PUBLIC STATEMENT
Monday 15th June 2026
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:
- Publish a comprehensive register of all wildlife-sector stakeholder meetings held since assuming office.
- Disclose all organisations and representatives who have been granted meetings with the Minister and senior departmental officials regarding wildlife policy matters.
- Publish the criteria used to determine which stakeholders receive access to decision-makers.
- Commit publicly to meeting organisations representing animal welfare, wildlife protection, wildlife wellbeing and humane conservation perspectives.
- Establish a transparent and balanced stakeholder engagement framework that ensures no single interest group enjoys disproportionate influence over wildlife policy.
- Make public the Department’s future programme of wildlife-sector consultations.
- 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.
