A number of wild animal species were previously declared as wild breeds and/or locally adapted and regularly introduced breeds (other declared breeds) for purposes of the AIA. l SUPPLIED
Durban - The Endangered Wildlife Trust (EWT) has welcomed a recent decision by the North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria to review and set aside a decision to include a number of wild animal species as breeds in the Animal Improvement Act 62 of 1998 (AIA).
A part of the EWT’s concern was that the species in question, notably deer, were not indigenous to the country.
This followed the publication of two amendments to Tables 7(a) and 7(b) of the AIA Regulations by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) and the Department of Forestries Fisheries and Environment (DFFE).
In terms of the amendments, a number of wild animal species were declared as landrace breeds and/or locally adapted and regularly introduced breeds (other declared breeds) for purposes of the AIA.
Some of the wild animal species include: black wildebeest, blue wildebeest, bontebok, gemsbok, impala, roan antelope, sable antelope, springbok, rau quagga zebra, Cape buffalo, Burchell’s zebra, Cape mountain zebra, Hartman’s mountain zebra, giraffe, white rhinoceros, black rhinoceros, lion, cheetah, deer, white-tailed deer, red deer, fallow deer, mule deer, roe deer and black-tailed deer.
The EWT launched its application in January 2020 seeking to review and set aside the decision to list wild animals in the AIA. Ashleigh Dore, EWT Wildlife and Law project manager, said the grounds for their review included legitimate, substantive and procedural concerns.
These included but were not limited to their claim that there was neither inclusive public participation, nor had any intergovernmental consultation and participation taken place.
“The amendments also failed to consider materially relevant information about the environmental impacts of this decision and that the inclusion of wild animal species as ‘breeds’ to be managed by the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development is contrary to the objects and purposes of section 24 of the Constitution, the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (Nema), the National Environmental Management Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (Nemba) and the AIA itself.”
Dore added that they didn’t support the proliferation of intensive wildlife breeding facilities which they believed provided no demonstrable conservation benefit.
“We recognise the value that wildlife ranching and ecologically sustainable use of wildlife brings to South Africa. “We support wildlife conservation practices that, within the scope of the law in South Africa, promote the ecologically sustainable use of wild animals in natural, free-living conditions.
“We do not support the increasing tendency for industrial scale production and management of South African wildlife where these practices are not in line with the principles of ecologically sustainable use; have no conservation benefit; and/or where general wildlife wellbeing concerns are prevalent,” she said.
Albi Modise, spokesperson for Department of Forestries Fisheries and Environment, said the department didn’t oppose EWT’s court application. “We take note of the relief granted.
However, the department is unable to give a detailed response, as it hasn’t yet received the formal judgment, and has therefore not had the opportunity to familiarise itself with the contents of the judgment and its implications.” Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development had not commented by deadline.
SUNDAY TRIBUNE
Related Topics: