Author: ADMINISTRATOR

Posted on

NOW OR NEVER FOR SOUTH AFRICAN RHINO

NOW OR NEVER FOR SOUTH AFRICAN RHINO

WAPFSA Public Statement

14 July 2026

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) warns that South Africa’s rhinos face a critical tipping point due to escalating poaching and controversial government policies that favour trophy hunting and the commercial wildlife trade.

South Africa stands at a defining moment in the future of rhino conservation. A recent High Court judgment, combined with growing political pressure to revive commercial trade in rhino horn, threatens to fundamentally reshape the country’s conservation model. WAPFSA believes these developments risk undermining decades of progress in combating wildlife crime while placing South Africa in conflict with its constitutional obligations to protect biodiversity for present and future generations.

The illegal killing of rhinos for their horn is thought to be the single greatest threat to the future of both the black rhino and white rhino species. Although poaching remains an immediate threat, WAPFSA believes the greater long-term danger lies in policy decisions that normalise commercial trade in rhino horn and weaken the legal and ethical foundations of rhino conservation. The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) advocates against commercialization, captive breeding, and trophy hunting of rhino. WAPFSA emphasizes ethical conservation, the intrinsic value of all wild animals, and recommends the phasing out of all rhino, and lion, intensive breeding facilities established for commercial use.  The legal stockpiling and sale of rhino horn, and lion bone, drives the illegal international trade and the continued illegal killing of rhino, and lion. WAPFSA argues that South Africa’s domestic rhino horn stockpiles are compromised, unverified, and act as a driver of the illegal international black market. Rhinos are killed because their horn is highly sought after on the black market. The perceived high street value of rhino horn is perpetuated because rhino horn is stockpiled instead of being destroyed. 

The reason for this WAPFSA statement is because the future of rhino conservation is at a pivotal turning point. South African, Wicus Diedericks, the owner of a 3000-hectare farm in the Norther Cape Province, called Rockwood Conservation has chosen to intensively breed rhino. This decision despite the well published, textbook disaster of a similar business model, when the primary goal to legalise the international rhino horn trade failed to materialise.  

Diedericks also operates “highly regulated Southern White rhino hunting” at his farm.  His philosophy  “we don’t breed to hunt, we hunt to protect, utilizing funds from these highly controlled hunts to cover the massive security, feeding, and veterinary costs required to protect their herd of over 400 rhino.” 

Diedericks is currently in litigation against the South Africa’s Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). He argues, as did John Hume, that maintaining high-tech anti-poaching security and feeding his rhinos costs over R20 million annually, making his breeding operation financially unsustainable without a constant revenue stream. Diedericks is currently attempting to export at least 502 stockpiled horns to buyers.

A report reveals that the Diedericks plans to send rhino horns to multiple locations worldwide, including China, Hong Kong SAR, Japan, Laos, Mongolia, the U.S., and Vietnam, with each receiving between three to five horns. However, the majority of the shipment is intended for a single address in Ontario, Canada raising heightened concerns about the legality and potential impact of such exports.

WAPFSA believes that if the rhino horn trade is legitimised and or even facilitated by the South African court, global market demand for rhino horn risks stimulating demand by creating perceptions of legitimacy within international markets. A previous one-off legal sale of elephant ivory in 2008 was associated with an elephant poaching spike and a dramatic increase in the illegal ivory trade. A legal supply of rhino horn may support a continuation or increase in rhino poaching, endangering the survival of rhino species in South Africa and in neighbouring African states.

To further complicate the present situation, WAPFSA has raised alarms about political appointments within the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE), and has cautioned against the influence of pro-trade and commercial wildlife-utilization lobbies. 

To validate WAPFSA’s most recent concerns, pro-rhino trade organisation SUCo-SA have drawn our attention to an internal seven-page DFFE memorandum prepared for Minister Barbara Creecy dated 1 August 2022.  The existence of an unpublished internal legal memorandum – now being circulated publicly by organisations advocating commercial rhino horn trade – raises legitimate questions about transparency, policy development and the extent of stakeholder influence over government decision-making.

DFFE’s recent Biodiversity Management Plan for Black and White Rhinoceros has drawn widespread criticism for signalling a policy shift towards facilitating domestic and international rhino horn trade through the use of controversial interpretations of CITES exemptions, despite South Africa’s ability to maintain stronger domestic conservation measures than those required under the Convention.

WAPFSA believes the judgment places excessive reliance on minimum obligations contained in CITES while giving insufficient weight to South Africa’s own constitutional framework and domestic biodiversity legislation. International treaties establish minimum standards. States remain free – and in many circumstances obliged – to adopt stronger domestic protections where necessary to conserve biodiversity and fulfil constitutional obligations.

While the state has exhausted this immediate avenue of appeal, WAPFSA is hopeful that DFFE, now led by recently appointed Minister David Maynier WAPFSA is evaluating its options for a direct petition to the Supreme Court of Appeal. 

South Africa now faces a clear choice. It can reinforce constitutional biodiversity governance by rejecting commercial rhino horn trade and strengthening protections for wild rhinos. Or it can return to policies that blur the line between conservation and commerce, increase pressure on already vulnerable populations, and undermine decades of international leadership. WAPFSA believes this is not simply a dispute about wildlife trade. It is a defining test of South Africa’s constitutional commitment to protect biodiversity in the interests of present and future generations.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa 

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) is a national alliance and collaborative network of 30 non-governmental organisations that advocate for the protection and welfare of wild animals and their natural habitats. Acting as a collective body to lobby various government departments, particularly the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE). Campaigning against the commercial exploitation of wildlife, specifically targeting captive breeding, trophy hunting, wildlife trading, and the commercial sale of animal parts Promoting conservation strategies grounded in ethics, science, and the harmonious co-existence of humans and wildlife. 

WAPFSA rejects the proposition that wildlife should be conserved only when it generates commercial returns. South Africa’s Constitution and environmental legislation recognise biodiversity as a public trust to be protected for present and future generations. Conservation cannot be reduced to a commercial business model dependent on the sale of body parts. Rhinos are not financial assets whose survival should depend on maintaining a market in their horns.

Diedericks VS Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment

The international trade in rhino horn has been banned since 1977 under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). To circumvent this, Diedericks invoked Article VII(5) of the CITES treaty. This exemption dictates that wildlife specimens “bred in captivity” for non-commercial or conservation purposes can be traded under less restrictive permit frameworks. He argued that because South Africa is a CITES signatory, this exemption is automatically part of domestic law, and the government’s blanket refusal to issue his export certificates was illegal.

In April 2023 the DFFE officially rejected Diedericks’ applications to export the horns, maintaining that South Africa did not actively implement or recognize the Article VII exemption for commercial rhino trade. Diedericks promptly made an application in the High Court to compel the government to issue permits to export over 500 white rhino horns. He argued that selling ethically trimmed horns would fund his expensive anti-poaching and conservation operations. Diedericks formally sued the state under the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act (PAJA) after provincial authorities denied his export permit applications in April 2023.

On 31 October 2025 the Northern Cape High Court in Kimberley ruled in Diedericks’ favour. The judge declared that the CITES captive-bred exemption was indeed enforceable under South African law. The court ordered the provincial government to review Diedericks’ permit applications within seven days.

On 31 October 2025 Dr Dion George, Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, called for a principle to move from words to action, from commitment to consequence, and reaffirmed South Africa’s decisive steps to close the captive-bred lion industry, protect abalone under CITES, and oppose any reopening of trade in ivory or rhino horn. 

On 3 November 2025 Wildlife Ranching South Africa publicly congratulated Diedericks: 

“We extend our congratulations to our valued member Wicus Diedericks and his exceptional legal team on their recent success in the Northern Cape High Court matter against the MEC for Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism, and Minister Dion George.


This landmark judgement marks a significant milestone for the wildlife sector, affirming the right to the sustainable use and regulated trade of rhino horn. It represents a crucial step forward for conservation, the protection of private property rights, and the responsible management of South Africa’s natural resources.”

In May 2026 while the South African government formulated its appeal, international watchdogs like the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) published critical reports. The EIA flagged the lawsuit as a “reckless gambit”, warning that the provided buyer information was inaccurate and that the exports would stimulate the black market and fuel poaching.

In July 2026  the Northern Cape High Court officially dismissed the state’s application for leave to appeal with costs. The court reaffirmed that private breeding operations devoted to conservation have a legal right to fund their high-cost protection efforts through regulated trade.

Rhino Breeding Industry is Deeply Entangled with Organised Crime

Clearly not all rhino breeders are involved in illegal activity, however the South African rhino breeding industry itself has been deeply entangled with organized crime. Investigations reveal that major commercial breeders have used legal domestic permits to harvest horns and covertly funnel them into illegal transnational smuggling networks targeting Southeast Asia. 

Two high profile cases include prominent South African rhino breeder, John Hume who was charged with smuggling rhino horns valued at $14 million. in August 2025. 

Hume bred approximately 2,000 southern white rhinos, roughly 15% of the world’s remaining wild population, on his 7,800 hectare Platinum Rhino ranch. John Hume, allegedly ran out of funds to maintain this massive breeding operation and put the entire project up for auction. Allegedly, not a single bid was received for the business at auction. Allegedly, the rhinos were at severe risk of poaching and abandonment. In September 2023 the non-governmental organisation African Parks stepped in to purchase the farm situated in the North West Province of South Africa and approximately 2000 rhinos. 

While John Hume’s southern white rhinos achieved unprecedented captive breeding success, critics heavily argued that their intensive, ranch-style confinement reduced their living conditions to that of livestock. “I am especially pleased to see that the very first translocation of some of the 2,000 white rhinos are going to this important landscape within South Africa, which is a flagship partnership in which communities are making a significant contribution to the conservation of our natural heritage,” says Barbara Creecy, South Africa’s Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment. “On behalf of the Government of South Africa, we were very supportive of African Parks’ plan to purchase and rewild these rhino and remain a key partner in providing technical and scientific advice, and the support needed to carry out this conservation solution in South Africa and on the African continent.”

The other high profile controversial pro-trade rhino breeder is Dawie Groenewald. On the 19 June 2026, Dawie Groenewald, an ex-policeman, trophy hunter and rhino breeder,  described by the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa as the mastermind behind a large-scale rhino horn trafficking enterprise finally entered into a plea agreement with the State ending a legal saga of more than a decade in the Polokwane High Court. 

The charges against Groenewald stem from a well-designed rhino horn trafficking enterprise emanating from incidents as far back as 2008. According to the indictment, Groenewald, in his capacity as manager of a professional hunting outfitter “Out of Africa” and by employing professional hunters and other individuals, managed the sourcing of rhino horns from his own rhinos and from other private rhino owners to fuel the black market in Southeast Asia.

Groenewald was sentenced to a fine of R2 million or four-years imprisonment, and a further 10 years’ imprisonment suspended for 5 years, with strict conditions on the main count of managing an enterprise (Contravention of Section 2(1)(f) of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998).

Groenewald was further sentenced to high value fines and imprisonment on each of the other offences he was convicted on. The fines add up to more than R10 million and 36 years’ imprisonment. The sentences effectively restricted Groenewald for the next 5 years to act strictly in accordance with legislation relating to his rhino-related activities and or other restricted wildlife activities, or face a lengthy prison sentence if he does not comply with the strict conditions contained in the sentences imposed in terms of the plea and sentence agreement.

END

Image Credit: ©Gurcharan Roopra

©Wildlife Animal Protection Forum 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Posted on

MINISTER AUCAMP’S EXCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENTS WITH WILDLIFE UTILISATION INTERESTS RAISE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT BALANCE, BIAS AND TRANSPARENCY

PUBLIC STATEMENT

Monday 15th June 2026

WAPFSA-STATEMENT-Minister-Aucamp-15-June-2026-Download

MINISTER AUCAMP’S EXCLUSIVE ENGAGEMENTS WITH WILDLIFE UTILISATION INTERESTS RAISE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT BALANCE, BIAS AND TRANSPARENCY

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) notes with growing concern recent disclosures by Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Willie Aucamp, regarding his stakeholder engagements since assuming office.

The Minister’s Parliamentary response of 15 May 2026 reveals that he has held meetings with Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA), the Professional Hunters’ Association of South Africa (PHASA), and the Professional Rhino Owners Association (PROA).

These organisations represent a particular segment of the wildlife sector: wildlife ranching, trophy hunting, private wildlife ownership and commercial wildlife utilisation interests.

Significantly, these organisations are associated with the broader sustainable-use and wildlife utilisation lobby and are linked through policy networks that have historically advanced positions aligned with SUCO-SA and its member organisations.

At the same time, there is no public indication that the Minister has undertaken equivalent engagements with animal welfare organisations, wildlife protection organisations, wildlife wellbeing advocates, animal law experts, humane conservation organisations, public-interest environmental groups, or communities concerned about the increasing commodification of wildlife.

This imbalance raises profound questions about whose voices are shaping South Africa’s wildlife policy.

A Question of Fair Representation

South Africa’s wildlife belongs to all South Africans.

Wildlife policy affects biodiversity conservation, animal welfare, wildlife wellbeing, rural communities, tourism, environmental justice, scientific research, public trust resources and South Africa’s international reputation.

No Minister entrusted with this responsibility should be perceived to be hearing predominantly from one side of a highly contested policy debate.

Yet the Minister’s own disclosures reveal precisely that.

The issue is not that the Minister has met with WRSA, PHASA or PROA.

The issue is that these are the only wildlife-sector organisations he has publicly identified as having met since taking office.

Importantly, the Minister’s first publicly disclosed wildlife-sector engagements were not with biodiversity scientists, conservation planning experts, animal welfare specialists, animal behaviour experts, community representatives or public-interest environmental organisations. They were with representatives of wildlife ranching, hunting and private wildlife ownership interests.

A Minister committed to balanced governance would be expected to engage broadly across the full spectrum of stakeholders, including those who challenge the assumptions and policy positions of the wildlife utilisation sector.

The absence of such engagement creates a reasonable perception that certain interests enjoy privileged access to decision-makers while others do not.

Misrepresenting the Concern

WAPFSA is also concerned by aspects of the Minister’s Parliamentary response that appear to mischaracterise the nature of the concerns being raised.

The Minister suggests that criticism arises from a failure to distinguish between captive wildlife industries and other forms of wildlife utilisation.

This is not the issue.

No serious observer disputes that captive breeding facilities, game ranches, hunting operations and private wildlife ownership structures are distinct categories.

The concern is that these sectors are interconnected politically, economically and institutionally, and frequently advocate common positions on matters relating to wildlife governance, wildlife ownership, trophy hunting, commercial breeding, intensive management practices and the broader sustainable-use agenda.

The Minister’s response therefore risks creating a false distinction that distracts from the central issue: whether South Africa’s wildlife policies are being informed by a sufficiently broad range of perspectives.

The answer, based on the Minister’s own disclosures, remains unclear.

The Perception of Bias Matters

WAPFSA acknowledges that no evidence has emerged of any unlawful conduct by the Minister.

However, public confidence in environmental governance depends on more than the absence of wrongdoing.

It requires transparency, independence and a demonstrable commitment to fair and balanced decision-making.

In his Parliamentary response, the Minister acknowledges that he holds an interest, through a family trust, in a game farm.

Public records further indicate that he remains a trustee of a family trust and has interests in a number of private companies.

WAPFSA is not suggesting that these interests automatically constitute a conflict of interest.

However, when such interests are considered alongside the Minister’s publicly expressed support for wildlife ranching and wildlife utilisation sectors, and when the Minister’s first disclosed stakeholder engagements are exclusively with organisations representing those same sectors, legitimate questions arise regarding the appearance of impartiality.

The standard expected of Cabinet Ministers is not merely the avoidance of actual conflicts of interest.

It is also the avoidance of circumstances that create a reasonable perception of bias.

That standard is particularly important where policy decisions affect public resources, biodiversity conservation, wildlife welfare and wildlife wellbeing.

Questions About Extractive Industry Interests Also Deserve Public Scrutiny

WAPFSA further notes that the Minister’s publicly declared interests include shareholdings and directorships in companies associated with mining contracting, mining solutions, aggregates, transport and related commercial activities. These interests are publicly recorded in Parliament’s Register of Members’ Interests.

WAPFSA makes no allegation of impropriety. Nor does WAPFSA suggest that individuals with business experience should be excluded from public office.

However, the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment occupies a uniquely important position within South Africa’s environmental governance framework.

The Department is routinely required to make decisions affecting mining activities, biodiversity conservation, protected areas, environmental authorisations, environmental compliance and the balancing of economic development with ecological sustainability.

In these circumstances, transparency regarding actual, potential and perceived conflicts of interest is not merely desirable – it is essential.

The issue is not whether the Minister has complied with disclosure requirements.

The issue is whether sufficient safeguards exist to assure the public that environmental decision-making will remain independent, objective and free from undue influence from sectors whose commercial interests may, at times, come into tension with environmental protection objectives.

Public confidence in environmental governance depends upon the assurance that conservation, biodiversity protection and ecological integrity will never be subordinated to commercial interests, regardless of their source.

For this reason, WAPFSA believes that the Minister should proactively disclose how potential conflicts and perceived conflicts relating to wildlife utilisation interests, extractive industries and other commercial sectors will be identified and managed during his tenure.

The Minister’s Own Commitments Require Broader Engagement

According to his official profile published by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, Minister Aucamp presents himself as a leader committed to ensuring that governance remains connected to the realities faced by ordinary South Africans. The profile further emphasises balancing environmental stewardship with broader developmental concerns and recognises the responsible management of natural resources as a shared obligation.

WAPFSA welcomes these commitments.

However, these principles can only be realised through meaningful engagement with the full diversity of South African society.

If governance is genuinely to remain connected to the realities faced by ordinary South Africans, then stakeholder engagement cannot be limited primarily to organisations representing commercial wildlife utilisation interests.

If environmental stewardship is truly a shared responsibility, then wildlife policy discussions must also include organisations working on animal welfare, wildlife wellbeing, humane conservation, environmental justice, community rights, independent science and public-interest environmental protection.

The issue is not whether the Minister should meet with wildlife ranchers, hunting organisations and private wildlife owners.

He should.

The issue is whether he is meeting with everyone else as well.

The public record currently suggests a significant imbalance.

South Africans are entitled to expect that wildlife policy will be informed by a broad spectrum of perspectives and evidence, particularly on issues that remain deeply contested within society.

The Minister now has an opportunity to demonstrate, through his actions, the inclusive 

leadership principles articulated in his own official profile.

Who Is Not Being Heard?

South Africans deserve to know why organisations representing wildlife utilisation interests appear to have secured early access to the Minister while organisations advocating animal welfare, wildlife wellbeing and humane conservation have not.

Where are the meetings with:

  • Animal welfare organisations?
  • Wildlife protection organisations?
  • Humane conservation practitioners?
  • Independent animal behaviour and welfare scientists?
  • Animal law scholars?
  • Public-interest environmental organisations?
  • Community groups affected by wildlife policies?
  • Indigenous knowledge holders whose perspectives may differ from commercial wildlife interests?

A healthy democracy requires all of these voices to be heard.

WAPFSA’s Call For Transparency

To restore confidence in the integrity and balance of wildlife governance, WAPFSA calls on Minister Aucamp to:

  1. Publish a comprehensive register of all wildlife-sector stakeholder meetings held since assuming office.
  2. Disclose all organisations and representatives who have been granted meetings with the Minister and senior departmental officials regarding wildlife policy matters.
  3. Publish the criteria used to determine which stakeholders receive access to decision-makers.
  4. Commit publicly to meeting organisations representing animal welfare, wildlife protection, wildlife wellbeing and humane conservation perspectives.
  5. Establish a transparent and balanced stakeholder engagement framework that ensures no single interest group enjoys disproportionate influence over wildlife policy.
  6. Make public the Department’s future programme of wildlife-sector consultations.
  7. Demonstrate that future policy decisions will be informed by independent science, constitutional principles, transparency and the public interest rather than the preferences of a particular industry bloc.

South Africa Deserves Better

The future of wildlife governance in South Africa cannot be shaped primarily by those with direct economic interests in the commercial use of wildlife.

South Africans are increasingly demanding a more ethical, transparent and scientifically grounded approach to wildlife governance—one that recognises not only conservation outcomes, but also animal welfare, wildlife wellbeing, ecological integrity, democratic accountability and intergenerational justice.

The concern raised by WAPFSA is ultimately not about any single meeting, organisation or individual.

It is about whether South Africa’s environmental governance system is sufficiently independent, transparent and representative to command public confidence.

The Minister now has an opportunity to demonstrate that he serves all South Africans and not merely a narrow sector of the wildlife economy.

WAPFSA urges him to take that opportunity.

ENDS

For any queries contact:

WAPFSA Administrator

email: administrator@wapfsa.org

Image:

Link to Interview: https://www.facebook.com/share/177YPTXYgV/?mibextid=wwXIfr

© WAPFSA 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Posted on

FORMAL DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND URGENT RESPONSE

FORMAL DEMAND FOR ACCOUNTABILITY, TRANSPARENCY AND URGENT RESPONSE

The Wildlife Animal Protection Form South Africa (WAPFSA) has written to the Democratic Alliance Federal Council with escalating concern and deep frustration regarding their continued failure to acknowledge or respond to a formal complaintsubmitted on 10 November 2025.

More than four months have elapsed without even the courtesy of acknowledgement. This is not merely discourteous, it is a fundamental breach of the Democratic Alliance’s stated commitments to accountability, transparency, and constitutional governance.

This continued silence is unacceptable. It raises serious questions about whether the Democratic Alliance is willing or able to subject itself to the same standards of accountability that it demands of others.

This letter now serves not only as a renewed complaint, but as a formal escalation grounded in a materially worsened set of circumstances.

This matter is no longer simply about a failure to respond to correspondence. It concerns the integrity of governance, the protection of South Africa’s wildlife heritage and the ethical obligations of those in public office.

The response, or continued silence, will be taken as a clear indication of the Democratic Alliance’s position on these issues.

READ FULL LETTER:

WAPFSA-Letter-to-Democratic-Alliance-Federal-Council-24th-March-2026Download

Image Credit: ©EMS Foundation 2024.

©WAPFSA 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Posted on

WAPFSA COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT CODE OF CONDUCT APPLICABLE TO DESIGNATED ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT INSPECTORS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MINERAL AND PETROLEUM INSPECTORS

WAPFSA welcomes the opportunity to comment on the Draft Code of Conduct applicable to Environmental Management Inspectors (EMIs) and Environmental Mineral and Petroleum Inspectors (EMPIs).

WAPFSA acknowledges the importance of establishing clear professional, ethical and constitutional standards for inspectors tasked with environmental compliance and enforcement. The draft Code appropriately emphasises legality, integrity, accountability, transparency, environmental justice and protection of the public interest. These are essential pillars for an effective Environmental Management Inspectorate.

54135gon7135-1Download
WAPFSA-SUBMISSION-ON-THE-DRAFT-CODE-OF-CONDUCT-APPLICABLE-TO-DESIGNATED-ENVIRONMENTAL-MANAGEMENT-INSPECTORS-AND-ENVIRONMENTAL-MINERAL-AND-PETROLEUM-INSPECTORS-March-2026Download

Image: Operations — Zululand Anthracite Colliery

https://www.zac.co.za/operations

©WAPFSA 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Posted on

REQUEST FOR OVERSIGHT INTERVENTION – DFFE’S APPARENT FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT THE WILDLIFE WELL-BEING FORUM MANDATE

On Tuesday 3rd March 2026 WAPFSA addressed an open letter to Portfolio Committee on Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment 

We write to you with deep concern regarding the apparent failure of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) to give effect to its legislative and policy commitments in relation to wildlife well-being, specifically the operationalisation of the Wildlife Well-Being Forum (WWBF).

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) — a national network of 30 South African organisations — respectfully requests that the Portfolio Committee exercise its oversight function and investigate DFFE’s apparent lack of commitment to the Wildlife Well-Being Forum.

Meanwhile, DFFE continues to chair and participate regularly in the long-standing industry-focused Wildlife Forum which is composed exclusively of industry representatives and operates without civil society membership.This uneven engagement raises serious concerns regarding transparency, fairness, and balanced consultation.

Download the open letter:

REQUEST-FOR-OVERSIGHT-INTERVENTION-–-DFFES-APPARENT-FAILURE-TO-IMPLEMENT-THE-WILDLIFE-WELL-BEING-FORUM-MANDATEDownload

Image: ©EMS Fondation 2025

©WAPFSA 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Posted on

WAPFSA Comments on the Proposed Trophy Hunting Quotas of Elephant, Black Rhino and Leopards in South Africa 2026 and 2027

In September 2025, South African Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Dion George paused the CITES export quotas for elephants, rhinos and leopards due to ongoing legal challenges, sparking industry outrage over potential losses in revenue. 

Dr Dion George was removed from his position in November 2025.  Former Democratic Alliance National Spokesperson Mr Willie Aucamp was appointed as the new Minister of the Environment recommended by Democratic Alliance leader Mr John Steenhuisen despite concerns about a possible conflict of interest especially with regard to trophy hunting and game breeding.  

Minister Willie Aucamp reversed Dr Dion George’s decision in February 2026, with a proposal to reinstate trophy quotas for 2026/2027. 

DOWNLOAD WAPFSA SUBMISSION:

WAPFSA-Comments-on-Trophy-Hunting-Quotas-2026-and-2027-2.3.2026Download

It is incumbent on  Minister Willie Aucamp to provide substantive and motivating reasons to permit the trophy hunting and export of TOPS listed species. 

In the absence of such reasons, the decision to reinstate quotas for these species is susceptible to legal challenge on the grounds that it fails to give effect to the precautionary principle enshrined in section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (NEMA), and is inconsistent with South Africa’s obligations under CITES to ensure that exports are not detrimental to the survival of the species.

The DFFE Gazetted Notice dated 6th February 2026 in our opinion, fails to include robust information on, among other things: 

(a) how the trophy hunting of the three species fulfils the duty to protectthe environment in terms of Section 24 of the Constitution, read with section 2 of NEMA and section 57 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (NEMBA); 

(b) the rationale for selecting these three species for trophy hunting;

(c)  how the quota quantities are determined and 

(d)  the distribution across the provinces; 

(e)  the economic benefits of trophy hunting in relation to the three species concerned,   and precisely how the local communities will be benefitting;

(f) the welfare implications of the animal being hunted. 

The inclusion of a definition of “well-being” in the NEMBA through the 2022 amendments has created a significant legal and ethical conflict with the trophy hunting industry in South Africa. The 2022 amendments to NEMBA define well-being as the holistic circumstances (physical, physiological, and mental health) that allow an animal to thrive.

WAPFSA argues that killing an animal for sport, often targeting prime, healthy, or endangered individuals, is inherently incompatible with the “holistic well-being” of that animal Where the DFFE authorised trophy hunting of TOPS-listed species, it must demonstrate how such authorisation is consistent with the well-being objectives embedded in NEMBA. No such justification has been provided in the GN of 6 February 2026. 

WAPFSA members respectively request that its comments receive substantive consideration. We request that once the DFFE has reviewed all comments received, that a comments and responses table be made publicly available, evidencing the manner in which all Stakeholders’ comments were evaluated and analysed by the DFFE. 

Image ©EMS Foundation 2024.

©WAPFSA 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Posted on

COMMENTS ON THE CAPE PENINSULA BABOON MANAGEMENT JOINT TASK TEAM ON THE WASTE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Green Group Simons Town interventions have demonstrated that behaviourally informed and holistic, non-aversive approaches, rooted in an understanding of baboon needs and movement, their foraging, and social dynamics, are essential for effective, ethical, and sustainable human–wildlife coexistence in natural environments on the edge of developed areas. These interventions, combined with robust waste management practices and public engagement, have proven successful in reducing conflict while maintaining the well-being of baboons and other wildlife. These results have been reported and published in a case study in 2025. 

The Draft City Waste Management Strategy raises significant concerns. These include technical and cost inconsistencies, insufficient spatial coverage, procedural irregularities, failure to uphold duties of care, and lack of meaningful engagement with stakeholders. 

This submission therefore provides a critique and proposes measures to ensure that the Waste Management Strategy is ecologically effective, legally defensible, and ethically sound. 

The joint submission was made by WAPFSA Members Green Group Simonstown and the Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute and supported by WAPFSA.

Read the full submission:

Comments-on-the-Draft-City-Waste-Management-Strategy-13Feb2026Download

BABOON-MANAGEMEN-WASTE-STRATEGY-DRAFT-PROPOSED-BY-JTTDownload

Image Credit:

Activists march in Simon’s Town to stop removal of Cape Peninsula baboons
Posted on

A Sword of Damocles: The Looming Threat of Permanent Removal of  Chacma Baboons from the Cape Peninsula 

OPEN LETTER

WAPFSA-The-Looming-Threat-of-Permanent-Removal-of-Chacma-Baboons-from-the-Cape-Peninsula-2026Download

23rd January 2026

A Sword of Damocles: The Looming Threat of Permanent Removal of  Chacma Baboons from the Cape Peninsula 

Introduction

From the onset, more than thirty South African wildlife protection and conservation organisations have consistently opposed the Cape Peninsula Strategic Baboon Management Plan, which shockingly includes the deliberate extirpation of an indigenous species, the Chacma baboon species from Simon’s Town. Not only is the Plan unnecessary and cruel, crucially it fails to address, and indeed entrenches, insupportable human behaviour, which is the root cause of the negative baboon human interface. 

An international wildlife organisation, Animal Survival International (ASI), has now entered the fray and sounded the alarm over the plans to permanently cage two Cape Peninsula baboon troops, highlighting obvious welfare and wellbeing issues and the potential permanent negative environmental impact. 

This untenable situation has highlighted a deep divide between purposefully tone deaf authorities, aiming to cleanse certain suburbs of baboons, and conservationists pushing for coexistence, proper waste management and the protection of the baboons in their natural, though dwindling, habitat.  

It is unfortunate, that the decision to remove and cage the baboons,  and unnaturally and cruelly cast them into captivity for exhibition, has silenced some conservationists because they have been made to believe that if they oppose the permanent caging of the baboons, the baboons will be killed.

Cape Town – A City Deeply at Odds with Itself: Rapid Urban Development and Tourism versus the Protection of Biodiversity

Cape Town is located in an endangered ecosystem. The decision to permanently remove two entire baboon troops from Simon’s Town is contradictory to the content of the published Biodiversity Spatial Plan 2025 for Cape Town.  The plan is striving to ensure that the City of Cape Town ecosystems remain intact.  The intention of the Cape Town BioNet is to reduce conflict between environmental and developmental sectors by providing up-to-date information on biodiversity priorities that will guide forward planning, future development and conservation of nature.  

The Western Cape’s biodiversity is threatened by tourism’s growing pressures which are leading to habitat loss, increased pollution, and strain on water resources.  Tourism businesses in the Western Cape are being urged to prioritise biodiversity protection as visitor numbers continue to rise, placing growing pressure on the region’s natural systems. 

The Cape Peninsula’s critical status as a global biodiversity hotspot, known as the Cape Floristic Region, and tourism’s growing recognition of the need for conservation, is sounding the alarm for the integration of sustainable practises into development and operations to protect the fragile ecosystems.  In reality though, the rapid development for tourism infrastructure such as more accommodation, is encroaching on natural areas, fragmenting crucial habitats.  Increased human activity is heightening risks to endangered plants and animals. 

It is not only the growing tourism industry that is threatening biodiversity in the Western Cape, the City of Cape Town is actively pushing rapid development through major infrastructure projects, renewable energy initiatives housing plans, port expansion and economic strategies to boost tourism and jobs all guided by long-term plans like the Integrated Development Plan (IDP) and the Cape Town 2050 Long-term Plan.  

The Atlantic Seaboard is experiencing a rapid high-density development boom, driven by intense investor interest, the post covid recovery of tourism and semigration.  While this has fuelled record-breaking property sales it has simultaneously raised concerns about infrastructure strain, traffic congestion and loss of long-term rental affordability. Now there is increased urban and suburban development eroding the unique cultural, environmental and rural character of regions known as the Deep South on the Southern Peninsula of Cape Town.  There are anxieties about unchecked modernisation and urban sprawl displacing local identity, green spaces and community character. 

The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) contends that the Chacma baboon’s needs and natural behaviours are being disregarded in favour of trade and industry and rapid urban development.  The Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Action Plan, agreed upon by the City of Cape Town led by the Democratic Alliance, SANParks and CapeNature, is a plan that aims to minimise human baboon interaction and keep baboons out of urban areas, primarily through measures such as permanent displacement and killing.  

Their latest Action Plan includes capturing and relocating the Seaforth and Waterfall baboon troops from Simon’s Town to purpose built cages on private land on Plateau Road next door to the Cape Point Ostrich Farm.  This facility will be open to paying tourists in order to sustain the costs involved with the  permanent caging of the baboons.

CapeNature, one of the decisionmakers, is a conservation authority that formally aligns its policies with International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) guidelines. Under the IUCN conflict-mitigation framework, the capture of a wild population and its placement into permanent captivity is not scientifically recognised or even quoted as a policy position. 

It is also important to note that the Cape Peninsula Baboon Strategic Management Plan, made no reference to, nor made provision for, the capture and the permanent captivity of baboons. This proposal emerged later as part of the “final” Action Plan.  This decision was published offering no scientific basis or reference to any public consultation.  

The recently published 2025 Baboon Population Census commissioned by the Cape Baboon Partnership, a collaboration between Shark Spotters and the Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team comprising of the City of Cape Town, South African National Parks and CapeNature states that there are a total of 463 baboon individuals in the 12 managed troops on the Cape Peninsula. This number excludes the  baboons living in the Cape Point section of Table Mountain National Park and the Plateau Road troop.  This total number represents a 5.3% decline relative to the census carried out in 2024.  Baboon conservation organisations have published their concerns, noting the high losses of troop members including the death of 101 baboons during this reporting period. 

In the census document, the Seaforth troop, comprising of 16 individuals, is described as a troop that:  “sleeps in surrounding mountainous areas but spends substantial portions of the day moving, through or attempting to access, the adjacent urban environment, bringing it into close proximity with residential areas and the critically endangered African penguin colony.   This presents ongoing welfare and conservation challenges.  In line with the Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Action Plan, a planned intervention will involve relocating the troop to a purpose built sanctuary to reduce the so-called conflict, limit ecological risk and improve welfare outcomes.” 

The Waterfall troop, numbering 44 individuals, is described as:  “spending a substantial proportion of its time in transformed environments, including regular use of urban areas in Simons Town, despite sustained ranger efforts to limit access.  Under these conditions, the troop is exposed to elevated risk, relies heavily on anthropogenic food sources, and experiences ongoing disturbance.  In line with the Action Plan, a planned management intervention will involve relocating the troop to a purpose-built sanctuary to address ongoing welfare and risk concerns for both baboons and residents.”

This forced, unnatural removal of baboons in order to “reduce conflict, limit ecological risk and improve welfare outcomes” is taking place in a national park and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, this cleansing of baboons is to be carried out by a city that markets itself globally as being abundantly ecologically diverse. 

The permanent captivity plan for the baboons goes against their natural free-ranging existence.  The plan also includes the sterilisation of  male baboons which means that the baboons from Seaforth and Waterfall troops that survive the capture process will be the last surviving baboons from these historic troops. Tourists will be able to witness first-hand, what is, in our opinion, a failure of the Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team to  protect, and sustain these baboons in their natural habitat.

Why are the Authorities Ignoring a Genuine Alternative? 

 Dr Dave Gaynor a Zoologist, a conservation ecologist, an expert in biodiversity, and wildlife management,  has said that after a quarter of a century of baboon management, research and millions of rands spent, “we are going backwards.”

“Ecologically, losing baboons would be catastrophic for the Peninsula.  Chacma baboons are not simply charismatic primates and a drawcard for tourists; they are a major seed disperser and ecosystem engineers within fynbos and move nutrients from low-lying areas to nutrient-poor high lying areas where they sleep.  Studies and ecological assessments emphasise their role in dispersing seeds and potentially aiding germination, especially in post-fire landscapes where they forage on exposed seeds and early regrowth.  

The baboons are part of the machinery that keeps this globally unique vegetation type functioning. Remove them, and you remove the resilience of the entire system. There is no neighbouring baboon population waiting to recolonise the southern Peninsula.  Once they are gone, they are gone.” 

WAPFSA questions why the detailed plans submitted by conservation organisations familiar with the baboons in Simon’s Town were never considered for discussion. These conservation organisations are most familiar with the baboon troop behaviour in Simons Town over decades, agree that partial fencing using tried and tested baboon fencing could be part of a solution that should be seriously and transparently considered.  

This particular fencing is recognised by the Baboon Technical Team, animal welfare organisations and researchers at UCT’s Baboon Research Unit as a prototype for effective human-baboon overlap mitigation. Dr Gaynor has proposed an electrified baboon-proof fence along the existing firebreak above the town, bundled with the firebreak maintenance that is already required for safety.   

Conservation organisations believe that the proposed fence line does not have to be continuous. They also believe that the natural wild areas for the baboons behind this fencing needs to be protected. This fenceline would make it possible for local baboon monitors and residents to prevent incursions without a small army field staff patrolling the mountain every day.  It would confine baboons to their natural habitat while still allowing them to forage right up to the fence, which actually increases their effective home range by removing the constant need to be chased off the lower slopes. The fence is designed to safely allow unhindered access to mammals such as grey mongoose and genets and allow access to the mountain through gates at the trailhead, ensuring continued public access to the mountain.  It would also protect the Boulders penguin colony by closing off the most used baboon and, most importantly, caracal’s access routes from the mountain into the coastal areas. 

Conclusion  

As long as anthropogenic attractants and unmanaged waste remain accessible, even a small number of baboons will enter areas to exploit those resources. Improving waste management and securing the safety and ecological integrity of the mountain in Simons Town are not optional measures; they are fundamental obligations under the existing management framework.

Experts have repeatedly warned that removing entire troops through killing or permanent captivity risks creating a genetic bottleneck within the remaining baboon populations. Both authorities and scientists have acknowledged this concern, yet no credible solution has been presented to address the long-term genetic consequences of removing a significant number of individuals from an already declining and geographically isolated population.

The Joint Task Team’s decision to capture the baboons (and kill those individuals who evade capture) and to permanently confine those who are captured, is in our opinion irrational and disproportionate. Such extreme measures are being pursued without implementing less invasive mitigation options explicitly identified in the management framework.

The excuse provided by the City of Cape Town is that they do not want to risk spending R6.5 million on a fence whose design they claim is unproven and which they fear might simply shift the baboons to other suburbs. 

Dr Gaynor says that this reasoning is difficult to reconcile with the published evidence that baboon-proof fences of similar design have been successfully implemented in Zwaanswyk and other settings, and with SANParks own technical report acknowledging that such fences have been developed, refined and demonstrated in other parts of South Africa.

Yet the City of Cape Town is satisfied to risk spending in excess of R10 000 000 on building cages on private land. The annual costs needed to care for the caged baboons is considerable. 

What is the real reason that the City of Cape Town wants the baboon permanently removed from Simons Town? Is the municipality planning further development in Simonstown? Is this why the City of Cape Town is reluctant to consider the alternative, more natural measures to discourage the baboons from entering the central business district?   Is this an unwritten Democratic Alliance plan?  To remove all inconvenient baboon species from the Cape Peninsula and the Overstrand?

Image: Greengroup Simons Town 2025

©WAPFSA 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Posted on

A FALSE DICHOTOMY – KEEP THE BABOONS IN CAGES ON THE CAPE PENINSULA OR KILL THEM

PUBLIC STATEMENT

Capetonians are apparently being forced to select a touted less harmful option between two undesirable choices, supposedly to choose the lesser of two evils. This suggests a dilemma where the only alternatives are captivity or death. This presents a false dichotomy, particularly because there are other robust and viable solutions besides caging or killing. 

This framing relies on an unstated premise: that baboons must be permanently excluded from the south peninsula regardless of whether humans can reduce conflict drivers. But that premise is neither ethically neutral nor empirically established in the Action Plan narrative. If the real problem is attractants and predictable conflict points, then the relevant decision is not “cage or kill”, but which evidence-based, non-lethal coexistence measures will be implemented first, enforced consistently, and evaluated transparently. WAPFSA believes that the Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team may be  deliberately misrepresenting the issue by presenting only two mutually exclusive options rather than the full, nuanced range of options. Importantly, a spectrum of possibilities exists.  

Examples of realistic third options (and combinations of options) include:

  • Fixing human-driven attractants first (secure waste systems, anti-feeding enforcement, penalties applied consistently).
  • Targeted spatial exclusion of food hotspots (protect specific high-risk edges rather than attempting permanent exclusion from entire suburbs).
  • Non-lethal behavioural management protocols that are internationally recognised and least-aversive, with independent monitoring and reporting.
  • Community coexistence requirements (baboon-proofing, waste compliance, and education as preconditions before any wildlife removal is justified).
  • Habitat/connectivity interventions that reduce forced urban crossings and bottlenecks.

This calculated oversimplification has led to flawed decision-making by fallaciously forcing a choice between two extremes. Simply put, the scenario is a constructed false dilemma scenario where the baboons presently living in Simonstown will be (i) captured and relocated to live out the remainder of their lives in cages and on display or (ii) they will all be killed.  

READ THE FULL STATEMENT FROM WAPFSA MEMBERS:

WAPFSA-STATEMENT-CAPE-PENINSULA-BABOON-ACTION-PLAN-6.12.2025Download

Image: Green Group Simonstown 2025

©WAPFSA 2025. All Rights Reserved.

Posted on

The DA’s Action Plan for Baboon Management on the Cape Peninsula is a Grotesque Reminder of South Africa’s Terrible Past 

The DA’s Action Plan for Baboon Management on the Cape Peninsula is a Grotesque Reminder of South Africa’s Terrible Past 

PUBLIC STATEMENT

Members of the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa (WAPFSA) Primate Working Group, who are also representatives on the Cape Peninsula Baboon Advisory Group (CPBAG), walked out in protest during a Cape Peninsula Baboon Management meeting,  held on Thursday, 20th November 2025. 

The meeting was convened to announce the Action Plan, key actions, budget and timeframes for the future management of baboons on the Cape Peninsula. 

The CPBAG, is a supposed stakeholder body, ostensibly established to advise the Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team (CPBMJTT) on the implementation of the Baboon Strategic Management Plan.   Theoretically, the group facilitates communication between the CPBMJJ comprising representatives from SANParks, the City of Cape Town, and CapeNature, and communities, interest groups, and stakeholders to address human-baboon issues on the Cape Peninsula.  

Communications addressed to the CPBAG from WAPFSA have never been acknowledged.

The Cape Peninsula is a global biodiversity hotspot. Nonetheless, there has been rapid development of urban areas and the expansion of the human footprint at great cost to the environment and driving significantbiodiversity loss and habitat fragmentation. Indigenous Chacma baboons on the Cape Peninsula have, consequently, lost vital food sources, foraging areas and traditional sleep sites and this has obviously led to more frequent human baboon interactions. 

The goal of the CPBMJTT was to formulate a new strategy for the sustainable management of these baboons, supposedly for their long-term survival. On the 29 May 2025, the CPBMJTT announced a plan to remove several baboon troops from the Cape Peninsula due to increasing human conflict with baboons and limited natural foraging areas   The task team stated that the health and welfare of baboons is compromised by their time spent in urban areas. The proposed actions included translocation to sanctuaries, the killing of baboons, or a combination of these options.   The affected baboons were the Waterfall troop in Simon’s Town, the Seaforth troop in Simonstown, the CT1 troop in Constantia, the CT2 troop in Constantia and the Da Gama baboons in Glencairn.  

On the 2 June 2025, thirty-four wildlife welfare organisations supported, the WAPFSA Cease and Desist Letteraddressed to the City of Cape Town, SANParks, CapeNature and Sharkspotters with regard to the proposal by the CPBMJTT to stop the removal of 121  baboons from the Cape Peninsula.

In the interim, the CPBMJTT has allegedly, robustly reviewed expert opinions and has widely considered public comments.  The final decisions recorded in the Action Plan were inappropriately announced to the media before the CPBAG members had even been informed of these decisions on 20 November 2025. 

WAPFSA’s Public Statement – The Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team (CPBMJTT) Action Plan:

The-DA-Pushes-Eco-Apartheid-for-the-Cape-Peninsula_WAPFSA-Statement-271125Download

Image Credit: Green Group Simonstown

©WAPFSA 2025. All Rights Reserved.