Report to the Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism

Panel of Experts on Professional and Recreational Hunting in South Africa

25 October 2005

Executive Summary

1. Introduction
The Minister of Environmental Affairs, Marthinus van Schalkwyk, appointed a Panel of Experts to draft norms and standards for the hunting industry in June 2005. Individuals were appointed on the basis of their expertise in a range of areas that affect and are affected by the hunting industry including wildlife management, community involvement, transformation, biodiversity conservation and sustainable use.

The Panel was tasked to provide advice to the Minister on norms and standards for the hunting industry. This advice was to be informed by public inputs and submissions, and research commissioned to look into specific areas. Two public hearings were held. The first was to receive submissions from registered interested and affected parties and the second was to present the findings of the research papers. Forty-one written submissions were received and 28 oral submissions were heard on 11th and 12th August 2005. Four research papers were commissioned by the Panel, investigating the status quo of the hunting industry, the regulation of the industry, its conservation impacts and international best practice.

This executive summary provides an overview of the Panel’s recommendations, the detailed analysis and motivation for which are to be found in the body of the report.

The Panel has made its recommendations within the context of the principles and framework set out in the South African Constitution, the body of laws regulating biodiversity in South Africa, and international agreements to which South Africa is a signatory. The Panel has also been guided in its assessment of each issue placed before it by three broad sets of principles. The first set of principles relates to the sustainable use of wildlife, which seeks to ensure that any practices associated with hunting do not compromise the long-term survival and viability of a particular species or ecosystem. This is essential to preserve the natural resource base on which the hunting industry depends.

The second principle relates to the humane treatment of animals, as set out in the Animal Protection Act, and whether the outcome of any practice that affects a wild animal, planned or not, is considered an offence in terms of the Animal Protection Act. A third principle relates to ethical hunting and in particular, the principle of fair chase, which is the foundation of the professional hunting industry. While this is not necessarily a matter of national regulatory concern, adherence to the principle of fair chase is important for the integrity and standing of the industry.

2. Recommendations

Intensive versus extensive production systems
There are considerable differences between extensive and intensive wildlife production systems. An extensive system contains largely self sustaining indigenous wildlife populations on natural habitats with minimum human intervention. Intensive systems, on the other hand, are reliant on human intervention, and are considered as agricultural production systems. The role of hunting differs accordingly. In the former, the hunting industry has created the basis for many livestock production units to convert to extensive wildlife production, and hunting is both a revenue-earner and a tool to support conservation management objectives. As a result of the economic opportunities presented by potential trophy animals, the Panel has found that there is a tendency for these economic objectives to override the conservation management objectives. The Panel therefore recommends that each extensive wildlife production units be managed according to scientifically-based management plans that are set out in terms of conservation management objectives and off-take of species for hunting purposes be in accordance with these. The Panel further recommends that nationally uniform guidelines on the format and methodology for these management plans be drawn up for the provinces to distribute to the owners of the extensive wildlife production units.

In terms of intensive wildlife production units, the Panel found that hunting does not support any conservation objectives. Furthermore, the hunting of animals in or originating from intensive wildlife productions systems, as well as the supply of these animals to other wildlife units for the purposes of hunting, is, in general, not compatible with the principle of fair chase. For the purposes of protecting the integrity of the hunting profession, and the reputation of the country in this regard, hunting should not be permitted within intensive production systems. Where animals that have been intensively bred but not genetically manipulated become self-sustaining on extensive wildlife production systems, their hunting can be allowed once they are self-sustaining. Furthermore, since intensive production wildlife production is a form of agricultural production, the standards and legislation that apply to livestock production should apply to it. In particular, the requirements of the Meat Safety Act and Animal Protection Act would be applicable when considering the handling of meat, slaughtering methods, and hygienic facilities required to ensure the prevention of the occurrence or spread of disease.

The research commissioned by the panel, furthermore, highlighted serious biodiversity impacts arising from the transfer of animals from intensive to extensive wildlife production systems. There is overwhelming evidence that selective breeding of animals for trophy hunting, genetic manipulation, import of alien species and introduction of animals outside their natural ranges, amongst others, is having a profoundly negative impact on the long term integrity of South Africa’s biodiversity and the viability of ecosystems. The Panel has therefore recommended that the transfer of animals from intensive to extensive wildlife production systems should only be permitted for conservation purposes, on the basis of proper scientific research, and only if certain risks (such as disease transmission, genetic mixing and release of inferior specimens) are not present.

Captive-bred animals
The principle of fair chase is not compatible with the hunting of captive-bred animals unless they have become self-sustaining on extensive wildlife production units. In general, the practice of hunting captive bred animals should be disallowed. This will have serious implications for the many captive breeding facilities that currently service the hunting industry. Some captive breeding facilities may be able to remain commercially viable as intensive systems servicing the biltong and game products markets provided that they comply with the requirements of the Meat Safety Act. The Panel recommends that strict and clear criteria and standards be developed in permitting the continuation or establishment of captive breeding facilities that purport to support biodiversity conservation through the provision of scientific services and endangered species support. Moreover, the Panel advocates that these facilities be required to establish and improve their record-keeping by way of nationally uniform minimum standards studbooks and DNA fingerprinting.

Import, translocation and genetic manipulation of wildlife
The potential biodiversity impact arising from the import of alien species, the translocation of indigenous species to areas outside their normal regions of occurrence and the genetic manipulation of species and subspecies, are matters of serious concern.

In terms of the import of alien species for the sole purposes of hunting, the Panel recommends that the Minister place a ban on the import of all alien species for hunting purposes.

In terms of the translocation of indigenous species, the Panel recommends the prohibition of the translocation of species outside their range zones. Strategies should also be considered to contain the spread of indigenous species currently living beyond their natural ecological historical range zone.

Breeding practices that involve the genetic manipulation of species and subspecies that are released into extensive wildlife production systems for hunting purposes are not consistent with the country’s biodiversity conservation objectives. Unfortunately, this has already had a serious impact on many extensive systems. Steps must be taken urgently to prevent the spread of such animals to new areas. The Panel also recommends that the hunting of genetically manipulated animals in the extensive systems where they occur is phased out.

Gamebird Hunting
The Panel established that gamebird hunting is a unique form of hunting that has the potential to develop into a lucrative trophy hunting sport but that it needs to be regulated differently from mammalian hunting due to the substantial differences between the two forms of hunting. It should be regulated by the agricultural sector unless there are conservation or biodiversity implications, especially where the hunted bird is a rare or threatened species. Under these circumstances, an additional permit is required from the relevant provincial conservation authority. The report contains further recommendations on how permitting should be done.

Put-and-take and canned hunting
The Panel recommends that both these practices should be prohibited as they compromise the principle of fair chaise and the humane treatment of animals. Furthermore, “put-and-take” also poses threats to biodiversity conservation given the risks such as disease transmission, genetic mixing and release of inferior specimens in moving an animal from an intensive to an extensive wildlife production system for the purposes of hunting.

Bow hunting
The Panel recommends that national guidelines be established, which can then be adopted by the provinces so that there is a uniform approach to bow hunting. The report contains an overview of issues that guidelines should address.

“Green” hunting
In terms of “green” hunting, the repeated darting of an animal for commercial purposes is considered an inhumane practice. There needs to be a clear distinction between, and separation of, darting for scientific and management purposes, and the practice of hunting for commercial gain. The report provides parameters for acceptable darting practices and recommends that uniform guidelines be developed which can be implemented at provincial level.

Other hunting methods
In terms of hunting with dogs, the use of dogs for tracking and retrieval of a hunted (dead or wounded) animal is considered an acceptable practice. Hunting by means of packs of dogs is considered an inhumane practice and should be prohibited. Prohibitions on any other methods that are also in contravention of the principle of humane treatment of wild animals are recommended. This includes canned hunting and the use of traps, snares and poison. Furthermore, methods such as bright lights, luring sounds, the use of bait and hunting from vehicles are believed to compromise the principle of fair chase.

Hunting in protected areas
The system of national and provincial parks in South Africa accords the highest level of conservation to areas of unique biodiversity significance. These parks are mostly on publicly owned land, although the Protected Areas Act does provide for the incorporation of privately owned land into such parks on a contractual basis. The national and provincial parks systems are important not only for biodiversity conservation – they also provide a unique experience for the persons visiting them, and there is “sense of place” and an experience of nature that should be protected in these areas.

The Panel is of the view that commercial hunting practices should be prohibited on publicly owned land in national and provincial parks (this includes special nature reserves, national parks and nature reserves as per the Protected Areas Act definitions). The Panel acknowledges that there is a need to manage population numbers in these reserves and recommends that where culling is required it should be undertaken by the public authority in charge and not made available on concession.

Where contractual parks have been established with private landowners and communities, or where fences between private land and national and provincial parks have been removed, the Panel is of the opinion that limited forms of hunting can be allowed subject to the agreement of the conservation authority in charge of the park, the establishment of a proper management plan, and scientifically based off-take. Similar arrangements should apply to hunting in protected environments outside of the parks system.

Industry Transformation
During the course of the Panel’s work, it became evident that the level of transformation within the hunting industry is extremely low. At the same time, there are many opportunities for promoting or advancing transformation of the hunting industry. These include options for greater community involvement in hunting, greater ownership of extensive wildlife production units by previously disadvantaged individuals and employment opportunities in all high skilled occupations associated with both the hunting industry and its ancillary industries.

This transformation must be promoted through a number of processes: a Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Charter and Score-card, a skills development strategy and an assortment of support strategies for communities that either currently own land or are to acquire land that has extensive wildlife production potential.

Damage-Causing Animals
While damage causing animals are a serious problem for communities and farmers living adjacent to parks and game reserves, efforts to solve the problem by contracting it out to commercial hunters have led to some DCAs being declared artificially. The Panel strongly recommends that DCAs be dealt with under a separate policy process, and that no DCA should be hunted or be dealt with through a hunting concession.

Legal and Institutional Issues
The regulation of hunting is a concurrent legislative competence in terms of the Constitution. There are already extensive regulations in place at a provincial level governing the hunting industry, but these are often inconsistent, outdated and fragmented. There is a serious gap in terms of the overall coherence of the system nationally, and a unified framework is needed to create the context within which provincial regulations can function. The Panel recommends that uniformity is established through a set of national norms and standards which will guide the implementation of both national and provincial policy and legislation. While the industry will continue to be regulated by means of the existing statutory provisions, this will only happen to the extent that those provisions conform to the national norms and standards.

The legal basis for biodiversity management in South Africa has been established through the Biodiversity Act, and it is recommended that the national norms and standards are promulgated in terms of regulations under the Act. The Act allows for the listing of protected and endangered species and the making of regulations in regard to listed species. It is therefore proposed that the regulations apply initially to only those species that have been listed in terms of the Act, or in terms of provincial legislation. The Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism will publish a draft list of species for public comment shortly. It should be noted that provincial lists are already quite extensive.

a. Self-regulation
The Panel recognises that there is a need for the Minister to formally recognise national representative organisations that stand for the interests of the professional hunting, recreational hunting and associated industries. The role of these organisations would be to ensure that its members adhere to acceptable codes of conduct and ethics, that it establishes a suitable accreditation system which becomes the basis for granting permits to professional hunters and outfitters, and that industry reports are submitted to the Minister on an annual basis consistent with the national reporting system.

b. Systems for a national regulatory framework
The Panel has made recommendations regarding quota setting, permitting, independent monitoring and compliance and enforcement. In general, the basis for the proposed regulatory system is a process of regular scientific assessments and monitoring of species and ecosystems, on the basis of which species are identified and listed in terms of their status as protected, vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered, and annual off-take limits are set in order to ensure that the long-term survival and viability of both species or ecosystems is assured.

In terms of quota setting, a precautionary approach should in general be followed, and no new quotas or licenses are granted for species where the status of these species in the wild is not known or is uncertain. For vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered species a moratorium on off-takes may be necessary, at least for certain geographic sub-populations (and therefore certain provinces), until and if further scientific research informs us differently. Population and Habitat Viability Assessments (or equivalent assessments) should be conducted for these listed threatened and protected species as soon as possible to ensure that any off-take quotas permitted are based on current, reliable information, and are sustainable given the ecology, geographic distribution and population trends of the species.

In terms of permitting, the provinces will continue to be the authorities responsible for the issuing of permits, but their decision-making processes relating to the issuing of hunting and hunting related permits will be required to comply with the national norms and standards. The national department will need to assess whether the provincial authorities have the administrative capacity to implement the norms and standards and, where they do not, to support them in fulfilling their obligations.

There is currently no national system for monitoring the conservation status of species, although the Biodiversity Act has allocated responsibility for such monitoring to the South African National Biodiversity Institute. A scientific basis for regulating the hunting industry will depend crucially on information collection and monitoring of conservation status and species’ trends, and there is an urgent need for the collection of national data that is related to the wildlife industry. The Panel believes that it is appropriate for such a monitoring system to be independent of the authorities that are charged with permitting and regulating the system, and recommends that SANBI proceeds to establish such a system forthwith.

Capacity

a. Industry Capacity
There is a need for greater co-operation between government, industry, and training institutions to plan for the training of previously disadvantaged persons to find gainful employment in all occupations associated with the hunting industry. This could be achieved through the development of a national skills strategy. Strategies would include the provision of bursaries to black learners to study wildlife management science to a first-level graduate level, the recognition of prior learning among current trackers and skinners through the introduction of the hunting guide qualification and incentives to encourage industry to make skills development programmes and learnerships available to previously disadvantaged individuals.

b. Government capacity
The Panel has noted that the resources and capacities of the provincial nature conservation departments vary, and that only a few provincial authorities have extension officers that are able to interface with wildlife producers and hunting organisations. Given the importance of the hunting industry to many provincial economies, and the importance of protecting the ecological reserve that supports the industry, all provinces should have at their disposal the necessary tools to regulate the wildlife industry and by implication, the hunting industry. These tools include adequate financial resources, human resources, equipment, operational procedures and an enabling organisational culture.

The Panel recommends a capacity and training needs assessment to gauge the capacity within public institutions, and to assess whether government officials, at all spheres of government, are able to fulfil their responsibilities with regard to policy and regulatory oversight. The Panel is of the view that this will be of great benefit to both broad public interest and the wildlife industry since a well managed and maintained governance system reduces transaction costs and supports positive environmental, economic and social benefits.

Institutional arrangements
During the course of the Panel’s work it became evident that there is a need for a more systematic engagement between the hunting industry, government and stakeholders at both national and provincial level. The Panel recommends that the newly established wildlife forum should be continued, and made more representative of the different role-players that interface with the hunting industry. The Panel is of the view that a greater level of stakeholder involvement in the science and research process will be beneficial to both the regulatory process and the industry, and recommends the establishment of a research forum under the auspices of SANBI that can assist the ongoing scientific research required for a scientific-based approach to wildlife management. Lastly, the Panel recommends that existing intergovernmental structures such as the Committee for Environmental Co-ordination and MinMEC are used on an ongoing basis to address relevant hunting issues, ensure synergy of policy, and the effective application of the norms and standards. The Panel also recognises the need for greater co-operation with the law enforcement arm of government, and recommends that these bodies be the formal structures through which these arms of government are engaged on legal matters related to the professional and recreational hunting industry.

Funding
The proper regulation of the hunting industry as set out above will require additional financial resources. The hunting industry should in part contribute to such resources, in the interests of an effective regulatory system. The current system of permitting involves the payment of permit fees, but these vary widely between the provinces. It is recommended that permit fees are standardized across the provinces, and that a conservation fee is levied on all permits issued in order to support the monitoring and assessment process.

The Panel recommends that a detailed proposal is drawn up and submitted to the National Treasury regarding the viability of establishing a conservation fund that can be used to fund scientific assessments, monitoring and broad level conservation extension services.