Environment, agriculture set to cross swords on wildlife welfare and sentience

René Descartes, the 17th-century philosopher, said animals were auto-matons, so cruelty towards them was impossible. Philosopher Jeremy Bentham disagreed, saying that in our measure of animals we should not ask can they reason, nor can they talk, but can they suffer.

For more than 200 years, Descartes’ views have prevailed. But, in official narratives and court findings around the world, Bentham’s views are back on the table.

The recent report on the management of lions, elephants, rhinos and leopards by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) explicitly emphasises animal sentience: “Animal welfare is science-based with a growing body of research and expertise that acknowledges that some animals are sentient beings that can experience pain and suffering.

“As humans, living with, utilising and benefiting from animals, we have a social and moral responsibility to do so in a way that is humane and prevents suffering and ensures quality of life.”

In a minority Bloemfontein High Court judgment, Judge Edwin Cameron echoed Bentham, saying “the statutes recognise that animals are sentient beings that are capable of suffering and of experiencing pain … but have no voice of their own.”

These views are embedded in a 580-page DFFE report out this month. It is the result of almost two years of work by specialists and follows considerable public consultation.

They have put the environment department on a collision course with the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD), which administers the Animal Protection, Improvement and Meat Safety acts that are being amended to encompass wild animals in captivity.

Along the way, animal welfare has fallen into an abyss between the two departments. This was noted in a parliamentary resolution a year ago that called on them to “present a clear programme of work on how they intend to address animal welfare and health issues …. which straddle the mandates of the two departments, outlining clear timeframes for achieving this”.

Environment Minister Barbara Creecy told Parliament she had met with Agriculture Minister Thoko Didiza to express her concerns and that a working group had been set up. Nothing has since been heard of that meeting or the implementation of the resolution, let alone a clear programme of work.

Meanwhile, in 2019, DALRRD listed 32 wild animals, including lions, giraffes, white and black rhinos, lions and cheetahs under the Animal Improvement Act, effectively rendering them farm animals subject to manipulation and consumption. This was done, it said, “in order to provide for the breeding, identification and utilisation of genetically superior animals in order to improve the [food] production and performance of animals in the interest of the Republic”.

The Wildlife Protection Forum SA warned that this “enables breeders to create genetically manipulated animals, in addition to breeding rarities and colour variants”.

Shortly afterwards, DALRRD proposed an amendment to the Meat Safety Act to bring all wild animals under its jurisdiction during slaughter. The Act controls how they may be “slaughtered for food for human and animal consumption”.

In Parliament, Dr Mphane Molefe, DALRRD’s director of Veterinary Public Health, claimed the moves were to protect wild animals from cruelty, but did not elaborate on how this would be achieved.

DALRRD has also set up a working group of 10 vets from its provincial departments tasked to construct an Animal Welfare Bill behind closed doors and without public participation. All members of the group are “insiders” within the agricultural department, which is deeply influenced by the agricultural industry and ideas of sustainable use.

The drafting process was approved in a 2019 socioeconomic assessment. Notably, in reply to a parliamentary question, Creecy said the drafting of the Animal Welfare Bill was “currently limited to structures within DALRRD”. If this is so, the custodian of South Africa’s wildlife will have no say in drafting the laws regarding its welfare.

Unlike the environment department’s High Level Panel that produced recommendations, the DALRRD group will be rewriting the legal framework for animal welfare and not simply advising on it. And it will be doing this without the inclusion of any of the organisations that have been lobbying for an improvement in animal protection, including the body designated by law to do this: the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA).

The request by the EMS Foundation and the Humane Society International-Africa – groups widely respected internationally for their work on animal welfare – to be in the working group were rejected.

DFFE picks up welfare

The environment department has refused to be out of the loop on animal welfare and has placed it – and considerations of animal sentience – at the core of its 580-page report, the result of nearly two years of work with experts and public consultation.

So despite the agriculture department’s mandate on animal welfare, DFFE has now picked up the baton it historically dropped and has produced path-breaking recommendations, which, if implemented, will put it on a collision course with DALRRD on the treatment of animals.

It takes direct aim at the Animal Improvement Act, which, it says, promotes the domestication and intensive and selective breeding of iconic wildlife, undermining the sense of place of wild Africa and the conservation of the species in the wild.

The implementation of the Animal Improvement Act within the wildlife economy, it says, is undermining the link between animal welfare and conservation required by the Constitution and suggests a revision of the Act. It also calls for a revision of the Meat Safety Act to take into account the welfare of wild animals during slaughter.

It was particularly concerned with the domestication and breeding of lions, elephants, rhinos and leopards. It says captive, intensive and selective breeding, handling, captive interactions, canned hunting and the bone and derivative trade pose risks and threats to SA’s reputation. There are also zoonotic risks of Covid-type outbreaks.

Considering that the agricuture department’s working group comprises mainly departmental vets, the report was less than complimentary about the profession’s competence to judge welfare issues: “Veterinarians have a loyalty to clients and this often prevents them from talking out about or addressing welfare concerns.

“[They] are also seen by the courts as the welfare experts, although they are often reluctant to testify or speak out about welfare issues due to possible loss of clients and business. This becomes both an ethical and welfare issue.”

It also notes that the potential for an intensification of management practices by listing wildlife under the Animal Improvement Act “poses significant welfare risks”.

This has been confounded, it says, by unresolved confusion in the mandate between the two departments, resulting in wildlife welfare being neglected.

Its findings echo an earlier government-commissioned report by the South African National Biodiversity Institute, which noted the threats posed to biodiversity by intensive farming practices.

Departmental processes and procedures, it says, are “not in place to address these conflicts or mitigate their negative consequences for the environment”.

The High Level Panel therefore tasks Minister Creecy to engage with DALRRD “to clarify overlapping mandates for welfare and wellbeing” and to request Cabinet to establish an interministerial committee on biodiversity conservation to sort this out.

The report is also concerned about the structural weakness of the NSPCA model. It says it is vastly underresourced, which limits its capacity to deal with wildlife welfare.

It’s a statutory body under the SPCA Act, carrying out an inspectorate and enforcement function, but receives no government funding or support: “Because the NSPCA has to raise its own funds, this results in numerous challenges and potential conflict of interest regarding the undue influence funders may bring to bear on [its] work.”

The High Level Panel proposes a review of the NSPCA model to determine the best mechanism for addressing welfare issues and tasks the department to explore the creation of an integrated wildlife welfare unit.

Deeper questions remain

Whether the new direction of the environment department will actually be implemented or prevail over those of agriculture remains to be seen, but they pose two deeper problems, which the High Level Panel appears not to have contemplated and DALRRD is unlikely to.

Listing all wild animals under agricultural legislation may seem expedient in the face of widespread game farming, but fails to address the wider question about the difference between owning wild animals as a conservation measure and using their body parts as a human resource.

Then there’s the matter of sentience. The High Level Panel acknowledges solid scientific proof that many creatures are indeed sentient and can suffer. This approach is also at the heart of the raft of conservation legislation making its way through the UK Parliament and is accepted by several countries.

If animals are sentient, exploiting them under DFFE’s sustainable use policy (which generally means killing them for their body parts) and the High Level Panel’s approval of hunting (with the possibility of inflicting agony from a hunter’s misplaced shot) must surely amount to legally sanctioned cruelty.

Animals are clearly not Descartes’ auto-matons. They share our awareness of their personal safety, hurt and fear of death. Are we then saying that, as a country, we sanction cruelty to them?

If we are, as it seems, this holds a mirror up to ourselves as a species. It’s not a silly “greenie” question, but a fundamental matter of ethics and a contradiction at the heart of the High Level Panel report that needs attention.

It might be time to convene another parliamentary colloquium on our use of wild animals to hammer out some answers.

Animals are clearly

not Descartes’ automatons. They share our awareness of … safety, hurt and fear of death. Are we then saying that, as a country, we sanction

cruelty to them?