Latest news with #NationalEnvironmentalManagement:BiodiversityAct
The South African
16-07-2025
- Business
- The South African
Captive lion breeding in South Africa to be BANNED
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has taken steps toward ending captive lion breeding in South Africa, marking a major shift in the country's approach to wildlife conservation and animal welfare. Minister Dr Dion George confirmed on Tuesday that the department is finalising the Prohibition Notice that will officially ban the establishment of new commercial captive lion breeding facilities across the country. 'This marks a turning point in our approach to wildlife conservation,' said George. 'We are committed to enforcing clear, effective, and legally robust measures that protect South Africa's natural heritage.' The new policy forms part of strengthened regulations under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA), 2004 and is guided by the Ministerial Task Team Report and the Policy Position on the sustainable use of elephants, lions, leopards, and rhinoceroses. The Prohibition Notice aligns with international conservation norms and public demands to end the unethical breeding and exploitation of lions for profit – particularly in canned hunting and the bone trade. Following its tabling in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on 10 June 2025, the mandatory 30-day consideration period has now elapsed, clearing the way for official promulgation by the Executive Authority. The department is now engaging with provincial Members of the Executive Council (MECs) under Section 87A (3) of NEM:BA to coordinate implementation and enforcement at local levels. Further updates are expected during stakeholder engagements, including the upcoming G20 Environment and Climate Sustainability Working Group meeting taking place in the Kruger National Park. The ban also forms part of broader efforts to overhaul the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations, with a sharper focus on animal well-being, biodiversity protection, and practical enforcement. 'We are building a regulatory foundation that prioritises animal well-being. The department remains fully committed to finalising and implementing these reforms without delay,' George stated. The move is being seen as a clear message to the global conservation community: South Africa is working to phase out unethical wildlife exploitation and reposition itself as a leader in sustainable, ethical biodiversity management. The final Prohibition Notice is expected to be gazetted in the coming weeks. Once enforced, it will prevent the opening of any new captive lion breeding facilities, although existing operations may still fall under separate review and transitional frameworks. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
Daily Maverick
17-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Harvard legal scholars join battle to free elephants from Johannesburg Zoo
At the heart of the case is the claim that keeping elephants in the zoo violates South Africa's Constitution, particularly the environmental rights provision, as well as existing animal welfare legislation. A landmark legal bid to free three elephants from captivity in the Johannesburg Zoo has gained international traction, with heavyweight legal scholars from Harvard Law School stepping forward in support of the case. The application – brought by Animal Law Reform South Africa, the EMS Foundation and Chief Stephen Fritz – is currently before the High Court in Pretoria. Professor Kristen Stilt, the faculty director of the Brooks McCormick Jr Animal Law and Policy Program, and Dr Macarena Montes Franceschini, a visiting researcher at the Max Planck Institute, have formally applied to join the case as amici curiae (friends of the court), offering their expertise in animal law and public policy. Their participation is intended to help the court understand the broader societal and ethical implications of the case, especially given the elephants' complex cognitive and emotional capacities. Constitutional rights The applicants argue that the three elephants – Lammie, Mopane and Ramadiba – are confined in conditions that compromise their mental, emotional and physical well being, amounting to a state of significant distress. Elephant experts argue that confinement in any urban zoo fails to meet the physical, mental and emotional needs of these highly intelligent and social creatures. At the heart of the case is the claim that keeping elephants in the zoo violates South Africa's Constitution, particularly the environmental rights provision, as well as existing animal welfare legislation. Section 24 states that everyone has the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or wellbeing and to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures. The measures prevent pollution and ecological degradation, promote conservation and secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development. In addition, the organisations and Fritz said animals in captivity constitute biodiversity for the purposes of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act. 'The applicants (Animal Law Reform SA, EMS Foundation and Fritz) contend that, on proper interpretation of section 24 of the Constitution, and the legislation enacted to give effect to section 24, the right enjoyed by everyone to have the environment protected requires that the welfare and wellbeing of individual animals be considered and promoted.' Pushback The Johannesburg Zoo, however, has pushed back, asserting that the elephants receive adequate care and attention. The zoo claims that the groups behind the legal effort are driven by ideology rather than concern for the animals' actual welfare. However, public sentiment appears to be turning against the zoo's legal resistance. South Africans have voiced their anger on social media, particularly given the City of Johannesburg's broader financial and infrastructural crises. The Auditor-General recently reported more than R1-billion in wasteful expenditure, raising concerns about the cost of the ongoing litigation. Critics have pointed to Johannesburg City Parks and Zoo's own Integrated Annual Report (2023/24), which emphasises avoiding prolonged legal battles in favour of settlements that save public funds. Despite this, the City continues to defend the elephants' captivity in court, a move seen by many as both fiscally irresponsible and ethically indefensible. The case of Charlie the elephant Still, pressure continues to build, especially following the recent relocation of Charlie – the last elephant at the National Zoological Gardens in Pretoria – to a sanctuary. That move is being hailed as a progressive step in aligning elephant care with contemporary animal welfare standards. That historic event was the result of years of negotiation between the zoo, the EMS Foundation and the Pro Elephant Network. Charlie had witnessed three of his friends die prematurely. He also lost his daughter when she was less than a month old. He was captured in Hwange, Zimbabwe, 44 years ago and was trained in the Boswell Wilkie Circus. When it closed down he was transferred to the Natal Lion Park and then, in 2001, to the Pretoria Zoo where he languished before his eventual release in 2024. As they did with Charlie (now named Duma), the EMS Foundation has offered the same alternative: relocating the three elephants to the secure, protected sanctuary at Shambala Game Reserve in the Waterberg where they can gradually reintegrate into a natural habitat. The plan, as it has with Charlie, includes a comprehensive rehabilitation process under the guidance of wildlife veterinarians, welfare experts and logistical teams. The Johannesburg case is being watched closely, since it feeds into a larger and ongoing debate: should elephants be kept in captivity at all, especially in urban zoos? The involvement of respected legal scholars from Harvard is a significant development. Their support underscores the global relevance of the case and the shifting legal and moral paradigm around the rights of non-human animals. Deputy Judge President Ledwaba will hear arguments on the amicus application on 2 September. His decision could shape the outcome of one of the most significant animal rights cases this country has seen. DM
Daily Maverick
09-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Maverick
Call to halt proposed removal of Cape Peninsula baboons a rallying cry for a more compassionate approach
A letter by the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa to the Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team highlights several critical issues with the task team's approach, including legal and ethical violations. The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA), supported by 34 animal welfare and protection organisations, has issued a strongly worded cease-and-desist letter to the Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team (CPBMJTT) regarding its controversial proposal to remove baboon troops from the Cape Peninsula. The proposal, which includes options such as translocation, sanctuary placement and euthanasia, has been met with fierce opposition from conservationists, animal welfare groups and community organisations. Violent management practices The CPBMJTT claims that baboon welfare has regressed due to increased population pressure, limited access to natural foraging areas and escalating human-baboon conflict. The task team has proposed the removal of five splinter baboon troops, citing concerns over resource availability and troop health. However, WAPFSA and other stakeholders argue that these issues stem from human behaviour, urban development and violent management practices, rather than the baboons themselves. WAPFSA's letter highlights several critical issues with the CPBMJTT's approach. Chief among them have been the ongoing violent management practices. The use of paintball guns and other aversion techniques has been criticised as cruel and ineffective. These methods have allegedly encouraged some residents to take up arms, leading to injuries and deaths among baboons. The letter also points out that there are legal and ethical violations. The proposal contradicts South Africa's constitutional guarantees of environmental wellbeing and the precautionary principle outlined in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA). Also, no comprehensive census or analysis of baboon populations has been conducted, raising concerns about the sustainability of the species in the Western Cape and indicating a scientific gap in the process. Ethical considerations Baboons are complex agentic beings, analogous to humans. They have the capacity to suffer, share a common evolutionary and biological history, have their own unique cultures and form their own sovereign communities. Studies clearly show that baboons have rich inner lives, including languages and cultures, and recent work in political philosophy shows that they not only form their own communities, but often actively co-shape communities, habitats and relations with humans. WAPFSA stated: 'The notion of flourishing, when it comes to non-human primates, does not necessarily mean 'in a strictly natural setting', as is the case with many other wild animals. Baboons are to adapt and flourish in urban or quasi-urban settings and thrive in anthropogenically modified habitats.' The organisation says that 'when it comes to issues of management strategies, baboons warrant a very different approach from the one currently carried out by the CPBMJTT'. They maintain that 'ecologists and government agencies must urgently gain a fundamental understanding of wild animal welfare and wellbeing and the negative effects that their current interventions have'. And finally, the group has accused the task team of a distinct lack of consultation. Stakeholders, including animal welfare organisations and community groups, were not meaningfully consulted. The Baboon Advisory Group (BAG), established to foster collaboration, has reportedly been sidelined, with decisions presented as a fait accompli. Francesca de Gasparis, from the Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute (Safcei), who are members of both WAPFSA and BAG, says: 'This response from so-called experts and the powers that be shows a profound lack of understanding of the important role baboons play in the functioning of our fynbos ecosystem, and as a flagship species of Cape Town loved by tourists and residents alike.' WAPFSA has thus called for the CPBMJTT to cease all plans to remove baboons from the Cape Peninsula. The group wants the task team to reform outdated management policies to align with ethical and legal standards and to implement non-lethal mitigation measures, such as baboon-proof bins and signs as well as to engage in meaningful consultation with stakeholders. Currently, management practices tend to exclude expert consultation from animal welfare and social scientists. Coexistence success story The letter shows that successful non-lethal management initiatives by community organisations, such as the Green Group Simonstown, have demonstrated these effective methods for human-baboon coexistence. Green Group Simonstown initiated a community-funded pilot project aimed at safeguarding the baboon troops around Simon's Town while also addressing and protecting human interests. The organisation has focused on reducing food attractants and, via the use of monitors, increasing baboon safety. Their goal was to implement alternative baboon management strategies that would set a precedent for compassionate conservation and prompt a reassessment of current practices. The results have shown significant behavioural improvements. The baboons spent most of their time on the mountain, displaying calm and cohesive behaviour. When they enter urban areas, they prefer natural forage over human waste. This positive change has been achieved without using aggressive deterrents, relying instead on a holistic approach and constant monitoring, leading the troop to settle in natural spaces with minimal incursions into developed areas. This positive outcome demonstrated the effectiveness of Green Group Simonstown's innovative strategy, which challenges the current practices and emphasises education, waste management and compassionate monitoring, offering a blueprint for sustainable baboon management. Broader implications The proposed removal of baboons has sparked wider concerns about human-wildlife conflict and the ethical treatment of sentient beings. WAPFSA argues that baboons, as complex and agentic beings, deserve respect and protection. The organisation calls for a shift towards harmonious multi-species coexistence, emphasising the ecological and cultural importance of baboons in the Western Cape. WAPFSA's letter serves as a rallying cry for conservationists, animal welfare advocates and concerned citizens to demand a more compassionate and scientifically informed approach to baboon management. The organisation warns that failure to address these concerns could lead to litigation and further harm to both baboons and human communities. As the debate about baboon management intensifies, the spotlight is on the CPBMJTT to reconsider its strategies and prioritise coexistence over conflict. The future of the Cape Peninsula's baboons – and the integrity of South Africa's conservation policies – hangs in the balance. DM Dr Adam Cruise is an investigative environmental journalist, travel writer and academic. He has contributed to a number of international publications, including National Geographic and The Guardian, covering diverse topics from the plight of elephants, rhinos and lions in Africa, to coral reef rejuvenation in Indonesia. Cruise is a doctor of philosophy, specialising in animal and environmental ethics, and is the editor of the online Journal of African Elephants.
The South African
07-05-2025
- The South African
Betrayal behind closed doors: K9 Patrol Pet Army founder arrested
Jamie Pieterse – founder of the so-called 'K9 Patrol Pet Army' – and co-accused Marizelle Swanepoel were arrested following a raid on a Kirstenhof property that exposed appalling scenes of animal cruelty. Pieterse attempted to evade the law and was later arrested in Scarborough by the City of Cape Town Traffic Services. Narcotics were also found in his possession at the time of his arrest. Jamie Pieterse was arrested by City of Cape Town Traffic Services in Scarborough after trying to flee. Image: SPCA WARNING: The following video and images may upset sensitive readers Earlier that day, SPCA Inspectors – armed with a warrant obtained from the Wynberg Magistrate's Court – accompanied by Kirstenhof SAPS, descended on the property. Their entry was obstructed by co-accused Swanepoel, who stalled authorities for over seven minutes , claiming not to have the keys. It was only after she was warned of immediate arrest that the gates were finally opened. She was further caught attempting to untie one of the dogs in a clear effort to defeat the ends of justice before SPCA Chief Inspector Jaco Pieterse intervened. What the SPCA team discovered inside was harrowing. Outside, five adult dogs were found tethered to short chains or ropes, without access to clean drinking water. Puppies were confined to a small pen, while a dog was tied to a tap. Another dog was found tethered inside a pen, its space so restricted that it could barely move. In the kitchen, a pitbull stood alone in filth. In the bathroom, three dogs were crammed in with piles of faeces, urine, and decaying rubbish – without a drop of water. Another three dogs were discovered locked in a separate room. Behind a urine-soaked couch, one cat and three more sick puppies were uncovered in equally horrible conditions, surrounded by faeces, urine, vomit, putrid water, and rotting food. But the horror didn't end there. Outside, inspectors found plastic tubs of discoloured black-green water filled with koi and Nile Tilapia fish – a listed invasive species under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act. These were being kept without a valid permit. In total, SPCA Inspectors rescued 13 dogs, 8 puppies, 1 cat, and 3 tubs of fish from this house of horrors. Both Pieterse and Swanepoel are now facing a range of serious charges, including: – And contravening environmental legislation by unlawfully keeping invasive alien species. – Multiple counts under the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962, including neglect, chaining and confining animals in cruel conditions, denying access to water, and failure to provide veterinary care; – Obstruction of justice in terms of Section 8(4) of the Animals Protection Act; – Violations of the City of Cape Town Animal Keeping By-law, for keeping excessive numbers of unsterilised dogs; Both suspects were arrested. The animals are now safely in the care of the SPCA where they are receiving urgent treatment and rehabilitation. On Monday, 5 May, the two suspects appeared in the Wynberg Magistrates' Court, following a weekend spent in police holding cells. The matter was postponed until Thursday, 8 May, at which time the accused are expected to formally apply for bail. Both are being represented by a private attorney. The SPCA has confirmed it will be opposing bail. It is important to note that this is not Jamie Pieterse's first brush with the law. In March 2025, the SPCA laid charges of animal cruelty against him after he attempted to treat a dog's torn ear by gluing it back together with super glue – without any pain relief, sterilisation, or proper veterinary knowledge. Video footage showed the dog, named Pablo, yelping in pain as Pieterse and co restrained him and forced his mouth shut during the botched 'treatment.' This disturbing footage, which clearly documented the dog's suffering, was instrumental in securing charges under both the Animals Protection Act and the Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professions Act, since Pieterse is not registered to perform veterinary procedures. Inspector Jeffrey Mfini intervened in that case, removing the dog and placing him under SPCA care. Pablo required nearly a month of treatment to recover from the trauma and injury, but thankfully made a full recovery and was joyfully reunited with his family. This prior case serves as a warning. While some individuals and groups may present themselves as animal saviours, their actions often tell a very different story. 'What we uncovered is not just a case of neglect – it's deliberate cruelty masked under the guise of animal rescue,' said Chief Inspector Jaco Pieterse. 'It's heartbreaking to think of the pain these animals endured in silence. We will not allow false rescuers to exploit animals for personal gain or attention. Justice will be pursued to the fullest extent of the law.' The SPCA has once again urged the public to be cautious. Before donating or supporting any 'rescue' group, ask questions, verify credentials, and look beyond the image. Good intentions do not justify cruelty. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
