We act on behalf of the EMS Foundation (EMSF) (“our client”). Our client is a registered trust,nonprofit organisation and public benefit organisation, established in 2014. EMSF is committedto social and inclusive justice, compassion and the advancement and protection of the dignity,rights and general welfare of vulnerable and marginalised groups and individuals in South Africa,with particular focus on: youth at risk, the elderly and the conservation of wildlife.
2.This submission is made in response to the Notice published on 15 October 2024 by theDepartment of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, inviting public comment in the form of“written scientific information” on non-detriment findings (”NDFs”) for certain species (“theNDF Notice”).1
3.These comments are fully endorsed by the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa(WAPFSA), a coalition of thirty diverse South African-based organisations united by sharedvalues and objectives. WAPFSA collectively comprise a body of expertise across variousdisciplines, including scientific research, environmental protection, legal advocacy, animalwelfare, human rights, social justice, climate action, indigenous knowledge, and public policy.Collectively, WAPFSA represents the interests of South Africa’s wildlife and naturalenvironment, working to engage government on issues such as biodiversity conservation,animal protection, ethical conservation practices, and the impacts of climate change.
4.While our client welcomes the publication of NDFs as a tool to fulfil South Africa’s obligationsunder the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora(“CITES”), we submit that the Department’s current approach is procedurally, substantively andmethodologically deficient. Therefore, although the NDF Notice requires submissions in theform of “written scientific information,” our client bases its objections on broader legal,procedural and substantive issues. These submissions will therefore address:4.1. procedural flaws in the consultation process;
4.2. legal inadequacies in the development and implementation of NDFs under the NationalEnvironmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (“NEM:BA”);
4.3. methodological shortcomings in assessing species;
4.4. the lack of consideration of key legal principles, such as the precautionary approach; and
4.5. the failure to consider species well-being, as required under South African law.
The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) wishes to express our full support for the current Private Members Presentation Bill introduced by the Honourable Minister of Parliament David Reed.
The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) is a national network of thirty South African organizations established in 2017 and which was explicitly designed as a vehicle to engage with government on wildlife issues and to put wild animals onto the political agenda, based on ethical and compassionate conservation and harmonious co-existence within nature.
Our members share clearly articulated principles that are part of our Founding Document. Our common goal is to safeguard and protect wild animals and their welfare and well-being, as well as biodiversity, individual species, individual animals and the interests of vulnerable people.
All our activities are underpinned by an understanding that the inter-relationship between environmental protection, animal well-being, conservation and the values of dignity, compassion and humaneness are foundational to our constitutional democracy, a position which has been recognized in South African jurisprudence We also advocate for the concepts of
UBUNTU, the intrinsic value of wild animals and an integrative policy approach, which requires the adoption of an attitude of respect to the individuals that make up a species, an eco-system or the components of biodiversity. Key to WAPFSA’s activities is the understanding that there is an urgent need to reimagine human-animal relations and that animal welfare and climate change are intertwined.
The undersigned organizations and community representatives, who are widely supported by wildlife conservationists across the African continent and beyond, would like to take this opportunity to share with you, our African perspective on the negative impacts of the commercialization, advertisement and sale of trophy hunts of African endangered and protected species.
WAPFSA hereby official submits our official objection to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment’s invitation for written representations or objections to the Proposed Hunting/export quota for Elephant, Black Rhinoceros and Leopard Hunting Trophies for the 2024 and 2025 Calendar Year published as Notice Number: 5583 in the Government Gazette on the 22nd November 2024.
We note that this objection will be published and will be collated into a comment and responses report which will be made available to the public as part of the consultation process.
The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA) is a national network of 30 South African organizations that was explicitly set up and designed as a vehicle to engage with government on wildlife issues and to put wild animals onto the political agenda, based on ethical and compassionate conservation and harmonious coexistence within nature.
WAPFSA members share clearly articulated principles that are part of our Founding Document, initiated in 2016. Our common goal is to safeguard and protect wild animals and their welfare and well-being, as well as biodiversity, individual species, individual animals and the interests of vulnerable people.
CITES: “Nationally established export quotas should as far as possible, be communicated at least 30 days before the start of the period to which the export relates”.
5. A calendar year is defined as the twelve-month period between January and December of any given year.
6. It is of great concern that a public consultation regarding the hunting/export of elephant, leopard and black rhino trophies for the 2024 Calendar Year has been initiated on the 22 day of the eleventh month of this 2024 calendar year.
7. This leaves 9 days of the 2024 calendar year remaining after the closure of the public consultation period, after which the Minister is required to give “due consideration” to the public representations received.
8. No explanation for this choice of timing has been provided. This timing is out of step with the CITES recommendations which provide that “nationally established export quotas should as far as possible, be communicated at least 30 days before the start of the period to which the export relates”.1
8. 1 Management of Nationally Determined Export Quotas, https://cites.org/eng/res/14/14-07R15.php
9. The publication of a quota for the 2024 calendar year so late in the year is in our opinion, unfair, unreasonable and irrational, and could be grounds for the setting aside of the current consultation process under section 6(2)(h). of PAJA.
Section 99 of NEMBA: “Public Participation Process sufficient information must be provided to enable members of the public to submit meaningful representations or objections”
10. As stated in the gazetted notice, the invitation for the submission of representations on the proposed 2024 and 2025 quota was issued in terms of sections 99 and 100 of NEMBA. These provisions set out the public consultation requirements for the Minister’s exercise of power under NEMBA.
11. Section 100(2)(b) sets out that notice of a public participation process under section 99 of NEMBA must contain “sufficient information to enable members of the public to submit meaningful representations or objections”.
12. The Gazetted Notice of consultation on the 2024 and 2025 proposed quota contains no quota figures.
13. In addition, because of the absence of the inclusion of the findings of the Scientific Authority and the rationale for the trophy hunting quota for black rhinoceros, leopard or elephant it is impossible for any member of the public to meaningfully interrogate or engage with the proposed 2024 or 2025 quota. This is both a material flaw in terms of section 100(2)(b) of NEMBA and under PAJA.
CITES Appendix I or Appendix II: Lack of Non-Detriment Findings
14. Further, the non-detrimental findings of the Scientific Authority, for the black rhinoceros, leopard of elephant are not even referred to nor provided in the Gazetted Notice.
15. These scientific findings should be confirmed as non-detrimental in relation to CITES Appendix I or Appendix II species which asserts that a restricted activity (such as trophy hunting and export) of these species will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in question.
16. Leopards and Black Rhinoceros are listed under CITES Appendix I while African Elephant populations in South Africa are listed under CITES Appendix II. All three species are also listed in the Lists of Threatened and Protected Species (TOPS) under the Threatened and Protected Species Regulations published in terms of section 56 of NEMBA (with leopards being listed as “vulnerable”; black rhinoceros as “endangered” and African Elephant as “protected”.
17. Section 62 of NEMBA refers to the publication of “Annual non-detrimental findings” which must be published in the Government Gazette allies to all three of these species. This is in line with the CITES recommendation that a “non-detriment finding should be made whenever an export quotas is established for the first time or revised, and reviewed annually.”
18. It is of material concern that hunting/export quotas for elephant, leopard and rhinoceros have been set in the absence of a current gazetted non-detriment finding in relation to these species in the current or preceding calendar year.
Conclusion: Procedurally unfair, unreasonable and irrational in terms of PAJA
19. Considering the points set out above, WAPFSA is of the opinion that this consultation process constitutes unlawful, procedurally unfair, unreasonable and irrational administrative action in terms of PAJA.
20. As the protection of South Africa’s wildlife is a matter of public interest, the Minister’s exercise of power quotas and initiating a flawed public consultation process constitute a breach of the South African public’s right to adequate public participation in matters that affect them, the right to just administrative action in of section 33 of the Constitution and the right to have the environment protected through legislative and other means in terms of section 24 of the Constitution.
21. The proposed quota and the consultation process should therefore be withdrawn. “
On Tuesday 19th November 2024, Cullinan and Associates, environment lawyers, acting on behalf of the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA), a collaborative network representing the interests of wild animals and the natural environment, which was established to engage government on animal protection, ethical and compassion conservation, welfare, biodiversity loss and climate change, among other issues, requested an extension period for written scientific information on non-detriment findings (NDFs) published on the 15th October 2024 by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment.
“We refer to your Department’s Gazetted Notice calling for public comment in the form of “written scientific information” on non-detriment findings (NDFs) published on the 15th October 2024 “written scientific information” on non-detriment findings (NDFs) for certain species and“the NDF Notice”).
The NDF Notice requires comments tobe submitted by no later than 14 December 2024.
The NDF Notice asks for comments on more than 1000 species.
The purpose of this letter is to ask for an extension of the comment period until 16 February 2025.
All Members of the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa were in support of this request.
FOR THE ATTENTION OFHIS EXCELLENCY, DUMA BOKO, PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOTSWANA
19th November 2024
Dear Mr President Duma Boko,
A RESPECTFUL REQUEST TO RE-IMPOSE THE BAN ON ELEPHANT HUNTING IN BOTSWANA
The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum South Africa (WAPFSA) is a coalition of South African wildlife and environmental non-governmental organisations, please accept our warmest congratulations on your election as Botswana’s President. We hereby extend our best wishes for your success as you prepare to take up the responsibilities and challenges of this high office.
WAPFSA firmly believes that Botswana is one of the last places on earth where wildlife, especially elephants exist in significant numbers. Therefore, we believe that Botswana should be preserved as a non-trophy hunting area. As you embark on your new responsibilities WAPFSA humbly requests that you consider re-imposing the ban on elephant hunting in Botswana.
This ban would restore Botswana’s international reputation for conservation and in turn bolster revenue from tourism, the second largest source of foreign income after diamond mining. WAPFSA does not believe that by banning the trophy hunting of elephants that the levels of human elephant conflict will increase.
Instead, we believe that the world needs to find ways to make sure that communities living alongside this important, precious and iconic world heritage, benefit from photographic tourism and successful non-consumptive schemes, which link the conservation of wildlife and the natural ecosystems with sustainable improvements in their livelihoods.
Elephants, known for their intelligence, size and distinct appearance face a major threat from poaching an illegal practice driven by the demand for ivory and other elephant products. They remain the one of the most heavily poached mammals in the world, with a staggering 90% of African elephants being killed by poachers within the last 100 years.
WAPFSA remains concerned, particularly given that peer-reviewed data by experts points to a rise in thepoaching and killing of elephants for the trade in ivory, that the previous government of Botswana used aninflated figure (up to 237,000 elephants) to justify the need to consider unbanning trophy hunting and culling.
IUCN/PACO research shows that photographic safaris or eco-tourism creates 39 times more jobs than the trophy hunting for the equivalent surface area Photographic conservation tourism industry is the second largest revenue-generating industry to Botswana’s fiscus. If implemented these recommendations will do untold harm to the lucrative non-consumptive, eco-tourism sector in Botswana. They pose a direct threat to sustainable livelihoods in Botswana as well as to the country’s international reputation.
The following facts are also important to bear in mind:
1. A report published in October 2024 highlights a catastrophic 73% decline in the average size of global wildlife populations in just 50 years reveals a ‘system in peril’.
2. Given that we are in the midst of the Sixth Extinction and that elephant numbers are rapidly decreasing, the plights of elephants is of concern to all, and the efforts to ensure their future should be shared by all.
3. Elephants are extremely complex beings with physical, social and psychological interests who have intrinsic value and deserve respect.
4. Elephants are important to maintaining the ecological integrity of the region and thus we have locus standi in the matter.
5. The maintenance of regional ecological integrity is a pillar of our societal survival, ecologically, economically and socially.
6. Elephant migration routes are key in supporting ecological integrity and corridors for wildlife are vitally important for natural systems to exist and enable the movement of elephant populations out of Botswana.
7. South Africa had to abandon its elephant culling model because it was discredited from a scientific and a biodiversity management perspective
8. Botswana’ssupport for the ivory trade, via its proposal to the CITES Cop 18, fly in the face of the global momentum to reduce consumer demand for ivory and run counter to the recommendation in Resolution Conf.10.10. (Rev. CoP17) which calls for closure of domestic ivory markets contributing to poaching or illegal trade.
There is no compelling, empirical evidence of the economic significance of trophy hunting or that it is imperative to the future of conservation and to generate local community benefits. Moreover trophy hunting and culling are an added threat to wildlife.
In conclusion, WAPFSA firmly believes based upon irrefutable scientific evidence that trophy hunting and culling are not solutions to, nor will they mitigate, human- animal-conflict and will in fact result in increased conflict and added dangers to communities. Disrupting elephant social structures and hierarchies through trophy hunting and culling will further exacerbate human-elephant-conflict and also destroy social andecological knowledge and experience in the elephant societies.
The extent of human-elephant-conflict needs to be accurately ascertained and humane, innovative and collaborative solutions implemented in ways that benefit, and are a win- win for, communities and elephants (and other animals).
Signed by Members of the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa
This memorandum of demands is addressed to: Honourable Minister Dion George, Honourable Minister Jon Steehuisen, Honourable Minister Anton Bredell, Honourable Minister Ivan Meyer, Honourable Deputy Mayor Eddie Andrews and Chairperson Dave Bryant
The Climate Justice Movement and the Co-Operative and Policy Alternative Center and the South African Food Sovereignty Campaign are calling upon Parliament to adopt the revised Food Sovereignty Act No. 1 of 2024 and Feed Ourselves Through Food Sovereignty Policy as comprehensive frameworks to address the systematic inequalities and climate vulnerabilities that threaten our communities.
WAPFSA stands united in calling for the immediate recognition of these demands, critical to ending hunger, thirst, and climate harm and protecting nature. The future of South Africa’s food system depends on a deep and triple-just transition that enters on the needs of people and the web of life. This is crucial as a cornerstone of the Climate Justice Charter and Climate Emergency Social Contract for all in South Africa. United we can give an emancipatory future to South Africa the planet and future generations.
The undersigned organisations are deeply concerned by the announcements by some governments in southern Africa to cull large numbers of elephants and other wild animals, including in National Parks.
In late August 2024, Namibia declared it would kill 723 wild animals, including 83 elephants and later increased this number to 100. Shortly afterwards, Zimbabwe announced its intention to kill at least 200 elephants.
The justifications given for these threats include a combination of providing meat to drought-stricken citizens, reducing pressure on land and water resources, mitigating human-elephant conflict, and reducing alleged wildlife over-population. However, while we acknowledge the severity of one of the worst droughts in decades in southern Africa, the killing of large numbers of wild animals cannot be justified for the reasons published in this statement:
WAPFSA members have expressed their concern about the possible importation of four hyenas into the George Water, Lion and Reptile Park located on the Garden Route region of the Western Cape of South Africa.
A few years ago, there was concern directed at CapeNature and questions were raised about the necessity of the opening of a wildlife park in George, a city in South Africa’s Western Cape, situated on a costal stretch known as the Garden Route. “South Africa has a great network of world-famous national parks protecting significant biodiversity and heritage and we should be encouraging people to visit these wilderness areas.”
Hyenas are intelligent animals and the nocturnal, secretive nature of hyenas presents unique challenges for exhibit in captivity. The complex social structure of hyenas dictates that these animals be housed in compatible groups. All hyenas should be provided with adequate space, ends and specific stimulation to prevent stereotypical behaviour.
The members of WAPFSA are concerned that the DFFE is closely aligning itself with a US based trophy hunting advocacy organisation – Safari Club International (SCI) in formulating policies on the conservation of African wildlife.
DFFE appears to be adopting a one-sided policy on ramping up the commercialisation and consumptive use of wildlife by actively collaborating with SCI, the world’s largest trophy hunting organisation.
The annual African Wildlife Consultative Forum (AWCF) is the SCI Foundation’s premier activity in Africa. The annual meeting brings together professional hunting associations, hunting and conservation organisations, and range state government officials. The meeting will take place in Stellenbosch from 28 Oct – 1 Nov 2024.
The discussions are to centre on expansion of consumptive wildlife economies in Africa – and particularly southern Africa. While the promotion and expansion of trophy hunting activities will be the primary focus, the meeting aims to lend support to the increase in monetising wildlife utilisation. Trophy hunting and trade in wildlife body parts such as ivory and rhino horn are regarded as key to the expansion of such economies.
Of concern, is that the discussions are held in private with approximately a dozen southern African governments attending. That these talks are shrouded in secrecy means that the approach by SCI is designed to influence government policy without the attendance of other organisations that hold a different approach to wildlife conservation.
Members of WAPFSA wrote a letter of concern to Minister Dion George raising the question of whether the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment was adopting a one sided approach to wildlife conservation.
The annual African Wildlife Consultative Forum (AWCF) is Safari Club International (SCI) premier activity in Africa.
The annual meeting, which is being facilitated by Stellenbosch University’s African Wildlife Economy Institute (AWEI) brings together professional hunting associations, hunting and conservation organisations, and range state government officials. The meeting will take place in Stellenbosch from 28 Oct – 1 Nov 2024.
Members of the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa, have raised concern that Stellenbosch University is adopting a dangerous one sided approach to wildlife conservation.
READ the letter written to Stellenbosch University:
