Submission on the Draft Game Meat Strategy

Submission on the draft Game Meat Strategy

The draft White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity has been welcomed by many professionals in different sectors, as it represents a paradigm shift away from outdated policies and models, towards more modern approaches to the conservation of biodiversity, while adopting One Health and One Welfare principles in the management of our wildlife, as well as principles of Ubuntu.

The draft Game Meat Strategy for South Africa has however come as a complete surprise, as its vision is purely to intensify, commercialise, formalise and transform the game meat industry in South Africa to contribute to food security and sustainable socio-economic growth, without giving due consideration to the progressive draft White Paper principles. This is particularly apparent with regard to the following issues so clearly highlighted in the Draft White Paper which:

  • recognises that all wild animals are sentient, have intrinsic value, should be treated humanely, have their well-being secured, and have the right of respect;
  • defines well-being as the holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal which are conducive to its physical, physiological and mental health and quality of life, including its ability to cope with its environment;
  • identifies the need to protect wild animals in the wild and to expand protected areas;
  • understands the need to reverse the domestication of wild animals, which it refers to as a “poor practice that erodes the sense of wildness and the cultural heritage and stewardship for the environment”;
  • aligns with Section 24 of the Constitution with regard to the promotion of ecologically sustainable use, and the protection and conservation of our biodiversity;
  • defines Ubuntu as being built upon compassionate, respectful, and interdependent relationships, and that the very essence of Ubuntu hinges on consolidating the human, natural and spiritual tripartite;
  • states the need to prevent, where possible, or minimise risk of the animal-human transmission and further evolution of zoonotic diseases associated with wild animals;
  • confirms the importance of maintaining South Africa’s conservation reputation;
  • recognises the need for an improved and updated permitting system, as well as the monitoring and enforcement of legal compliance with regard to our wildlife industry.

In contrast, the Draft Game Meat Strategy:

  • disregards the rights of animals, and depicts wildlife purely as commodities, simply to be utilised as resources of commercial value;
  • fails to recognise that wild animals are sentient and therefore the need to protect their welfare and well-being. For example, Strategic Objective 1 refers to developing Industry Standards for Game Meat to ensure product safety and quality; and Strategic Objective 7 refers to skills development to ensure meat integrity, safety and quality, but neither include the welfare and well-being challenges of the wild animals involved;
  • does not acknowledge the need for comprehensive industry norms and standards that fully incorporate ALL aspects of the value chain, including the welfare and well-being of the wild animals and their quality of life and death, i.e. the breeding, keeping and slaughter;
  • promotes the intensification of farming wild animals, which inevitably leads to domestication. This is in direct conflict with Policy Objective 3.7 in the draft White Paper identifying the need to reverse the domestication of wild animals;
  • promotes the intensification of the game meat industry without due consideration to Goal 3 (Biodiversity Conservation Promoted) of the draft White Paper and, in particular, Objective 3.9 which acknowledges the risks associated with zoonosis, and the need to minimise them;
  • promotes the farming of wild species for commercial use, but does not define which species are included in the term “game species”; whether they are captive, ranched, wild/free-roaming; intensively and/or selectively bred (e.g. colour variants); or whether the animals are indigenous and/or exotic;
  • none of the guiding principles in the Game Meat Strategy speak of securing biodiversity and/or expanding protected areas through growing the game meat market, as would be expected of a DFFE led document. It only speaks of economic development, job creation and transformation, which are no doubt important issues to consider but are not the sole mandate of DFFE. Even the Game Meat Strategy’s vision (i.e., a formalised, thriving and transformed game meat industry in South Africa that contributes to food security and sustainable socio-economic growth) is one-dimensional. As such, this document is an agricultural strategy that belongs under DALRRD;
  • endorses Ubuntu in respect of the need to create improved livelihoods, but fails to incorporate the need for respectful co-existence and harmonious relationships with our wildlife and its environment;
  • fails to adequately address solutions for the monitoring and enforcement of industry compliance with existing legislation and regulations;
  • does not satisfactorily explore or promote alternative income streams besides game meat.

Furthermore it should be noted that:

  • The draft Game Meat Strategy fails to take into account the evidence brought forward by the Scientific Authority’s Intensive and Selective Breeding report[1] which concludes that intensive management and selective breeding of game poses a number of significant risks to biodiversity at landscape, ecosystem and species levels, as well as to other sectors of the biodiversity economy of South Africa, and may compromise the current and future contribution of the wildlife industry to biodiversity conservation.

Key biodiversity risks identified on an ecosystem and species level include:

  • The killing of predators and other conflict species may result in a reduction in population numbers, which in turn may lead to a change in the conservation status of the species and thereby furthering the extinction risk.

Key biodiversity risks identified on an ecosystem level include:

  • Fragmentation of the landscape through impermeable fencing restricts movement of free-ranging species and reduces habitat quality and quantity;
  • Concentration of species in small areas with impermeable fences for intensive breeding purposes results in habitat degradation within such areas;
  • The removal of predators will at a certain scale disrupt predation as a natural process in the broader landscape/environment thereby affecting ecosystem functioning.

Key biodiversity risks identified at species level include:

  • Loss of genetic diversity resulting in decreased fitness and reduced adaptive potential;
  • Domestication of wild species resulting in a loss of their natural ability to adapt to wild conditions;
  • Changes in natural genetic composition, evolutionary trajectory and adaptive potential of wild populations through the introgression of captive population genetics wherein genetic changes in the captive population may lead to an altering genetic composition and/or evolutionary trajectory and/or adaptive potential of wild populations through deliberate and accidental introductions.
  • The draft Game Meat Strategy promotes marginal lands as being better suited to wild species, but whether we intensively farm domestic cattle and sheep or domesticated antelope and buffalo, the impacts on the environment and the potential for habitat degradation will remain the same. We understand that Government wishes to reduce poverty, create food security and advance the rights of communities by growing the game meat industry, however this should not be at the detriment of the environment, biodiversity and/or the well-being of individual wild animals.
  • The intensive breeding of animals, whether domestic or wild animals, has far reaching impacts on the environment, particularly with regard to greenhouse gas emissions. Hence, the strategy does not seem to align with United Nations Sustainable Development Goal 13 (take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts), as well as the Paris Agreement on climate change that was signed at COP21.

We believe the above aspects are of serious concern and we trust that these contradictory stances are rectified in the final Game Meat Strategy document.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Louise de Waal

Campaign Manager and Director

Comments on the Draft Notice Prohibiting Certain Activities Involving African Lion (Panthera leo)

The Director-General: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
FAO: Ms Magdel Boshoff
Private Bag X447
Pretoria 0001

Delivered by email to: revisedlionprohibition@dffe.gov.za 

19 November 2024

Comments on the Draft Notice Prohibiting Certain Activities Involving African Lion (Panthera leo)

Dear Ms Boshoff,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Notice prohibiting certain activities involving African lion (Panthera leo), gazetted under notice 51581.

We are in full support of the Minister’s decision to implement appropriate and necessary measures to avoid the establishment of new captive lion facilities whilst the voluntary exit process is underway and legislation under consideration to phase out the commercial captive lion industry in South Africa. 

Blood Lions is in full support of the following issues: 

  1. With regards to captive lions, we fully support the initiative to prohibit the establishment and registration of any new breeding, exhibition or rehabilitation facility or any other type of captive lion facility. This initiative is a positive step towards preventing any further growth of the captive lion industry. 
  2. We support the inclusion of ecological reasons to stop the domestication of lions and move towards a future in which South Africa holds no lions in captivity. As outlined in the prohibition notice, apex predators have complex needs, including social organisation, diverse diet, hunting behaviour, and territorial nature, that are central to their overall welfare and well-being. These complex needs are best provided for in natural environments and functioning, self-sustaining ecosystems. 

The recognition that controlled environments cannot adequately account for the complex needs of these apex predators is an important and necessary step towards phasing out the commercial captive lion industry. It demonstrates the Minister’s progressive recognition of in-situ biodiversity conservation, animal well-being and the need to restore South Africa’s reputation as a leader in the conservation of wildlife and as a responsible tourism destination with iconic wild lions.

Blood Lions have concerns with regards to the following issues: 

  1. The exclusion to establish and register a new sanctuary. Even though the proviso has been made that the Minister should determine that such a new sanctuary is necessary to accommodate sterilised captive lions arising from the voluntary exit process, we feel that this exclusion can be used as a loophole.

Any commercial captive lion facility could potentially register their commercial captive lion facility as a sanctuary, especially since permits are issued on a provincial rather than national basis and the TOPS definition of sanctuary is too ambiguous:

A sanctuary means “a facility that provides permanent care to a specimen of a listed threatened or protected species that would be unable to sustain itself if released in an environment other than a controlled environment, irrespective of the reason for such inability”. This definition specifies neither conditions to guarantee the welfare and well-being of the wild captive animals in such a controlled environment, nor in terms of breeding and/or trading practices. 

If the Minister wants to leave the opportunity open for the establishment of sanctuaries that can accommodate some of the surrendered lions coming out of the voluntary exit process and/or the future prohibition, such facilities should be identified solely as being run under internationally recognised best practices that allow for the welfare and well-being of these apex predators to be guaranteed, as outlined in the various protocols developed by the Ministerial Task Team. 

Currently, numerous commercial captive lion facilities in South Africa have already included the word ‘sanctuary’ within their business name to create the impression that their facility/predator park rescues and/or rehabilitates wildlife, rather than having vested interests in commercial activities. We are concerned that such a loophole may encourage this practice to expand, which would not only deceive the public but also allow commercial activities to continue under the guise of a sanctuary label, and thus leaving the system wide open for abuse. 

2. Our second concern relates to the omission of prohibiting captive breeding of lions at existing commercial facilities. The continuation of captive breeding perpetuates the growth of the captive lion population and the associated animal welfare and well-being implications. This will in turn hamper the phase out process by increasing the number of captive lions that may require veterinary care, sterilisation, potential euthanasia, and/or lion safe haven space. 

It is therefore critical that a moratorium on captive breeding of lions is implemented as soon as possible to expedite not only the voluntary exit but also the ultimate closure of the commercial captive lion industry. 

Comments on the Draft National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill (Gazette no 2024)

The Director-General: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
FAO: Ms Magdel Boshoff
Private Bag X447
Pretoria 0001

Delivered by email to: biodiversitybill@dffe.gov.za 

25th July 2024

Comments on the Draft National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill (Gazette no 2024)

Dear Magdel Boshoff,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill Kindly find below our comments including areas of support, concerns, and missed opportunities for development.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Louise de Waal

Blood Lions | Director and Campaign Manager

Comments on the Draft National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Bill

Introduction

We fully support the explicit inclusion of both a duty of care towards biodiversity and consideration for the well-being of wild animals. We believe this is a positive and innovative approach to the conservation of biodiversity and will place South Africa as a progressive example of conservation. Furthermore, we are encouraged by the Department’s goal to address historical imbalances and achieve greater equity in the biodiversity sector and to address the need for greater regulation in the legal and illegal trade of species.

However, we believe it is necessary to note that the new Bill does not provide improved clarity compared to the current National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (NEMBA). For this reason, there is significant scope to revise the Bill and strengthen legislation. Specifically, it would be beneficial to see a shift towards terminology incorporating ‘ecologically sustainable use’ as opposed to ‘sustainable use’ in order to give effect to Section 24 of the Constitution.

Areas of support

  1. We appreciate the inclusion of a duty of care towards biodiversity, including a recognition of animal well-being, sentience, and how these closely link to human well-being as well as nature’s cultural and spiritual significance for many South African cultures. We strongly believe that South Africa’s diversity is reflected in both the people and our natural heritage.
  2. We support Sections 41 and 42 in which necessary management of non-listed species may be undertaken by the Minister. However, we do feel it is important to define ‘management’ for improved clarity.
  3. We support the development of Part 2 Scientific Authority and Part 3 Trade in Species which introduces regulations related to both legal and illegal wildlife trade.

Areas of concern

  1. We feel the legal framework and permitting system is unnecessarily complex and we are concerned that members of the public would find it difficult to access and navigate these spaces with confidence and accuracy, which could lead to needless non-compliance.
  2. Furthermore, permit obligations are unclear and as a result are unlikely to enhance compliance where permit applicants may be unsure of their obligations.
  3. Rather than focusing on penalties for non-compliance, we feel there is a need to consider stronger incentives for compliance, which may avoid the need for stronger penalties as a way forward to protect biodiversity.
  4. We are concerned that the definition of biodiversity does not extend the concept of ‘duty of care’ towards individual animals. The definition may be remedied and expanded by including ‘specimen’ in addition to ‘genetics, species, ecosystems’ to ensure a more encompassing definition.
  5. The removal of the duty of care related to alien and invasive species in Chapter 6 is problematic. We believe in this instance that a general duty of care towards biodiversity ought to be included in the Bill.
  6. It is unclear if section 61(d) refers to permits for exotic pets and livestock. Greater clarity is required. 

Missed opportunities for development

  1. We believe there is a missed opportunity for this Bill to address and resolve the conflicts inherent in the 9+1, concurrent national and provincial legislation for environmental matters. As we all know, this concurrence creates a challenging legislative landscape in which legislation is fragmented, complex, and lacking in harmony. The Biodiversity Bill ought to address this fragmentation and resolve the conflicts evident in the 9+1 concurrent legislation.
  2. We noted with concern the absence of target setting in the Biodiversity Bill.

Comments on the Draft National Biodiversity Economy Strategy

The Director-General: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
FAO: Mr Khorommbi Matibe
Private Bag X447
Pretoria 0001

Delivered by email to: nbes@dffe.gov.za

5th April 2024

Comments on the Draft National Biodiversity Economy Strategy

Dear Mr Matibe,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft National Biodiversity Strategy (NBES), gazetted under notice 50279.

We recognise that this draft NBES has the potential to build upon some of the groundwork laid by the White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa ‘s Biodiversity. As such, if developed appropriately it could play a vital and positive step towards improved protection of South Africa’s rich biodiversity heritage and its international reputation as a global leader in conservation and ecotourism.

We commend some of the ambitious goals therein and acknowledge reference to promotion of the Kunming-Montreal Global Diversity Framework. We commend Goal 1 that leverages biodiversity-based features to scale inclusive ecotourism industry growth in seascapes and sustainable conservation land-use.

However, we are concerned that the draft NBES involves aspects that seek to aggressively expand the consumptive use of wildlife without giving due consideration to the principles of international and national policy commitments. In particular considering that the HLP report called to reverse the domestication of species such as lion and rhino and the Policy Position Paper on the Conservation and Ecologically Sustainable use of Elephant, Lion, Leopard and Rhinoceros Objective 1 is to close the commercial captive lion industry.

Goal 2 of the draft NBES and its aggressive expansion of the consumptive use of game from extensive wildlife systems to drive transformation and expand sustainable conservation compatible land-use, is problematic. This goal aims to increase the contribution to South Africa’s GDP from the consumptive use of game from extensive wildlife systems from ZAR 4.6 billion in 2020 to R27.6 billion by 2036, which requires a substantial 5.7% year-on-year growth. Even if the animal welfare and zoonotic disease risks of this type of endeavour are set aside, aggressively expanding the game meat industry from extensive wildlife systems would require a substantial growth in capacity of the regulatory bodies. Currently, the provincial nature conservation authorities regulate the wildlife industry and are already seriously under-resourced. With the recently added NEMBA clause on animal well-being, the DFFE in concurrence with the provincial authorities now have the additional responsibility to ensure the well-being of the individual animals involved in the wildlife industry.

Even though we don’t believe that this aggressive promotion and expansion of commercial consumptive use of wildlife is the right way to go for South Africa, there are also issues of animal welfare and well-being to consider that are not adequately covered in this NBES. The DFFE animal well-being mandate should require the development of strict Norms & Standards (N&S) for the breeding, keeping, transport and slaughter of any wild animal species involved in this purportedly rapidly expanding industry, whereas we currently don’t even have N&S for iconic species like lions. We acknowledge that these requirements are partly covered in Action 7.2, “develop and implement mechanisms and tools to improve duty of care, animal well-being and ethical and effective practices, with the inclusion of voluntary wildlife standards”. We strongly believe that voluntary standards are wholly inappropriate and ineffective and may lead to conflicts of interest, a lack of uniformity in standards across the industry, and a lack of incentives for compliance. Compliance monitoring should remain in the hands of an external body and therefore the current Environmental Monitoring Inspectorate should be significantly and meaningfully expanded and provided with additional authority to include animal well-being. The latter will require intensive training on animal well-being and collaboration with animal welfare organisations, such as the NSPCA, who exercise their statutory duty under severe capacity constraints due to the lack of state financial support. Furthermore, new entrants into this industry may not have any prior expertise in the keeping of wild animal species, which can potentially lead to animal welfare and well-being issues and, in turn, impact South Africa’s reputation as a leader in conservation, as has happened with the commercial captive lion industry.

In addition, Goal 2 speaks of a substantial increase in wild “fair chase” trophy hunting at a time when hunting tourism is becoming less economically viable due to negative public perceptions and declining wildlife populations. More and more countries are implementing importation bans on hunting trophies and approximately 45 airlines are no longer willing to carry hunting trophies. A ban on importing hunting trophies from threatened species into the UK, for example, is highly likely to become law in the near future following Government backing in March 2024. International sentiment demonstrates a growing aversion for trophy hunting, which may again impact on South Africa’s reputation as a wildlife and ecotourism destination.

Action 10.4: to “Develop and implement a strategy for a market for regulated domestic trade in high-end parts and derivatives (e.g., rhino horn and elephant ivory) for local value-add enterprises based on processing and use of products” is also of serious concern. Concerningly, this action is further annotated in the draft NBES as follows: “Innovative approaches are needed to identify products and develop the necessary local markets. For example, health clinics to administer traditional remedies using rhino horn for health tourists from the far East, or ivory carving being done locally for local sale and export for personal use”.

There is no mention where the rhino horn and elephant ivory would be sourced from. Would this be from private and/or governmental stockpiles? Would this be from de-horning programmes? How would the DFFE/provincial authorities be able to distinguish between legally and illegally (poached) sourced products? It seems senseless to invest a significant amount of capital and resources on anti-poaching measures and de-horning programmes, to subsequently allow communities to create a commercial trade in the by-products. This sends a message out to communities that these products don’t just have value internationally but also domestically, which can in turn further increase the poaching of these TOPS species. Action 10.4 is highly likely to ultimately negatively impact on South Africa’s conservation and eco-tourism reputation, as it did with the trade in lion bones, parts and derivatives. In particular since the “local value add would need to be developed to such an extent that the sale of derived products can generate sufficient funds”.

Furthermore, it seems farcical to identify products using rhino horn and contemplate developing health clinics to administer such traditional remedies for health tourists from Southeast Asia that are not part of South Africa’s traditional health practitioner remedies and are not grounded in scientific evidence.

In relation to this action and as stated in the draft NBES, the international commercial trade in rhino horn and elephant ivory is currently restricted by CITES. Therefore, whilst South Africa could work towards submitting a proposal, this would seriously risk undermining international and national efforts to protect threatened or protected species and curb illegal wildlife trade globally – in particular, stimulating unsustainable consumer demand and providing a legal cover for poaching.

In addition, it would fail to recognise the seismic shifts being contemplated in attitude and behaviour elsewhere, for example, the growing evidence of increased interest and desire by consumers and traditional health practitioners in China to shift away from wildlife-based Traditional Asian Medicine and instead seek to promote more humane and sustainable herbal alternatives that do not carry the same animal welfare and zoonotic disease risks.

Such a large shift in policy direction would stand in contradiction to more detailed and engaged processes that have examined the impacts of this type of domestic and international trade of other South African wildlife. For example, it stands in opposition to the High-Level Panel report and subsequent Policy Position Paper, which concluded that the international commercial trade in lion bones has a negative impact on South Africa’s economy and reputation.

Our concern is that this aggressive consumptive approach to sustainable use could not only lead to negative welfare and well-being outcomes for wild animals, but also have unintended net negative impacts on biodiversity and local communities in South Africa. Moreover, in the spirit of Ubuntu, the recognition and protection of individual wild animal interests should be clearly considered and not solely reduced to commodities, simply to be utilised and exploited for commercial gain.

Specifically, we recommend that at a minimum, the draft NBES should be amended to remove Action 10.4, as this could seriously harm national and international efforts to protect TOPS species and curb poaching. More broadly, the draft NBES should shift from the proposed major expansion of consumptive use to one that includes a new conservation and sustainable use policy objective, which clearly confirms that non-consumptive wildlife use will be actively promoted and prioritised above consumptive wildlife use as part of South Africa’s admirable vision rooted in public sentiment and the potential for improved income generation.

As it stands, this draft NBES requires substantial intergovernmental collaboration, which is never an easy goal to achieve, and needs considerable capital investment to implement all the action points. If this kind of effort is to be achieved, rather than promoting and expanding the consumptive use of wildlife, more emphasis should be put on the promotion of access to non-consumptive money streams, for example, wildlife credits, a lion levy, and ecosystem services, which can help to foster the idea that wildlife is worth more alive than dead. In particular when the goal is transformation and inclusivity of communities into the wildlife industry at large, we need to foster a sentiment towards care and protection of wildlife. 

In conclusion, while we appreciate the opportunity to contribute feedback on the draft NBES, we must emphasise our concerns regarding the potential negative consequences of aggressively expanding the consumptive use of wildlife. It is imperative that any strategy aligns with international and national policy commitments while safeguarding biodiversity, local communities, and the welfare and well-being of individual animals. Failure to do so jeopardises not only South Africa’s rich biodiversity heritage, but also its international reputation as a global conservation leader and ecotourism destination.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Louise de Waal

Blood Lions | Campaign Manager and Director

Comments on the Draft Notice Prohibiting certain activities involving African lion (Panthera leo)

The Director-General: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
FAO: Mr Khuthadzo Mahamba
Private Bag X447
Pretoria 0001

Delivered by email to: lionprohibition@dffe.gov.za

25th October 2023

Comments on the Draft Notice Prohibiting certain activities involving African lion (Panthera leo)

Dear Mr Mahamba,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Notice prohibiting certain activities involving African lion (Panthera leo), gazetted under notice 49383.

We are in full support of the Minister’s decision to implement appropriate and necessary measures to avoid the establishment of new captive lion facilities whilst the development of a policy, strategy and legislation are under consideration to phase out the captive lion industry in South Africa. 

The Blood Lions film and global campaign was launched in 2015 and has worked tirelessly to end the cruel and unethical captive lion industry and its spin-off activities. The announcement in May 2021 by Minister Barbara Creecy following the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee Lion Colloquium and the subsequent release of the HLP report, the publication of the White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity, and the recent draft Policy Position on the Conservation and Ecologically Sustainable use of Elephant, Lion, Leopard and Rhinoceros demonstrate highly significant steps towards enabling the restoration of South Africa’s reputation as a leader in the conservation of wildlife and as a responsible tourism destination with iconic wild lions. 

We welcome the shift in thinking to include animal well-being as an objective in NEMBA, and the recognition of lions as sentient beings demonstrates the progressive nature of the Department’s stance on conservation of wildlife and biodiversity. As stated in the draft Prohibition Notice, lions are sentient and social animals with complex needs that are best served in wild habitats in which their social structures, hunting behaviour, and territorial nature can be met. The recognition that controlled environments cannot adequately account for these complex needs of these apex predators is an important and necessary step towards phasing out the commercial captive lion industry.  

We are hugely encouraged with the publication of this draft Prohibition Notice and are in full support of the following issues: 

  • To prohibit the establishment or registration of new captive lion breeding facilities, commercial exhibition facilities, rehabilitation facilities or sanctuaries.
  • The explicit focus on the promotion of well-being, recognition of animal sentience, recognition of natural behaviours associated with wild lions and social groups, and their physiological needs.
  • Recognition that it has become critical to implement appropriate measures to avoid the establishment of new captive facilities for lions, whilst the development of a policy, strategy and legislation are under consideration to phase out the captive lion industry. 

We are however deeply concerned to see the inclusion of exceptions for prohibition of the establishment or registration of new captive lion facilities, namely those facilities that: –

  • Provide a public function: To our knowledge, “public function” is an expression that is currently not defined in any existing conservation legislation. A public function can be defined as an activity that benefits the vast majority of society and is as such an extremely broad concept. It generally relates to activities, services, or events that have a public or community-oriented focus, either through government provision, non-profit organisations, open accessibility, or engagement with the public. 

When making exceptions under such an all-encompassing concept, this inevitably creates legal loopholes for facilities to operate under the pretence of fulfilling a public function. We are hugely concerned this will allow for the establishment or registration of new captive lion facilities and pseudo-sanctuaries that may operate under the guise of providing for example an educational function. Furthermore, there is currently not sufficient scientific evidence to support the notion that lions in controlled environments can serve a strong enough educational function that may warrant their captivity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to question what functions could potentially justify the establishment of a new facility that keeps lions in a controlled environment and how can we guarantee that such a facility adheres to its narrow function? This leads to our additional concern of the future regulation and enforcement of such facilities by the provincial authorities with already limited resources and capacity. 

  • Operate on a non-profit basis: To operate a captive lion facility on a non-profit basis, whether the entity is registered as an NPO, NPC or NGO, is not the equivalent to being run based on ethical standards, standards that put the well-being of the lions as a priority, and may not even be sufficient in determining a non-commercial entity. There are numerous examples of commercial captive lion facilities that have registered a non-profit as a sideline, in particular facilities with public access, voluntourism, and/or research interests. 

We are extremely concerned that this may again open up a legal loophole in which facilities operate on a non-profit basis as a means of circumventing the prohibition of establishing and/or registering new commercial captive lion facilities.

If the Department wants to leave the opportunity open for the establishment of true lion sanctuaries or lion safe havens that can rehome some of the surrendered lions coming out of the voluntary exit process and/or the future prohibition, such facilities should be identified solely as being run under internationally recognised best practices that allow for the welfare and well-being of these apex predators to be guaranteed.

At present, the exception of facilities that provide either a public function or operate on a non-profit basis leaves the system wide open for abuse. 

We sincerely hope that you will take the above comments into consideration when developing the final Prohibition Notice.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Louise de Waal

Blood Lions | Director and Campaign Manage

Feedback on the revised draft White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity

To: The Director-General
Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
FAO: Ms Tsepang Makholela
Email:   whitepaper2@dffe.gov.za

Date:     9th November 2022

Feedback on the revised draft White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity

Introduction

Blood Lions welcomed the first draft White Paper on the Conservation and Sustainable use of South Africa’s Biodiversity gazetted in July 2022. We recognised in our first submission that this White Paper had the potential to lay the foundation for a more holistic and contemporary approach to biodiversity conservation and hence a better protection of South Africa’s rich biodiversity heritage. It represented a paradigm shift away from outdated policies and models, and towards more modern approaches to the conservation of biodiversity, founded on the principles of Ubuntu, which we applauded.

It is encouraging to see that the second draft of the White Paper has been condensed significantly, making it a lot easier to follow and digest. We are also encouraged by the renewed focus on equitable sharing and removing barriers for local communities to experience and get involved with biodiversity. This is long overdue to, among others, help raise awareness and change mindsets of local communities towards wildlife and biodiversity conservation in Africa.

We are pleased to see that the principle of “people first” has substantially been reduced in this second draft, however this seems to have been replaced by a strong focus on sustainable utilisation which is still anthropocentric, rather than being focussed on the conservation of biodiversity for present and future generations with an emphasis on the intrinsic and existence values of the environment and its components.

These two key definitions and tenets (intrinsic value and existence value) have effectively been removed from the Guiding Principles and the remainder of the White Paper, which is extremely worrisome. These values have now been reduced to vague mentions in sentences such as “South Africa supports the sustainable use of biodiversity of the intrinsic, relational and instrumental values of biodiversity” and “In addition to these economic benefits, there are a wide range of other values and benefits that people derive from nature, including existence value”.

We strongly recommend returning the clear focus on the intrinsic, existence and ecosystem service values of wildlife and biodiversity, with all the benefits this brings for human health and well-being as well as to the wider economy, as opposed to the existing focus of the White Paper on the commercial value of wild animals through consumptive use. Contribution to GDP should not be the primary measure of the value of biodiversity, as this can also be achieved through non-consumptive uses.

This second draft of the White Paper again puts a lot of emphasis on giving effect to and aligning with Section 24 of the Constitution of South Africa, which is commendable. However, the phrase used in Section 24 of the Constitution is “Ecologically Sustainable Use” and should therefore be used consistently throughout the White Paper document. Currently, the White Paper distinguishes in parts between consumptive and non-consumptive sustainable use, however in other parts the generic term “sustainable use” remains and is sometimes replaced with “ecologically sustainable use” or “sustainable development”. The multitude of terms used for this one concept not only creates potential confusion but can also lead to loopholes in this vitally important document.

Furthermore, animal well-being and sentience have taken a massive step backwards in this second draft and there is no mention of One Health – One Welfare. This is not only deeply concerning from an animal welfare/well-being perspective, but also from a standpoint of human health. Wild animals are believed to be the source of at least 70% of all emerging zoonotic diseases and their commercial trade provides many opportunities for the movement of pathogens across national and international boundaries. Evidence has shown that wild animals involved in sustainable use and/or commercial wildlife trade often experience compromised immune systems when subjected to stressful and substandard welfare conditions, and in particular when kept in close proximity to other wild animal species, which can exacerbate the risk of zoonotic disease transmission. 

The considerable and real risk of the transmission of zoonotic diseases between wild animals and humans should not only receive careful consideration but should be the principal concern of any ex-situ use of animals, as the economic consequences of an epidemic (or pandemic for that matter) are far greater than the economic benefits of the activity itself.

 

You will find below some additional comments and feedback on specific parts of the revised draft White Paper.

Executive summary:

  • Page 3 – paragraph 2: The reasons why the White Paper has been developed, “to set the country on a strong path of sustainable development based on the rich biodiversity and ecological infrastructure which supports ecosystem functioning for livelihoods and well-being of people” is too anthropocentric and omits the intrinsic and existence values of the environment and its components.
  • Page 3: We are encouraged to see the identification and inclusion of challenges that require policy intervention, in particular points 1, 2, 5 and 6 are welcomed.
  • Page 4 – Goal 2: Should speak of “ecologically sustainable use” per Section 24 of the Constitution – see also comment in Introduction above around sustainable use.

 

  1. Introduction and Background
  • Section 1.1 – Policy Issue Identification: Positive to see the “uneven effectiveness in governance and shortages of human, financial and other resources” acknowledged as a key barrier.
  • Vision: The new vision omits a vitally important mandate of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, namely to conserve biodiversity for present and future generations.
  • 5.2 Pressures and Drivers (Page 11 – paragraph 1): The sweeping statement “Both wildlife ranching and livestock farming are vitally important land uses for both socio-economic development and biodiversity conservation, but can have negative impacts if conducted too intensively, or inappropriately”:
    • A definition of “wildlife ranching” should be included in the White Paper to provide clarity, a common understanding of the meaning and implication of the term, as well as potential identification of issues such as best practice.
    • The statement that these land uses are vitally important for biodiversity conservation, rather than solely providing socio-economic benefits, should be backed up with solid scientific evidence or otherwise omitted from this sentence.
    • The wording “conducted too intensively, or inappropriately” is ambiguous and subjective, and should be explained further or have examples provided.
  • 1.5.3 Benefits derived from South Africa’s Biodiversity: Throughout this section the term “sustainable use” should be replaced with “ecologically sustainable use”.
  • 1.6.3 Provincial and Municipal Laws and Policies: The section should strongly promote the updating and alignment of provincial nature conservation statutes with existing national legislation, to avoid conflicting mandates and potential litigation.

 

  1. Definitions
  • Animal well-being: This definition needs to include the wording in red “…and quality of life and death, including….”.
  • Conservation: We are encouraged to see the removal of reference to “sustainable use” and inclusion of “intrinsic value” in this definition.
  • Humane: We applaud the inclusion of this new definition, but the word undue in the phrase “undue pain, stress, suffering, or distress” is problematic and ambiguous. The definition also fails to recognise animal sentience.
  • Sustainable Use: It is encouraging that the definition now includes reference to ecological sustainability. However, the definition fails to recognise the intrinsic value of individual animals and populations, and not only their humane use.

 

  1. Guiding Principles
  • General comment: It is hugely disappointing to see that the recognition of intrinsic and existence values and animal well-being, and hence the recognition that animals are sentient beings capable of suffering and experiencing pain, have completely disappeared from the White Paper guiding principles.
  • It is encouraging to see the addition of “Good Governance” as a guiding principle.

 

  1. Goals and Enablers
  • General comment: All reference to human health and the prevention or minimisation of the risk of animal-human transmission and further evolution of zoonotic diseases associated with wild animals has been removed, which is concerning (see also comments in Introduction).
  • Goal 2 – Sustainable Use:
    • Should refer to Ecologically Sustainable Use.
    • Paragraph 1 should also include “animal well-being”.
    • Encouraging to see the inclusion in the last paragraph that sustainable use should avoid practices, actions or activities that are inhumane.
  • Goal 3 – Equitable Access and Benefit Sharing:
    • We are encouraged to see one of the focal points has moved from “concerns with ownership of biodiversity” to “concerns with access to biodiversity”, something which is vitally important for biodiversity conservation.
  • Goal 4 – Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use is Transformative:
    • This goal puts crucial emphasis on environmental rights, as intended in the Constitution, including but not limited to preventing harm to human health or well-being. However, this is not followed through in the remainder of the White Paper, where reference to potential harm to human health from zoonotic diseases is no longer featured (see also comments in Introduction).
  • Enabler 1 – Integrated, Mainstreamed and Effective Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Use:
    • It is concerning that all reference to funding and resourcing as a key constraint on sustaining the sector, let alone growing it, has been removed. This is absolutely key to the ultimate success of the intent of the White Paper and we would like to reiterate the need for sustainable funding and resourcing. Innovative funding schemes, such as UNDP Biodiversity Finance Initiative, Rebalance Earth initiative, and carbon debt schemes, should be considered to (partly) replace the contested revenue from consumptive use.
    • We are encouraged to see that multi-sectoral approach and cooperation has been adopted.
  • Enabler 2: Enhanced Means of Implementation:
    • We support the overall focus on implementation mechanisms, such as mobilising resources, capacity development and knowledge generation. Capacity building and education across the board are essential to ensure conservation of South Africa’s biological diversity sustainably, in particular considering the disconnect between an increasing urban population and the lack of respect and understanding of nature, ecosystems and biodiversity.
  1. Strategic Linkages and Impact
  • Page 26 – paragraph 2: The old Vision (from the first draft White Paper) has been used in this section and needs to be amended.

 

  1. Policy Objectives and Expected Outcomes
  • Goal 1:
    • Concerned that prevention of zoonotic diseases has been removed in its entirety (as outlined above).
    • Policy Objective 1.6 – Output 8 and 11: Breeding for commercial purposes (output 11) contradicts the minimization of risk of domestication of wild animals (output 8). Allowing breeding for commercial purposes rather than conservation purposes – even if that is done responsibly, has demonstrable conservation benefits or advances sustainable use – will inevitably lead to domestication. Ex-situ breeding practices should be limited to those circumstances where the conservation needs of the species requires such ex-situ interventions, e.g., breeding for repopulating conservation areas. We therefore recommend deleting output 11.
  • Goal 2:
    • Policy Objective 2.5: It is positive to see the promotion of duty of care, including humane practices towards wild animals. However, with the lack of recognition of animal sentience and the use of the word “undue” in the definition of humane, this leaves this policy objective wide open to abuse.
    • The integration of well-being of wild animals and populations into policy, legislation, tools and practices is welcomed, but the proof is in the pudding when it comes to enforcement and prosecution.
  • Goal 3:
    • The output (“efficient permitting system to regulate and promote bioprospecting and biotrade, while protecting biodiversity and ecosystem services”) seems to have been removed which is concerning as regulation can only work if a robust, electronic national/central permitting system is put into place. The provincial (often outdated paper-based) systems are not adequate for effective regulation.

 

Keep South Africa’s Iconic Species Wild

Delivered by email to: knaicker@environment.gov.za and bcreecy@environment.gov.za

28th September 2021

 

Dear Honourable Minister Creecy and Dr Naicker,

Keep South Africa’s Iconic Species Wild

There are many reasons why Blood Lions and our partners around the world are in support of the Minister’s recent announcement to end the predator breeding industry in South Africa and the subsequent draft Policy Position document on the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros.

The reputational and marketing damage to Brand SA and our proud conservation and ecotourism heritage that comes with failing to act is one of the most important issues. By ending the commercial captive lion breeding and keeping practices, the Minister and government will be sending a compelling message to the world that South Africa indeed supports sound conservation, and our tourism products are ethical, responsible and authentic.

After the release of the Blood Lions documentary in 2015, the campaign launched the Born to Live Wild Tourism Pledge. Every one of the 200 logos below, of which half are internationally recognised South African tour operators, representing 2,738 members worldwide, commit:

  • To not knowingly book or otherwise support any captive lion breeder or tourist facility that contributes to the cycle of breeding, exploitation and senseless killing of predators. This includes all petting and walking with lions activities.
  • To continue our support and promotion of the formal conservation community in their endeavours to secure the survival of Africa’s predators in the wild. Without wild lions and the rest of the predator guild extant in functioning ecosystems, there will be no African tourism industry – a calamitous situation for many economies.
  • To continue in our own endeavours towards wildlife conservation and economic development wherever we operate across the world.
  • To continue supporting an ethical and responsible interaction with wilderness and wild animals in their natural habitat.
  • To continue promoting Africa as an authentic, wild and rewarding tourism destination.

This means, the signatories of our Born To Live Wild pledge have committed to keeping South Africa’s iconic species wild and do not support any facility that contributes to the cycle of captive breeding, canned hunting and the wider commercial exploitation of wild animal species.

This pledge places every one of these operators, as well as their subsidiary companies and guests, as firm supporters of the High-Level Panel recommendations, the Minister’s announcement to end predator breeding, and the subsequent draft Policy Position on the conservation and ecologically sustainable use of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros.

We would like to draw attention to the following statistics provided in the State of the Wildlife Economy in Africa report, compiled by the African Leadership University School of Wildlife Conservation (2021). According to their study, the total contribution of travel and tourism in 2019 was US$24.6 billion or approximately 7% of the total South African economy creating 1.4 million jobs (i.e. 9.1% of total employment). In contrast, the direct contributions to SA’s economy in 2015 from trophy hunting were a mere US$153 million and the wider wildlife ranching sector contributed a further US$438 million.

Clearly, the risks in continuing the commercial captive predator industry, with all its spin-off activities such as canned hunting, tourism interactive activities, and lion bone export trade, are substantial.

 

Warm regards,

Dr Louise de Waal

On behalf of Blood Lions and our Born to Live Wild signatories

 

Comments on the Draft Policy Position on the Conservation and Ecologically Sustainable use of Elephant, Lion, Leopard and Rhinoceros.

The Director-General

Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

FAO: Dr Kiruben Naicker

Private Bag X447

Pretoria 0001

Delivered by email to: knaicker@environment.gov.za

27th July 2021

Comments on the Draft Policy Position on the Conservation and Ecologically Sustainable use of Elephant, Lion, Leopard and Rhinoceros.

Dear Dr Naicker,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Policy Position on the Conservation and Ecologically Sustainable use of Elephant, Lion, Leopard and Rhinoceros, gazetted under notice 44776.

The Blood Lions film and global campaign was launched in 2015 and has worked tirelessly to end the cruel and unethical captive lion industry and its spin-off activities. The announcement in May 2021 by Minister Barbara Creecy following the release of the HLP report and the subsequent draft Policy Position document are highly significant. We commend the Minister in her decisive leadership to bringing an end to the commercial captive lion breeding industry.

Furthermore, we are hugely encouraged by the absolute shift and transformation in policy thinking and to see animal welfare and wellbeing front and centre of South Africa’s future wildlife sector. We are also pleased to see a redefinition of the concept of “ecologically sustainable use”.

Implementation of the intended policy objectives will enable the restoration of South Africa’s reputation as a leader in the conservation of wildlife and as a responsible tourism destination with iconic wild lions.

The Blood Lions team offer our full support in developing and implementing a responsible phase-out plan in order to ensure that the commercial captive predator industry is successfully closed down once and for all. We welcome the chance to play a role in assisting Minister Creecy, the various Departments and entities in the phasing out process to come.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Louise de Waal

Blood Lions | Campaign Manager and Director

  1. INTRODUCTION

We are in full support of the HLP vision of secured, restored, rewilded natural landscapes with thriving populations of elephant, rhino, lion and leopard, as indicators for a vibrant, responsible, inclusive, transformed sustainable wildlife sector that forms the foundation of this draft Policy Position document.

We are encouraged by the absolute shift and transformation in policy thinking, to see animal welfare and wellbeing front and centre of South Africa’s future wildlife sector, as well as a redefinition of the concept of “ecologically sustainable use”.

General areas of support include but are not limited to:

  • Intention to increase wildness, naturalness and wellbeing of fauna in conservation policy. Moving away from a small, captive, insular approach to a landscape approach, bringing South Africa more in line with the rest of the world and Africa.
  • Adoption the One Welfare Approach within the Biodiversity policy for the sector.
  • Enhance and update the approach to ecologically sustainable use, especially ecotourism and its benefit flow.
  • Adoption of a transformative African approach to conservation and ecologically sustainable use, consistent with Ubuntu.
  1. SPECIES MANAGEMENT POLICY INTERVENTIONS

 

  • Immediately halt domestication and exploitation of lion, and close captive lion facilities.

 

2.1.1  Areas of support

  • Recognition that the captive lion industry threatens South Africa’s reputation as a leader in the conservation of wildlife, and as a tourism destination with iconic wild lions.
  • Recognition that the captive lion industry does not represent ecologically sustainable use, providing very little economic activity or jobs, while benefiting a few.
  • Recognition of major concerns over work conditions and safety to workers and tourists, as well as the risk of zoonotic diseases in the captive lion industry.
  • Recognition that the captive lion industry does not contribute in a meaningful way to transformation, to the conservation of wild lions, and that the trade in derivatives poses major risks to wild lion populations and stimulates the illegal trade (i.e. the negative impact of the industry beyond South Africa’s borders).
  • Recognition that rewilding of captive lions is not feasible based on conservation principles and that captive breeding is currently not necessary for conservation purposes.
  • Recognition that issues with legislation and mandates exist, including the lack of cooperative governance within the 9+1+1 methods of regulation, and challenges relating to the structuring and implementation of the permit system.
  • Intention to halt domestication and exploitation of lions, and close captive lion facilities by ending the keeping, breeding, handling, and trade in captive lions and their parts and derivatives, and hunting of captive and captive bred lions.

2.1.2  Areas of concern

  • No differentiation made between commercial captive lion facilities and non-commercial sanctuaries.

By using the term “captive lion facilities” in the policy objective description, no differentiation is made between commercial captive lion facilities and non-commercial sanctuaries. Although we support the move towards a South Africa with wild lions only, true sanctuaries can play a vital role in the phase out of this industry by providing a forever home for some of the healthy lions coming out of the commercial captive lion industry.

A more robust definition for “sanctuary” (suggestions in definition section below) could help to differentiate between commercial and non-commercial captive facilities and at the same time allow for conversion of facilities that genuinely want to make positive changes to their existing business models. Redefining “sanctuaries” will also stop those captive lion facilities currently masquerading as sanctuaries and prevent others from “repurposing” their facilities for educational purposes. 

This will also align the policy with the work tourism associations have carried out globally and in South Africa, such as the SATSA Captive Wildlife Guidelines, the ABTA Global Welfare Guidance for Animals in Tourism and the ANVR addendum.

  • Process developed and implemented for euthanasia of the captive lion population

The vast majority of lions involved in commercial captive lion facilities are compromised and will need to be euthanised. However, this should not lead to the mass culling of all captive lions in South Africa, as this could create further international and domestic damage to Brand SA. Additional sustainable alternatives should be identified, such as the homing of healthy lions in true sanctuaries and the possible conversion of some captive lion facilities into true sanctuaries.

Euthanisation protocols will need to be developed by specialist wildlife veterinarians, determining the criteria for euthanisation, the most humane method, and a mechanism to permanently dispose of the bodies. Only qualified vets should identify the compromised lion population and administer the euthanasia medication.

There are legitimate concerns around the status, welfare and wellbeing of all animals involved in the captive lion industry, in particular during this uncertain period of policy formulation, enactment and implementation. To effectively secure the welfare and wellbeing of captive lions during this period, we suggest the urgent implementation of the following steps, some of which are in line with the HLP recommendations on captive lions, and which require independent input:

  • No permits should be issued for any new entrants into the captive lion industry, while at the same time a national electronic permitting system is introduced for increased accuracy and transparency, and to prevent manipulation of the existing paper system.
  • Immediate moratorium on breeding through mass-sterilisation*. This will put an immediate time limit on the ‘phase out’ period, as the lifespan of a captive lion is commonly 10-15 years.
  • Immediate moratorium on canned hunting through a halt on the issuing of hunting permits*.
  • Immediate moratorium on the import ex situ of all big cats from outside South Africa. South Africa should not be in a situation, where we are dealing with the fall out of welfare issues originating outside of the country, while we will need to find forever homes for the healthy big cat population coming out of the captive lion industry during the phase out process.
  • Immediate independent, national audit of all captive lion facilities (commercial facilities, zoos, sanctuaries, tourism facilities, hunting facilities etc), including an assessment of quantities, ages and sex of all felid species held in captivity and their welfare status, as well as lion bone stockpiles. Specialist wildlife veterinarians should be part of such inspection teams.

This baseline information is required for all subsequent steps in ensuring a responsible closure of the industry. Some NGOs may be able to assist in providing supplementary research data. 

  • Where possible, this audit should identify both legal and illegal lion facilities.
  • Using euthanasia protocols, any lions in an irreversible poor welfare state should be identified and humanely euthanised.
  • Whilst we recognise that such inspections will involve legal access issues and therefore only certain personnel could be involved in these inspections, the team should have a mandate to search all parts of the properties, as too often animals are hidden insidiously and surreptitiously in buildings and warehouses.
  • The scientific paper “Ending Commercial Lion Farming in South Africa: A Gap Analysis Approach”, published in the peer-reviewed journal Animals, provides further action points to develop a comprehensive and well-managed plan required to ensure a responsible transition away from the current industry (https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/6/1717).

* NSPCA lion bone judgment acknowledged that S57(2) of NEMBA provides the Minister with the authority to place a moratorium on breeding and hunting, etc of captive lions, as research has shown that this may negatively impact the survival of lions in the wild. An increase in poaching of wild lions for teeth and claws through well-established illegal wildlife trafficking networks, which are believed to be more valuable on the demand side than lion bones, puts unnecessary pressure on wild lion populations that are already under significant pressure from a wide range of threats.

  • Authentic lion trophy hunting

DFFE and the provincial permit issuing authorities will need to be cognisant that the future trophy hunting of wild lions could potentially be used as pseudo-hunts for bones, body parts and derivatives, as was the case with rhino.

  • Institutional limitations

Due to institutional limitations, such as the lack of capacity within DFFE and the NSPCA to carry out all the necessary tasks, a task team should be created with key stakeholders and role players to support wherever they can.

  • Illegal poaching

What measures is the government putting in place to alleviate the risk of increased illegal poaching of wild lions in both South Africa and other range states?

  1. TRADE RELATED POLICY INTERVENTIONS

 

  • No ivory and rhino horn trade under current conditions

 

3.1.1  Areas of support

  • Intention for no trade of ivory and rhino horn under the current conditions.

 

3.1.2  Areas of concern

  • Although one of the expected outcomes under the policy objective to immediately halt domestication and exploitation of lion, and close captive lion facilities is the prohibition promulgated ending the trade in captive lions and their parts and derivatives, there is no clear intend to reverse the CITES annotation of Appendix II for Panthera leo in terms of South Africa’s legal export quota for lion bones, parts and derivatives from the captive population.

3.2    Prevent live export ex situ of iconic species

3.2.1   Areas of support

  • Recognition that the export of live animals poses welfare and wellbeing concerns at the destination, in particular those destinations known to consume rhino horn and lion bones raises concerns regarding the extent to which these exports would be deemed humane and responsible.
  • Intention to prevent live export ex situ of five iconic species.
  • Prohibition promulgated for preventing the taking of wild specimens into captivity for the five species and preventing the export of specimens of the five species other than to range states for reintroduction into the wild.

3.2.2   Areas of concern

  • In addition to preventing the live export ex situ of the five iconic species, the import ex situ of the five iconic species should also be prevented.
  • The live import and export ex situ of all other indigenous and exotic wildlife species should also be prevented.
  • Coherent ivory and horn stockpile management and disposal

 

3.3.1  Areas of support

  • The wider consultation with SADC partners.
  • The development of a consistent stockpile management and disposal policy after consultation with all interested and affected parties.
  • The establishment of a task team to conduct a full risk, sensitivity and cost-benefit analysis of the potential impact of rhino horn and ivory stockpile destruction.

 

3.3.2  Areas of concern

  • There is a lack of clarity on a coherent recording, management and disposal plan for lion bone stockpiles, consistent with the management and disposal of ivory and horn stockpiles, to prevent the illegal trade in lion bones and derivatives, such as lion bone cakes, teeth, claws, skins etc.
  • Given the recent and past consignments of lion bones leaving South Africa illegally, what measures are put in place to increase surveillance at all exit ports, in particular OR Tambo?
  • CONSERVATION POLICY INTERVENTIONS

 

4.1      Adopt One Welfare Approach

 

4.1.1   Areas of support

  • Recognition and incorporation of welfare/wellbeing and One Welfare approach being central in conservation policy and management practices.
  • Recognition of our social and moral responsibility to act humanely and prevent suffering, and ensure quality of life for all animals.
  • Recognition that there is a general lack of consideration of welfare aspects in the wildlife sector and a lack of broad regulations pertaining to welfare for all wildlife and activities related to them.
  • Recognition that there are no norms and standards for captive populations to provide welfare controls/regulation.
  • The reframing of ecologically sustainable use of biological resources to acknowledge the wellbeing of any wild animal. Meaning that the use of animals should show respect and concern for individual animals, is humane, responsible, and justifiable, and considers their welfare and wellbeing, and does not wantonly or unreasonably or negligently cause any unnecessary suffering to any animal.
  • Intention to adopt the One Welfare Approach within the Biodiversity policy for the wildlife sector as a whole, enact where applicable and align management practices accordingly.
  • Although the One Welfare Approach is a fairly new concept, it considers issues from a wider, national, global and holistic perspective. The concept refers not only to animal welfare, but includes to human welfare and societal mental health, as well as environmental conservation. It uses One Health concepts and ideas and applies them to welfare and environmental issues.
  • Intention to develop or revise norms and standards for all five species, which include reducing the need for management of iconic species.

 

4.1.2   Areas of concern

The One Welfare approach may be too veterinarian focussed, whereas many other organisations, like the NSPCA, deal with animal welfare and wellbeing in South Africa.

The Five Domains Model (sensu Mellor, 2016) recognizes four physical domains namely nutrition, health, behaviour, and environment, with the fifth domain being the mental state. The model illustrates how deficiencies in an animal’s physical health can impact on its mental state. Each domain may overlap and have a combined impact on the overall welfare status of an animal and serve as a framework for the broad assessment of animal welfare. Animal welfare therefore deals with how an animal copes within its living environment (wild or captive), including all separate and integrated components that may impact its physical, physiological, behavioural, and mental health and wellbeing.

  • Problematic nature of referencing the NEMLA Bill in the wellbeing definition

The NEMLA Bill was released for public comment in 2020. The last public text of the NEMLA Bill contained a different definition of wellbeing to the one used in the Draft Policy Position. The definition of wellbeing in the initial version of the NEMLA Bill was concerning in many respects (it referred to only to the physical health of a “faunal biological resource”), it is therefore positive that a new definition has been put forward in the Draft Policy Position. However, it is confusing for the Draft Policy Position to reference a definition of a document, which is still in the legislative development process, as no updated version of the NEMLA Bill has been released to the public to date.  

Furthermore, consideration should be given to the notion that welfare should not reside with DALRRD at all, as that department has conflicting mandates between protecting the animals’ welfare and promoting animal-based agriculture. The state mandate for welfare should perhaps be moved back to the Department of Justice & Constitutional Development (or alternatively the Department of Social Development), which would resolve the welfare mandate issue with all other state departments bearing responsibility for considering welfare, as per the NSPCA Lion Bone judgment.

This would also allow the NSPCA to reposition itself as the statutory mandated inspectorate outside of both DFFE and DALRRD and seek state funding from the Department of Justice & Constitutional Development without generating its own conflicts of interest.

  • Norms and standards

Norms and standards should be developed for all indigenous and exotic species involved in the wildlife sector, not only for our five iconic species. The norms and standards for Seabirds can be used as a benchmark.

 

  • ISSUES NOT COVERED IN DRAFT POLICY POSITION DOCUMENT

5.1    Inconsistencies in governance of the wildlife sector (9+1+1 issues)

The HLP report clearly recognises the inconsistencies in governance of the wildlife sector, how wild animals are managed in terms of welfare and administrative contexts. Issues arising from concurrent jurisdiction within and between the nine provinces and two national departments (DFFE and DALRRD) are mentioned in the draft Policy Position document (e.g. page 16) however are not addressed in the policy objectives and expected outcomes table. This should urgently be addressed, as implementation of policy will be compromised if mandates are not expressly clarified.

Furthermore, harmonisation in provincial legislation, e.g. adherence to TOPS regulations, type of permits issued by provinces, and discrepancies in space requirement for the same species, needs to be addressed as these have a direct impact on welfare and conservation coherence.

5.2      Addressing AIA and MSA amendments

The HLP report recommended the revision of the Meat Safety Act (MSA) and the Animal Improvement Act (AIA). The report stated that the MSA should fully consider the welfare of wild animals during the entire slaughter process, and finalise regulations for game under this Act, which fully account for animal welfare and well-being concerns of wildlife. The report also included the revision of the AIA and its regulations to remove the five iconic species and put in place legislation that prevents the domestication and intensive and selective breeding of these iconic wildlife species.

The inclusion of wild species in both the AIA and MSA amendments conflict with the rewilding policy goals of the draft Policy Position document and should be removed from these acts. Wild and domesticated species should not be included under the same regulations, since there are important species specific, health and conservation considerations that are not universal. It is felt that these issues are not sufficiently addressed in the draft Policy Position document.

  •  
  • DEFINITIONS IN DRAFT POLICY POSITION DOCUMENT

“Controlled environment” means an enclosure designed to hold specimens of a listed threatened or protected species in a way that –

  • prevents them from escaping;
  • facilitates intensive human intervention or manipulation in the form of the provision
    • food or water;
    • artificial housing; or
    • health care; and
  • facilitates the intensive breeding or propagation of a listed threatened or protected species, but excludes fenced land on which self-sustaining wildlife populations of that species are managed in an extensive wildlife system.
 
  
 
 

“Domestication” is the process whereby captive animals are changed at the genetic level, through generations of selective breeding, to accentuate traits that ultimately benefit the interests of humans, and thus creating a dependency on humans for survival.

Consideration may be given to including a definition for the term Humane.

 

“Integrative approach” is used to interpret conservation by focusing on respecting individual animals that make up a species or an eco-system and recognising the importance of relationships between animals and their environments. This approach suggests that only by encouraging an ethical respect of animals and their welfare, can we ensure their long-term conservation survival, as set out in Section 24 of the Constitution.

  
 

“Intensive breeding” means a type of breeding in a controlled environment that aims to maximise production, while minimising costs.

  
 

“Sanctuary” means a registered facility that

a)      provides a permanent captive home in a controlled environment for specimens that would be unable to sustain themselves if released in an environment other than a controlled environment, whether as a result of injury or on account of human imprinting;

b)     bases all their practices on animal welfare and wellbeing;

c)      must take appropriate measures to prevent natural reproduction;

d)     may not perform artificial insemination, or allow the procedure to be performed;

e)     solely accepts rescued animals and does not buy, sell, loan, exchange animals in their care;

f)       only allows human interaction for veterinary care.

 
 

“Rehabilitation facility” means a registered facility equipped for the temporary care of indigenous animal species under the supervision of a wildlife veterinarian for

a)      treatment and recovery purposes, in the case of sick or injured specimens;

b)     rearing purposes, in the case of young orphaned specimens;

c)      quarantine purposes; or

d)     relocation,

 

“Welfare and wellbeing” mean the holistic circumstances and conditions of an animal are conducive to its full physical, physiological and mental health and quality of life and death, and its ability to thrive within its environment. This includes, but is not limited to, the animal being healthy, comfortable, well-nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and if it is not suffering from human induced unpleasant states such as pain, fear, and distress.