The welfare of our captive wildlife falls into a gap between laws

The number of lions bred and kept in captivity for commercial purposes such as trophy hunting, the lion bone trade and tourist interactions has doubled over the past 10 years. Rough estimates from the department of environment, forestry & fisheries (DEFF) account for 8,000 captive-bred lions in 300 facilities in SA.

The exact number of captive wild animals in the country remains unknown. And, unfortunately, the welfare regulation of these animals falls short. The wellbeing of wild animals cannot be extricable from good conservation. Yet, increasing reports of cruelty in captive wildlife facilities are placing SA’s tourism and conservation reputation in jeopardy. Moreover, they cast a grim spotlight on the glaring holes in the country’s laws regarding these animals.

A new policy guide outlining the minimum measures needed to improve the welfare protection of wild animals — both captive and free — aims to achieve urgent national standardisation. The guide, released by the Centre for Environmental Rights and the Endangered Wildlife Trust, follows an eye-opening seminal report last year assessing the shortfalls.

SA’s regulatory system currently considers animal welfare and biodiversity conservation as two disconnected mandates, regulated separately and by different laws. Conservation laws applicable to wild animals under the physical control of humans are unsuited to addressing the welfare of those wild animals. Welfare laws, on the other hand, do not necessarily consider conservation objectives.

Due to a proliferation of facilities that undertake the captive management of wildlife for commercial purposes, the gap has allowed for abuse and cruelty, with neither the DEFF nor agricultural authorities taking responsibility.

This is despite repeated court rulings confirming that welfare is a pillar of conservation and that it must be considered when making any decisions affecting wildlife. Thus far the onus has fallen on the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) to monitor welfare violations. However, a lack of specific standard regulations or legal protection for exotic wild animals, for example, has hindered effective implementation.

A clear mandate must be established as a matter of urgency. Either the Deff should be fully mandated as the responsible authority for wild animal welfare, with the department of agriculture being responsible for domestic animal welfare, or a clear joint mandate should be given to both departments.

Either way, the laws and practices of provincial conservation authorities will need to be aligned with the updated laws. This would require standardisation of provincial legislation across SA’s nine provinces to ensure that laws and permit allocations for restricted activities in respect of wild animals are executed consistently across the board.

Standard national regulations, as well as permit allocations, should align with all necessary conservation guidelines.

The coming National Environmental Management Biodiversity Bill introduces a new biodiversity objective: “The use of indigenous biological resources in a manner that is ecologically sustainable, including taking into account the wellbeing of any faunal biological resource involved.” It is critical that legal certainty on the full welfare mandate in respect of all animals be provided by legislation that will give effect to this objective once the bill is passed.

Monitoring and enforcement must be prioritised, with dedicated funding and support, in order to apply the legal imperatives.

All national and provincial conservation officers will need to be fully trained in the correct implementation of the relevant legislation, standard procedures and guidelines. Currently, environmental management inspectors undergo training in compliance and enforcement of national conservation legislation, but not on any welfare issues, due to the lack of legislative mandate.

The training and accreditation of other welfare societies, as well as the environmental management inspectors, in order to afford them the same powers, would assist in the capacity issues faced by the NSPCA and SPCA branches.

A more balanced allocation of the limited budget is needed; one that not only focuses on combating wildlife crimes but presents a balanced allocation of funds to staff, regular training and resources nationally and provincially.

The objective is clear: SA’s captive wildlife needs better protection for the sake of the animals involved, but also for conservation of the country’s unique biodiversity.

Only with co-operation, assistance and determination from the relevant government departments and civil society will this change be possible.