainable use.

• Working out how to deal with overlapping mandates, particularly that of animal welfare, between the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD).

• Removal of lions, elephants, rhinos and leopards from control of the Animals Protection, Meat Safety and Animal Improvement acts administered by DALRRD, and their placement under the jurisdiction of DFFE.

• The formation of a parliamentary committee on biodiversity and sustainable use to review conflicting legislation.

• Ensuring that wild animal welfare and well-being is sufficiently addressed by way of a One Welfare approach and is relocated to DFFE. Also that minimum norms and standards are developed.

• Ensuring local communities benefit from wildlife through consultative partnerships.

• A major review of the NSPCA.

• The development of alternative revenue streams for rhino breeders away from the sale of rhino horn and an agreement not to lobby Cites to unban horn or ivory trade.

• Moves to reduce intensive rhino farming and reverse the trend of intensification of breeding.

Environmental NGOs and tourism organisations praised the HLP proposals for their far-sightedness and for attempting to bring South Africa in line with international trends in wildlife management. They are now awaiting the DFFE’s Policy Paper to begin the transition of the HLP’s proposals into policy.

Dr Louis de Waal of Blood Lions said the HLP’s recommendations on issues such as captive lions and recommendations on welfare were bold and necessary.

“They will take time, courage and tenacity to implement. But they could regain South Africa’s reputation as a conservation leader and world-renowned eco-tourism destination.

“We hope the minister and her department will reach out and accept the offered support and assistance from the welfare, conservation, scientific and tourism sectors to follow through on her commitments.”

The South African Committee of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature applauded the proactive stance taken by Creecy to end the exploitation of lions.

“We look forward to working with her and the department to provide support during this process, as well as driving initiatives to conserve wild populations of the species in the region.”

David Frost, the CEO of Satsa, an organisation with 1,350 tourism companies as members, said the HLP report “was a signal from government that it’s serious about restoring the image of Brand South Africa after Covid and the tourism wrecking ball of activities like canned lion hunting, cub petting and the lion bone trade.”

We now need to see its recommendations being translated into policy, he said, and eagerly await the Policy Position Paper that begins that process.

“Minister Creecy is to be commended for taking these bold steps to a fairer, more humane future for our treasured animals in a country where tourism depends very heavily on the country’s wildlife,” Frost said.

Will Travers of the British-Based Born Free Foundation said he recognised how difficult it must have been to review the situation and announce a break with the policies of the past.

“We stand ready to work with you, government representatives and other stakeholders to ensure that the reforms you have outlined can be achieved with full regard for animal welfare and for the benefit of wildlife and wider biodiversity, as well as for the people of South Africa.”

Dr Audrey Delsink, wildlife director of Humane Society International, said her organisation strongly supported the minister’s commitment to increasing and protecting wild areas, expanding biodiversity and wild populations.

“We await the Policy Paper to launch the necessary framework for this transformative vision and stand ready to provide the minister and the department with support.”

Yolan Friedmann, CEO of the Endangered Wildlife Trust, said that when the HLP’s recommendations are implemented, it would “set South Africa on a pathway that reinstates its reputation as a country that values ecological sustainability and ethical wildlife utilisation”.

“It is high time,” she said, “that we had policy clarity and a regulatory framework that focuses attention on ecological integrity and away from limited social value at the expense of single species exploitation.”

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa said it looked forward to the release of the Policy Position Paper as it was “crucial to ensuring an inclusive and transparent process for translating the HLP recommendations into policies. Also for ensuring that stakeholders will continue to be involved and engaged in all the phases of implementing the recommendations.”

“There’s a bigger context here,” Michele Pickover of the EMS Foundation pointed out:

“There is a lot of pressure internationally to do things differently on environmental protection. President Ramaphosa has made a commitment on this internationally. It’s not just about the HLP, it’s about SA having to go to a place where the rest of the world is moving. We’re in the Sixth Extinction, that’s the context.” DM/OBP

[Lisbeth]

I don't envy the Minister

[Lisbeth]

A matter of pride: South Africa proposes bannng intensive breeding of lions and rhinos — and ending captive lion hunts

By Don Pinnock• 28 June 2021


The draft policy paper provides the world’s most advanced definition of sustainable use of wildlife and an approach to wild animals that highlights their welfare, wellbeing and sentience. (Photo: Supplied)

A new policy paper signals a more humane approach to the treatment of wild animals and an end to cruelty to lions in South Africa.

Following an extensive forensic report on five iconic wildlife species, Environment Minister Barbara Creecy has initiated a policy process for South Africa to ban intensive captive breeding of lion and rhino, captive lion hunting and trade in captive lion parts.

The department will also not support the international sale of rhino horn and ivory “as long as current specified circumstances prevail”, or unsustainable practices on hunting of wild leopards. Those “circumstances” are commissions of inquiry still to be implemented.

The draft policy provides the world’s most advanced definition of sustainable use of wildlife and an approach to wild animals that highlights their welfare, wellbeing and sentience.

It covers only lions, rhinos, elephants and leopards, but lays the groundwork for a reframing of South Africa’s approach to wildlife management. It also marks a shift in control of wildlife farming from commercial, white and state ownership, to local communities living with or alongside wildlife.

The public has 30 days to comment on the policy, after which the process to become law will begin. It will be a month of intensive lobbying and a strong possibility of legal challenges from lion and rhino breeders. How the policy fares will depend on the number and quality of submissions from all stakeholders.

The policy makes no plans for the future of an estimated 10,000 lions on breeding farms, many in poor condition bred only for their bones destined for Asian markets. They have no conservation value.

Conservation NGOs will most likely lobby for the inclusion of tigers in the policy, fearing that lion breeders will simply shift over to this species which is already being extensively bred in South Africa, but — not being indigenous — has no protections.


The public has 30 days to comment on the policy. It will be a month of intensive lobbying and a strong possibility of legal challenges from lion and rhino breeders. (Photo: Supplied)

The policy report is clearly written with South Africa’s international reputation as a wildlife destination at risk, as tourist markets begin to recover from massive losses incurred by the Covid-19 pandemic.

It begins by saying “there are still reported incidents and perceptions of irresponsible, unethical and unsustainable conservation practices in the management, breeding, hunting, trade and handling of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros, especially in terms of animal welfare and wellbeing, that negatively affect the country’s conservation reputation and do not bode well for the country’s international standing and development objectives”.

Sustainable use has long been criticised by environmental NGOs as a cover for sustainable abuse, benefiting only humans and not wildlife. The new definition frames it in a way that places welfare at its centre. Use would be permitted as long as it:

• does not contribute to the long-term decline of the resource in nature;

• does not lead to the loss of biological diversity of the ecosystem of which it is a component;

• does not compromise ecological integrity or ecological resilience of the ecosystem of which it is a part or in which it is used, in the long term;

• is humane and does not compromise the wellbeing of any animal of a species of wild animal;

• serves in, or is not detrimental to, the public interest;

• considers the social, economic, and environmental impacts of activities collectively, including disadvantages and benefits; and

• ensures continued and future benefits that are fair, equitable and meet the needs and aspirations of present and future generations of people.

The policy objectives, gazetted by Creecy after intense stakeholder consultations, are probably the most considered and profound since the establishment of the Kruger National Park in 1898. They call for interventions that:

• Immediately halt domestication and exploitation of lions and close down lion breeding facilities;

• Reverse domestication and intensification of rhino management;

• Enhance the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of leopards;

• Adopt a position of no trade of rhino horn or ivory under present conditions;

• Prevent taking wild species into captivity;

• Secure, restore and rewild natural landscapes with thriving populations of elephant, lion, rhino and leopard, generally increasing the wildness, naturalness and wellbeing of fauna;

• Adopt a One Welfare approach which incorporates humane and responsible standards and practices towards wild animals;

• Reframe conservation and ecologically sustainable use of wildlife in terms of Ubuntu;

• Support responsible wildlife ecotourism;

• Promote and enhance human/wildlife coexistence while empowering and capacitating people living with or near wildlife; and

• Reposition South Africa as a leader in conservation.

The policy document is particularly specific on the breeding of lions. The captive lion industry, it says, threatens South Africa’s reputation as a leader in the conservation of wildlife.

The intensive and selective breeding, handling, canned hunting and bone and other derivative trade “presents a threat to South Africa’s reputation with associated political and economic risks, including negative impacts on the broader photo-tourism market and hunting industry and tourism to South Africa in general”.

The report notes that many cultures in South Africa identify and are spiritually aligned with lions, and the captive breeding of lions is “culturally dispossessing” of this value to communities.

“The captive lion industry does not represent ecologically sustainable use, providing very little economic activity or jobs, while benefiting a few relative to the other components of the sector. There are major concerns over work conditions and safety of workers and tourists and zoonotic risks including from Covid-19.”


The report notes that many cultures in South Africa identify and are spiritually aligned with lions, and the captive breeding of lions is ‘culturally dispossessing’ of this value to communities. (Photo: Supplied)

The industry, it says, does not contribute meaningfully to transformation or the conservation of wild lions. Furthermore, the trade in lion derivatives poses major risks to wild lion populations and stimulates illegal trade.

“Rewilding of captive lions is not feasible from conservation principles and captive breeding is currently not necessary for conservation purposes.”

On rhinos, the report recognises that private ownership has conservation value and has the potential to replenish depleted wild populations. But it says intensive management practices compromise this.

“It is desirable to move [rhinos] out of deemed captive breeding situations and back into accepted wild-managed or wild conditions as soon as practically possible.”

The policy document also expresses concern about the movement of wild animals across borders and into captivity.

Translocation, it says, has the potential to harm South Africa’s reputation as a wildlife destination, in terms of the acceptability and appropriateness of the destinations. There are concerns over welfare and wellbeing at the destination, plus the erosion of wildness through moving animals into captivity.

“The export of live rhinos and lions from South Africa to destinations known to consume horn and bones raises concerns regarding the extent to which these exports would be deemed to be humane and responsible.”

There are, however, gaps in the policy report that need attention.

There are considerable stockpiles of ivory and rhino horn from natural deaths and confiscations from poachers. Should they be sold (which would increase demand and stimulate poaching) it asks, or bought by philanthropists to be symbolically burnt (which has been rejected by other SADC countries)? In other words: no policy on stockpiles.


On rhinos, the report recognises that private ownership has conservation value and has the potential to replenish depleted wild populations. But it says intensive management practices compromise this. (Photo: Helena Kriel)

A more fundamental problem is hunting, which the policy report would permit as long as it is ethical, though it does not define what that means.

A welfare approach — acknowledging the sentience of individual wild animals — is hard to justify if they’re to be shot. Indeed, its definition of sustainable says policy on wildlife should be “humane and does not compromise the wellbeing of any animal or a species of wild animal”. If you asked a lion about to be ethically hunted, it would undoubtedly feel that its wellbeing was being compromised. Much debate on this, no doubt, will ensue.

Another problem is the protection of wildlife if ownership and custodianship are transitioned to community-owned wildlife areas. In state parks and private reserves, the anti-poaching costs are enormous. Where will the funds come for community-based protection?

According to Creecy, while the policy position paper undergoes public consultation, her department is developing an implementation framework to ensure the policies are translated into action.

This includes the development of a draft White Paper on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use and incorporating key elements of implementation within the environment department’s strategic and annual performance plans.

In answer to a question in Parliament, Creecy explained that implementation of the HLP policy would be phased.

“There are 60 recommendations and 18 goals which were aligned with the Departmental Strategic Plan 2024 to ensure the operationalisation of implementation. The implementation of recommendations will be done in a phased approach depending on financial resources allocation and human capital. Each financial year cycle will address a batch of recommendations starting from the 2021-2022 financial year.”

The policy position paper, it concludes, “provides a mechanism to create a new deal for our people based on the vision adopted. If successfully implemented, [it] will greatly transform the wildlife sector based on Big Five conservation and sustainable use”.

It will be reviewed within 10 years after publication, “providing for sufficient time for the policy objectives to have the intended effect on the outcomes”.

It’s a long road to becoming law, but this is a crucial first step. DM/OBP

[Klipspringer]

Read the government paper here

https://www.environment.gov.za/sites/de ... gon566.pdf

[Lisbeth]

I have only read the "Executive Summary" for now, but it sounds completely different from what we usually are "fed" from the Government

[Lisbeth]

Unwanted lions: Vietnam sting operation suggests slaughter of farmed lions in South Africa is under way

By Don Pinnock• 19 July 2021


A lion skull packaged as ‘wood’. (Photo: Cong An Police Agency)

The mass culling of lions in South Africa may be taking place after the government’s plan to shut down lion farms.

A container from South Africa containing 138kg of rhino horn and more than three tonnes of lion bones was seized in the port of Da Nang, Vietnam, at the weekend.

It was opened by customs officials on Sunday in the port of Tien Sa. They had been working with the Vietnamese ministry of trade’s anti-smuggling department.


Unpacking the container in the port of Tien Sa. (Photo: Cong An Police Agency)

The officials were investigating a trafficking route and were watching a shipping line suspected of transporting rhino horn and lion bones. They set up a sting and opened the container.

According to the Ho Chi Minh police agency Cong An, the horns and bones were packed in cartons of different sizes and wrapped with nylon rope. The consignment was labelled as wood.

The average weight of a lion skeleton is nine kilograms and a pair of rhino horns averages three kilograms. So the consignment equals the death of 333 lions and 46 rhinos. It’s unlikely to be the only container of bones and horn illegally shipped to Vietnam this year, though its detection may halt movement for a while until an alternative route is found.


Part of the three tonnes of lion bones. (Photo: Cong An Police Agency)

The discovery of the lion bones suggests that breeders in SA may be scrambling to slaughter their animals before their operations are shut down. When it became clear that deliberations in the Department of Environment’s High Level Panel were moving towards shutting down lion farming, it was speculated that breeders might monetise their animals as fast as possible by selling their carcasses into the Asian market, which uses them for trinkets and fake tiger bone wine.

The policy paper which emerged from the panel confirmed the government’s intention to shut down lion farming, along with lion petting and canned lion hunts.

The report left little wiggle room for breeders, who it said were bringing South Africa into disrepute internationally, which was bad for tourism. It also noted that many cultures in South Africa identified and were spiritually aligned with lions and the captive breeding of lions was therefore “culturally dispossessing” of this value to communities.


A container is opened by officials in Da Nang port. (Photo: Cong An Police Agency)

“The captive lion industry does not represent ecologically sustainable use, providing very little economic activity or jobs,” it states, “while benefiting a few relative to the other components of the sector. There are major concerns over work conditions and safety of workers and tourists and zoonotic risks including from Covid-19.”

The industry, it said, did not contribute meaningfully to transformation or to the conservation of wild lions. Furthermore, the trade in lion derivatives posed major risks to wild lion populations and stimulated illegal trade.

“Rewilding of captive lions is not feasible from conservation principles and captive breeding is currently not necessary for conservation purposes.”


138kg of contraband rhino horns were part of the consignment. (Photo: Cong An Police Agency)

However, the policy made no plans for the future of an estimated 10,000 lions on breeding farms, many in poor condition, bred only for their bones destined for Asian markets. They have no conservation value.

So, without an interim plan to deal with thousands of unwanted lions, conservation organisations warned that their mass slaughter was likely. Without legal export quotas, it was probable that their bones would be filtered into the illegal market.

The container of contraband animal parts in Da Nang suggests this process is under way.

[Richprins]

That is a hell of a lot of rhino horn, possibly from an African government cache IMO.

[Lisbeth]

MATTERS OF CONSIDERATION ON ANIMAL WELFARE

BY PARLIAMENT - 22 NOVEMBER 2021 - DFFE

1 BACKGROUND

South Africa has split the animal welfare mandate between the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (hereafter referred to as DEFF or the Department), and the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (Agriculture). The key pieces of legislation are the Animal Protection Act (APA) No. 71 of 1962 and the Performing Animals Protection Act (PAPA) No 24 of 1935. These pieces of legislation have been amended a few times since enactment to meet the pressing needs of the times. The recently amended act is PAPA in 2016, mostly to correct sections that were found to be unconstitutional.1 The APA prohibits any form of cruelty to animals in captivity, irrespective whether they are wild or domestic animals. The PAPA regulates establishments that have animals for training, exhibition, performance, or security functions to be licensed and comply with associated regulations. The South African Bureau of Standards in partnership with the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) have developed animal welfare standards that are available through purchasing. The livestock sector has codes and guidelines developed by industry organisations. The fragmented approaches to the handling and well-being of animals is further exacerbated by standards that are set at provincial levels.



The regulation of wild animal welfare is generally outdated and does not holistically address animal welfare within the context of biodiversity conservation. The two departments handle the issues relating to wild animals in captivity, irrespective of duration. With weak inter-departmental coordination, the current legislative provisions do not serve the best interest of captive wild animals and welfare. Another limitation is that the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004) does not confer legislative mandate to the Department to regulate matters relating to the welfare of wildlife, as was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Appeal in 2010.2

2 CHALLENGES AND COMMITMENTS TO ANIMAL WELFARE

During the discussions, deliberations and amendment of the Performing Animals Protection Amendment Bill, the previous Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and stakeholders raised the concerns on animal welfare.3 The Committee was promised by the former Department that they are developing a consolidated Act to cover the animal welfare in more details than was covered under the Performing Animals Protection Amendment Bill and the Animal Protection Act. This promise was recorded in the amended version of the Bill4 [B 9B—2015].

The welfare of animals in captivity was not adequately covered under the PAPA amendments. The Department did not introduce the promised Animal Welfare Bill as was promised. In November 2017, Mrs C Dudley introduced a Private Members Bill, gazetted5 an Animals Protection Amendment Bill for public comments. The object of the Bill was to amend the Animals Protection Act No. 71 of 1962 and its associated amendments to:

• prohibit the sale and manufacturing of cosmetics that were tested on an animal in the Republic;

• criminalise the testing of cosmetics on animals; and

• criminalise the failure to provide an animal with an appropriate environment.During March 2018, the Bill [B4-2018] by Mrs Dudley was introduced to the National Assembly and referred to the former Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries for consideration. The Bill was not scheduled for consideration in the Committee on the grounds of “tight Committee programme” and lapsed at the end of the parliamentary term in May 2019. As such, matters relating to animal welfare were yet to be adequately considered and covered through legislation. The then Portfolio Committee on Environment conducted a colloquium in August 2018 on captive lion breeding for hunting in South Africa. It is from this colloquium that the Committee recommended that the Department, as a matter of urgency, initiate a policy and legislative review with a view to putting an end to this practice. During the early days of the new parliamentary term, the Committee probed the animal welfare matter with the view to resuscitate the discussions on legislative development and the clarity of key issues such as custody of powers, the class of animals, and related matters.

3 INTERIM DEVELOPMENTS

The Agriculture Department is in a process of developing an Animal Welfare Bill and will apply to domestic animals and wild animals in general. So far, the consideration is broader than was proposed by Mrs Dudley. In the recent past (June 2021), both the Environment and Agriculture departments held views that the existing norms and standards would be adequate to address issues relating to animal welfare of wild and domestic animals. Furthermore, minor amendments to the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEMBA) Act No. 10 of 2004 will be sufficient to cover the gaps relating to well-being or welfare of wild animals. The amendment of the norms and standards relating to wildlife could address concerns relating to the practical implementation of certain provisions, to add new provisions, and to bring them in line with the legislative mandate the Department of Environment.

Instead, during October 20196, Minister Creecy appointed an advisory committee to review policies, legislation and practices related to the management of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros. The main responsibility of the Advisory Committee was to focus on finding a sustainable balance among the various diverging views on the management, hunting and husbandry of wild animals. These include the elephant management and culling, the management of ivory stockpile, trade in rhinoceros horn, captive breeding and lion bone trade. Society and the international community is divergent on matters of conservation, sustainable use and benefit sharing arising from the use of genetic and natural resources. The 25-member panel was composed of members with various backgrounds, from academia, practitioners, consultants, to traditional leaders with indigenous knowledge. It is not clear when the appointed Committee will conclude its work, particularly after there was a national lockdown.

A recent report7 by the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER) and the Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) shows that points that the existing regulatory environment is inadequate to manage all the proliferating private wildlife facilities that are for commercial purposes. In contrast, the capacity to enforce existing norms and standards has been dwindling while the need is on the increase. The key legislative shortcoming is that standards that are for domestic animals are applied across the wide range of wild animals, and the results are often dire. Highlighted examples include a case of a giraffe that was decapitated when the transporting vehicle drove under a low bridge; and neglected and starving lions in Limpopo and Free State provinces.

4 CONFLATED ISSUES

The heated debates around the welfare of wild animals in captivity revolves around the objectives of keeping them. The table below outlines the distinct and competing factors in the biodiversity industry.

Table 1. Comparisons between conservation breeding and intensive or selective breeding



5. MATTERS OF CONSIDERATION

• Various reports are pointing to the inability of the Agriculture and Environment departments to work together to close the norms and standards gap as they relate to welfare of wildlife in captivity. The Department should inform the Committee on practical steps that will be taken to cover the gap of updating the norms and standards, their enforcement and general coordination among stakeholders.

• In some instances, the existing norms and standards are not enforced. It has to take the NSPCA to take the Departments to court before action can be taken. The Departments should inform the Committee on whether they have a platform to engage interested parties and how it functions, if it exists. The number of court cases relating to animal welfare could indicate dysfunctional relations between the departments and the stakeholders.

• Some industry bodies have developed their own sector codes that are not binding, and generally apply to members on voluntary basis. This form of self- regulation could be problematic because compliance is optional and may not attract corrective sanction if ignored.

• The Strategic Plan of the former Agriculture Department for the period that ended in the previous term mentioned developing a single Animal Welfare Act. The Committee should enquire about the whereabouts of the process for developing the Bill and when they envisage introducing it to Parliament.

• Stray wild animals or escapees are often euthanized, particularly when they are not easily traceable to the owners. There was once a proposal of either tagging or marking of animals to prevent them from being euthanized. A follow-up on progress with this regard may be needed.

• South Africa is a member of the OIE. The country has committed to the alignment of national legislation to the OIE standards, on various aspects, including enacting, implementation and monitoring of legislation of animal welfare. The Department should thus be required to regularly publish reports on enforcing the “Five Freedoms” described by the OIE9.

• The NSPCA has been at the forefront in the fight against cruelty to animals despite having limited financial resources. On the same breath, the NSPCA is not

funded or budgeted for to enforce legislation, enhance its capacity and

facilities. The funding of the NSPCA may need to be formalised in legislation.

• The Departments should facilitate access to the animal welfare standards developed by the SABS or and make them legally binding, instead of expectingstakeholders to voluntarily purchase them.

• The publication of the Advisory Committee attracted mixed reactions fromvarious stakeholders. Concerns included lack of transparency of the selection process, particularly on how some successful candidates were selected without experience in areas such as ethical conservation management, biodiversity policies, wildlife trade, legislation, animal protection, economics and welfare species-specific expertise.

• Another concern relating to the Advisory Committee is on the imbalance of interests between consumptive and non-consumption of wildlife. Furthermore, candidates were not required to disclose interests and involvement on wildlife that could have a bearing on their execution of responsibilities.

• The major challenge had not been the absence of specific policy or legislation, but application and enforcement of existing laws. The Department should explain how the amendments of the NEMBA or enactment of the Animal Welfare Bill will change implementation or enforcement?

• The implementation of the High-Level Panel Report involves engagements with various affected stakeholders to be conducted by the Minister and the Department. What is the feeling among captive lion breeders for hunting and lion bone trade?

• Do we have a good understanding of the magnitude of rhino horn and ivory stockpiles both in the public and private hands in the whole country? If yes, what estimates are we talking about in each case?

• What are we actually doing about these stockpiles? Are we talking to CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora)? And what is CITES thinking, especially on rhino horn and ivory stockpiles from South Africa or the southern African sub-region?

• Is the ‘Implementation Plan Framework’ for the High-Level Panel developed, with timeframes and allocation of responsibilities? If so, why is it not part of this presentation?

• South Africa is a well-renowned, pioneering conservation country, owing mainly to its well-known and established network of various and unique kinds of protected areas. What does it mean when the High-Level Panel Report recommends “Making state protected areas more effective and efficient as drivers for conservation and rural socio-economic development”? Or “Adopt a national strategy for recognising, enhancing, and incentivising, the contribution of private protected areas”? What does the Department envisage in these instances? And why are we not already doing those things?

• The High-Level Panel Report seeks to “Initiate a process for testing legislation under the mandate of DALRRD and where applicable other government departments for consistency with s24 of the Constitution.” What does the Department aim to achieve here, as different departments’ policies and legislation derive from their respective constitutional mandates, which may have no recourse to s24 that underpins the departmental mandate?

[Lisbeth]

The welfare of South Africa’s wild animals is in the hopelessly wrong hands of the food police – this has to change urgently

By Don Pinnock | 09 Dec 2021
Don Pinnock is an associate of Southern Write, a group of top travel and natural history writers and photographers in Africa. He s a former editor of Getaway magazine in Cape Town, South Africa He has been an electronic engineer, lecturer in journalism and criminology, consultant to the Mandela government, a professional yachtsman, explorer, travel writer, photographer and a cable-car operator on the Rock of Gibraltar. His present passion is the impact of humans on planetary processes.

The welfare of wild animals in South Africa is being thrown under a bus by dithering departments and inappropriate legislators.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Giving the job of drafting wild animal welfare legislation to the Department of Agriculture is like asking a jackal to look after your ducks. It’s the wrong department for the job. They’re the food police. They administer the Meat Safety Act, the Animal Improvement Act, chopping trees, drought relief, catching fish, pets, draft and performing animals, and exporting sheep. Their vision is sustainable agriculture and food security, for God’s sake.

If you put “animal welfare” into the search box on its website you get Animal Production, Wildlife Ranching, Aquaculture and Animal Improvement. Yet for almost two decades they’ve been tasked with drawing up an Animal Welfare Act. Doesn’t show.

Michele Pickover of the EMS Foundation got it right when she said: “We urgently need new legislative protection for wild animals, but DALRRD lack the competency to write it. Also, the department’s business is slaughter and production plus they’re in bed with the industry. They’re the wrong people to be tasked with wild animal welfare.”

Right now there’s a team of vets supposedly writing an Animal Welfare Bill. Outsiders are not welcome. When the job’s done, they say they’ll consult other stakeholders. The drafters, all Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) insiders, have limited expertise in ethical conservation management, biodiversity policies, wildlife trade legislation or animal protection, economics and welfare. Even Parliament raised a red flag.

Last month, Parliament’s Portfolio Committee on the Environment issued a report questioning the competence of Agriculture’s team, noting concerns that candidates were selected without experience in key areas of ethics or drafting. It said this was a legislative shortcoming and warned the results could be dire.

It also referred to criticism of the imbalance between members who favoured or did not favour consumptive use of wildlife and said they had not been required to disclose personal interests in wildlife use which could have a bearing on their decisions.

DALRRD demurred. The drafting team “cannot include non-officials” because it’s an internal process, but said the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) and the National Society for the Protection of Animals (NSPCA) “will be consulted at an appropriate time to comment on the bill”. By then it could be too late to change anything meaningful.

You’d think the DFFE would be drafting any legislation concerning the welfare of wild animals. After a year of consultation with a widely skilled High-Level Panel, it recently produced a remarkably enlightened policy paper on lions, elephants, rhinos and leopards that spoke to their sentience and the need for protecting their welfare.

But no. On drafting an Animal Welfare Bill they claim their hands are tied because the Animal Protection Act rests with Agriculture. How convenient.

This is despite two pivotal court judgments which held that animals are sentient and capable of suffering and experiencing pain and that their welfare needs consideration (NSPCA vs Minister of Justice ZA SACC 46 2016 and NSPCA vs Environmental Affairs and SA Predator Association ZAGPPHC 367 2019).

The Agriculture Department’s interest in wild animals was controversially displayed in 2020 when it listed 32 wild animals, including lions, giraffes, white and black rhinos and cheetahs, under the Animal Improvement Act and proposed listing 98 wild animals under the Meat Safety Act, including rhinos, hippos, elephants and crocodiles. According to the act they may be “slaughtered for food for human and animal consumption”. Hello wildlife farmers, we love you all.

Agriculture’s animal welfare drafting process is anchored in the Animal Protection Act (APA), which is now thoroughly out of date, having been promulgated in 1962. It may be on the statute books but gets bypassed more often than not and has no sting.

It states that if you beat, kick, goad, infuriate, terrify, neglect, torture, maim, starve, trap or abandon an animal, you are liable to a fine not exceeding R200, six months in prison or six lashes with a salted cane.

But here’s the real issue: neither the environment nor agriculture departments should be drafting and tasked to administer animal welfare legislation. This should be the job of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development. The APA was once under Justice, but somewhere along the line someone saw fit to shift it to Agriculture, maybe because welfare was seen as a farming matter. There it turned into a wet rag.

DALRRD doesn’t take welfare seriously as it’s entirely aligned with the commercial farming sector. It doesn’t enforce the APA and doesn’t have an active welfare inspectorate. It leaves that to the underfunded, non-governmental NSPCA to bring cases to court. Enforcement of the APA is therefore minimal, with little support to the NSPCA from either the National Prosecution Authority or the judiciary.



Questioned in Parliament about its welfare drafting team, DALRRD contradicted itself between what it told parliamentarians and in written answers. Were the NSPCA and DFFE already part of the team? Would there be public participation? Yes in verbal answers, no in written answers.

Frankly, the animal welfare issue is a mess. The drafting process, which has been galumphing along in Agriculture for years, needs to be relocated with the Justice Department as a matter of urgency because Agriculture is simply incapable of getting it right.

The worst part is that they don’t seem to know what they don’t know and whatever they produce will most likely wind up in a hopeless tangle of legal arguments and court battles that could go on interminably.

Justice was the original administrator of the act. It’s a generalist department that can ensure compliance with a variety of departments across a range of sectors central to animal welfare, such as agriculture, environment, health, education, commerce, trade and industry.

The department has oversight over the criminal justice system and is well placed to provide policy input on criminal matters. It also doesn’t have the same conflict of interest between the welfare of animals in agriculture and wild animals.

Cabinet needs to have a long, hard think about this and save animal welfare from being run over by a busload of confusion, rivalries and incompetence. DM/OBP