(File photo by Eric Lafforgue/Art in All of Us/Corbis via Getty Images)
The high court in Pretoria has recently overturned decisions by the agriculture department that would allow genetic manipulation and cross-breeding of wildlife in the same way that domestic livestock bred to obtain specific characteristics for agricultural purposes.
The agriculture department sought to list 45 wildlife species, including giraffes, zebra, lions, cheetahs and rhinos, together with landrace breeds (indigenous and locally developed) in the Animal Improvement Act (AIA), which are subject to intensive breeding for commercial and agricultural-type production purposes.
On 10 June 2016 and 10 June 2019, the department of agriculture, land reform and rural development, formerly the department of agriculture, forestry and fisheries, published two amendments to tables 7(a) and 7(b) of the AIA regulations.
Through these amendments, several wild animal species were declared as “landrace breeds” and “locally adapted and regularly introduced breeds (other declared breeds)” for purposes of the Act.
The wild animals, which included threatened and protected species, are black wildebeest, blue duiker, blue wildebeest, bontebok, gemsbok, impala, oribi, red hartebeest, roan antelope, sable antelope, springbok, tsessebe, Rau Quagga zebra, Cape buffalo, blesbok, Cape eland, kudu, waterbuck, nyala, bosbok, klipspringer, common duiker, red duiker, steenbok, Cape grysbok, Sharp’s grysbok, suni, grey rhebok, mountain reedbuck, lechwe, Burchell’s zebra, Cape Mountain zebra, Hartman’s Mountain zebra, giraffe, white rhinoceros, black rhinoceros, lion, and cheetah.
Non-indigenous species included white-tailed deer, red deer, fallow deer, mule deer, roe deer, and black-tailed deer.
In the judgment handed down on 3 March, acting Judge P van Niekerk reviewed and set aside the amendments of the regulations, describing the listing as “irrational” and the impugned decisions as having “potential catastrophic results” for wildlife in South Africa.
For the South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association and the nonprofit Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT), who hauled the department to court, in 2019 and 2020, respectively, to review and set aside the decision to list wild animals in the Act, the successful outcome is the culmination of a seven-year battle.
Genetic manipulation, cross-breeding
According to SA Hunters, the amendment would have allowed the listed species to be genetically manipulated and cross-bred, as in the case of cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses and poultry, to improve production for agricultural purposes.
“A lot of people do not understand the implications this would have had,” said Lizanne Nel, its conservation manager. “It would have placed our wildlife in the same categories as domestic stock for manipulation for production purposes. As we’ve seen with domestic animals, with cattle you have breeds for meat production, and you have breeds for milk production. So this would have allowed that with our indigenous wildlife species. It’s a massive concern.”
If wildlife species were to remain on this list, this would mean that wildlife can be genetically manipulated through various livestock production techniques, including cross-breeding, embryo harvesting and transfer and line breeding, SA Hunters said. “A breeders society can prescribe breed standards for game species, which means that animals that do not meet their breed standards can be declared unfaithful to the breed – something that can directly affect game owners.”
This “opens the door” to the domestication of wildlife and erosion of genetic
integrity of wildlife species. “If manipulated game is made available for hunting purposes, this could have a significant impact on the reputation of hunters and the contribution that their hunting fees make to the conservation of natural game populations and related habitats.”
‘Irrational, catastrophic’
The court ruled that the department’s actions conflicted with conservation legislation, including the National Environmental Management Act (Nema) and the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act (Nemba), were prejudicial to conservation objectives and infringed on the rights enshrined in Section 24 of the constitution.
The department, too, ignored the requirements of the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act to consult with relevant affected stakeholders before its decision.
The AIA contains a caveat that the application for inclusion of new breeds of animals should be conducted with circumspection, considering the impact. “It is further clear from the animal improvement policy that the application of AIA requires interdepartmental consultation and cooperation and the establishment of an advisory committee and a process of consultation with affected parties such as the game farm industry,” Van Niekerk said in the judgment.
The applicants had provided substantial evidence indicating that the impugned decisions “mitigate against the principle of conservation, will have an adverse effect on the genetic integrity of various protected species in terms of Nemba and which allegations are supported by scientific evidence”.
Former agriculture minister Senzeni Zokwana had ignored his obligation to comply with Nema, ignored the guidelines to the operation of the AIA, and not availed himself of the opportunity to make an informed decision by consulting affected parties such as the game farm sector or an advisory committee. This “colours the entire process at arriving at the impugned decisions with irrationality and therefore renders the decision as irrational”.
Listing a surprise
The first 2016 listing came as a surprise, Nel said. “Neither the department of forestry, fisheries and the environment [DFFE] nor the provinces were consulted in the listing of these species.
“Then we tried for almost two years through the Wildlife Forum to get clarity from the department of agriculture to understand why these species were listed but the department just never attended the forum meetings. There was just never really good feedback on all of these enquiries. Then they listed the second group of species.
“It’s really sad that a department that lists the whole game ranching sector as part of their mandate, does not consult with the sector and not even with their sister departments in the provinces and in national on the potential implications this may have.”
She hoped the court victory “will sensitise” both departments on how important it is that issues with overlapping mandates are “sorted out” proactively. “This is because the department of agriculture felt that game ranching is part of their mandate although the regulations managing all the game species are with the DFFE. There’s clearly no clarity where the mandate of the one starts and the mandate of the other one begins.”
She added that animal health and animal welfare issues, for example, have “cross cutting implications for both departments’ mandates”.
Intensive breeding
The Endangered Wildlife Trust said its grounds of review included “legitimate, substantive, and procedural concerns, including but not limited to the fact that there was neither inclusive public participation, nor had any intergovernmental consultation and participation taken place”.
The amendments, too, failed to consider materially relevant information about the environmental impacts and that the inclusion of wild animal species as “breeds” to be managed by the agriculture department is contrary to the objects and purposes of section 24 of the Constitution, Nema, Nemba and the AIA itself.
It said that notwithstanding its objection to any wild animals being declared a breed, either “landrace breed” or “locally adapted and regularly introduced breeds” and controlled by so-called breed societies, which the amendments to the AIA would have facilitated, it was equally concerned that several of these species, notably the deer species, are not indigenous to South Africa
According to SA Hunters, allowing the intensive breeding of alien invasive species listed in terms of Nemba would increase the risks of the negative impacts these species can have on the country’s indigenous biodiversity.
“Fallow Deer are an exotic alien species brought to South Africa in the 19th century. SANParks is mandated by the Protected Areas Act to eradicate invasive alien species or bring them under control.
“There are limited predators to assist with population control and the deer are breeding very successfully, thus their numbers continue to increase. There are more than 350 fallow deer within Table Mountain National Park (TMNP) at present and they are out competing indigenous animals. This puts the veld under enormous strain, to the point where TMNP has to feed the animals like zoo keepers, and that’s not a desirable option in a National Park.”
The EWT said it recognises the value that wildlife ranching and the ecologically sustainable use of wildlife brings to South Africa, with overall revenues estimated to exceed R10 billion a year and permanent employment of about 70 000 people.
“The profits generated from wildlife ranching act as an incentive to keep and sustain wildlife in free living conditions, resulting in increased conservation of wildlife, habitats and biodiversity within South Africa.”
It promotes the value and role of wild animals in natural free-living conditions, which contribute to functioning ecosystems and to the perpetuation of our natural world. “We do not support the proliferation of intensive wildlife breeding facilities, which provide no demonstrable conservation benefit.”
Comments from both departments will be included if received.
[/membership]