Call to halt proposed removal of Cape Peninsula baboons a rallying cry for a more compassionate approach
The Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA), supported by 34 animal welfare and protection organisations, has issued a strongly worded cease-and-desist letter to the Cape Peninsula Baboon Management Joint Task Team (CPBMJTT) regarding its controversial proposal to remove baboon troops from the Cape Peninsula. The proposal, which includes options such as translocation, sanctuary placement and euthanasia, has been met with fierce opposition from conservationists, animal welfare groups and community organisations.
Violent management practices
The CPBMJTT claims that baboon welfare has regressed due to increased population pressure, limited access to natural foraging areas and escalating human-baboon conflict. The task team has proposed the removal of five splinter baboon troops, citing concerns over resource availability and troop health. However, WAPFSA and other stakeholders argue that these issues stem from human behaviour, urban development and violent management practices, rather than the baboons themselves.
WAPFSA's letter highlights several critical issues with the CPBMJTT's approach. Chief among them have been the ongoing violent management practices. The use of paintball guns and other aversion techniques has been criticised as cruel and ineffective. These methods have allegedly encouraged some residents to take up arms, leading to injuries and deaths among baboons.
The letter also points out that there are legal and ethical violations. The proposal contradicts South Africa's constitutional guarantees of environmental wellbeing and the precautionary principle outlined in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA).
Also, no comprehensive census or analysis of baboon populations has been conducted, raising concerns about the sustainability of the species in the Western Cape and indicating a scientific gap in the process.
Ethical considerations
Baboons are complex agentic beings, analogous to humans. They have the capacity to suffer, share a common evolutionary and biological history, have their own unique cultures and form their own sovereign communities. Studies clearly show that baboons have rich inner lives, including languages and cultures, and recent work in political philosophy shows that they not only form their own communities, but often actively co-shape communities, habitats and relations with humans.
WAPFSA stated: 'The notion of flourishing, when it comes to non-human primates, does not necessarily mean 'in a strictly natural setting', as is the case with many other wild animals. Baboons are to adapt and flourish in urban or quasi-urban settings and thrive in anthropogenically modified habitats.'
The organisation says that 'when it comes to issues of management strategies, baboons warrant a very different approach from the one currently carried out by the CPBMJTT'. They maintain that 'ecologists and government agencies must urgently gain a fundamental understanding of wild animal welfare and wellbeing and the negative effects that their current interventions have'.
And finally, the group has accused the task team of a distinct lack of consultation. Stakeholders, including animal welfare organisations and community groups, were not meaningfully consulted. The Baboon Advisory Group (BAG), established to foster collaboration, has reportedly been sidelined, with decisions presented as a fait accompli.
Francesca de Gasparis, from the Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute (Safcei), who are members of both WAPFSA and BAG, says: 'This response from so-called experts and the powers that be shows a profound lack of understanding of the important role baboons play in the functioning of our fynbos ecosystem, and as a flagship species of Cape Town loved by tourists and residents alike.'
WAPFSA has thus called for the CPBMJTT to cease all plans to remove baboons from the Cape Peninsula. The group wants the task team to reform outdated management policies to align with ethical and legal standards and to implement non-lethal mitigation measures, such as baboon-proof bins and signs as well as to engage in meaningful consultation with stakeholders.
Currently, management practices tend to exclude expert consultation from animal welfare and social scientists.
Coexistence success story
The letter shows that successful non-lethal management initiatives by community organisations, such as the Green Group Simonstown, have demonstrated these effective methods for human-baboon coexistence.
Green Group Simonstown initiated a community-funded pilot project aimed at safeguarding the baboon troops around Simon's Town while also addressing and protecting human interests. The organisation has focused on reducing food attractants and, via the use of monitors, increasing baboon safety. Their goal was to implement alternative baboon management strategies that would set a precedent for compassionate conservation and prompt a reassessment of current practices.
The results have shown significant behavioural improvements. The baboons spent most of their time on the mountain, displaying calm and cohesive behaviour. When they enter urban areas, they prefer natural forage over human waste. This positive change has been achieved without using aggressive deterrents, relying instead on a holistic approach and constant monitoring, leading the troop to settle in natural spaces with minimal incursions into developed areas.
This positive outcome demonstrated the effectiveness of Green Group Simonstown's innovative strategy, which challenges the current practices and emphasises education, waste management and compassionate monitoring, offering a blueprint for sustainable baboon management.
Broader implications
The proposed removal of baboons has sparked wider concerns about human-wildlife conflict and the ethical treatment of sentient beings. WAPFSA argues that baboons, as complex and agentic beings, deserve respect and protection. The organisation calls for a shift towards harmonious multi-species coexistence, emphasising the ecological and cultural importance of baboons in the Western Cape.
WAPFSA's letter serves as a rallying cry for conservationists, animal welfare advocates and concerned citizens to demand a more compassionate and scientifically informed approach to baboon management. The organisation warns that failure to address these concerns could lead to litigation and further harm to both baboons and human communities.
As the debate about baboon management intensifies, the spotlight is on the CPBMJTT to reconsider its strategies and prioritise coexistence over conflict. The future of the Cape Peninsula's baboons – and the integrity of South Africa's conservation policies – hangs in the balance. DM
Dr Adam Cruise is an investigative environmental journalist, travel writer and academic. He has contributed to a number of international publications, including National Geographic and The Guardian, covering diverse topics from the plight of elephants, rhinos and lions in Africa, to coral reef rejuvenation in Indonesia. Cruise is a doctor of philosophy, specialising in animal and environmental ethics, and is the editor of the online Journal of African Elephants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
07-08-2025
- Daily Maverick
SA's trophy hunting quotas spark legal battles and civil society backlash
A fierce battle over South Africa's hunting quotas has erupted, drawing sharp lines between three opposing camps. Animal protection NGOs and conservation groups have sent submissions to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment's (DFFE) Government Gazette for what they call the illegal, unethical and unscientific issuance of hunting quotas. At the same time, pro-hunting groups, led by Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA), have taken legal action against the DFFE for failing to issue quotas for three CITES-listed species – African elephant, black rhinoceros and leopard – for the 2024 and 2025 seasons. The dispute issue has reignited the national debate about conservation, ethics and the future of South Africa's biodiversity economy. Court order On 21 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court ordered Environment Minister Dion George to produce all decision-making records related to the quota process within 10 days. The court also awarded costs against the minister, a move seen as a judicial rebuke of executive inaction. WRSA's press brief accuses the minister of engaging in 'a gross dereliction of duty', warning that the absence of quotas has 'crippled the regulated hunting industry, undermined rural livelihoods, and thrown South Africa's conservation credibility into question'. George responded in a press statement, calling WRSA's 'rhetoric inflammatory and misleading' and saying 'the court has not ruled on the substance of WRSA's application'. NGOs: quotas without science are illegal WRSA's legal offensive and the DFFE have both drawn sharp criticism from animal protection and conservation NGOs, including Humane World for Animals, the EMS Foundation and the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA). These organisations argue that DFFE's failure to publish quotas is not the real problem but a symptom of a deeper breakdown in scientific integrity and public accountability. Humane World for Animals (formerly HSI Africa), which temporarily interdicted the 2022 export of trophies, says the department's prior decisions were 'unlawful' because they were issued without valid non-detriment findings (NDFs) and without proper public consultation, which are requirements under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). For 2022, the DFFE set quotas for 150 elephant, 10 leopard and 10 black rhinoceros trophies. These quotas do not represent actual export volumes since the South African government releases typically report quota allocations, not actual export counts. While exports were temporarily halted in 2022, the hunting of trophies continued unabated. There is no reliable current data on exports, but historically, according to a Humane World for Animals report, from 2014 to 2018 South Africa exported an average of 4,204 trophies per year, representing 16% of global exports. This included 1,337 elephant trophies (about 268 a year), 574 leopard trophies (about 115 a year) and 21 black rhino trophies (about five a year). The EMS Foundation echoed Humane World for Animals' view in its own 51-page objection to previous quota processes, calling them 'arbitrary, opaque, and devoid of transparent ecological reasoning'. The EMSF, supported by WAPFSA (a coalition of more than 30 organisations focused on animal welfare, biodiversity, ethics and public participation), filed formal objections to DFFE's 2024 and 2025 public notices on non-detriment findings (NDFs) for CITES-listed species and for input on the Draft National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES), which presents the government's desire to ramp up trophy hunting to industrial levels. They argued that the public consultation processes and the scientific methodologies were procedurally and substantively flawed, undermining CITES compliance and NEM:BA obligations. The NGO perspectives counterbalance industry-led claims, stressing ecosystem and welfare-centred conservation, and demand timely, transparent governmental response. Their involvement signals potential avenues for amicus support, broader civil society litigation or independent scientific intervention should the case escalate further. Legal framing: action vs inaction Despite their common focus on the DFFE's governance failures, WRSA and the NGOs present diametrically opposed legal arguments: WRSA Legal position: The DFFE's failure to issue quotas is unlawful; Objective: Compel the minister to act. NGOs Legal position: The DFFE's prior issuance of quotas without legal basis is unlawful; Objective: Block quota decisions lacking science and consultation. In short, WRSA's litigation attacks ministerial inaction, while the NGOs challenge unlawful action. Challenge in the Constitutional Court In another major legal development, the South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association has launched a Constitutional Court challenge against provisions in the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act 2 of 2022. These contested provisions introduced a definition of 'animal wellbeing' into South Africa's biodiversity legislation, a move the association claims is problematic. It is asking the court to declare these provisions either invalid or temporarily suspended. The DFFE, listed as one of the respondents, has stated that the legislative process was complied with constitutional and administrative requirements, and asserts that public participation was facilitated adequately, and thus there was no procedural irregularity worthy of invalidation. Animal protection groups have again responded with fierce opposition. The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA), also a respondent in the case, firmly opposes the challenge, describing the wellbeing definition as essential, constitutionally sound and reflective of both animal sentience and international obligations. In late 2024, the NSPCA secured a high court interdict after learning SA Hunters had allegedly tried to reach a private settlement without involving key stakeholders. The NSPCA has since formally joined the Constitutional Court proceedings and filed its opposition, labelling the challenge as legally flawed and procedurally opportunistic. Similarly, the EMSF (also a respondent) has called on all state respondents, including the minister, to reject the challenge. EMSF argues that the wellbeing provisions are justified, scientifically grounded and necessary for effective wildlife protection – warning that their removal would undermine both conservation and legal integrity. What's at stake? The outcome of these challenges could redefine the legal responsibilities of the state in managing South Africa's wildlife. The wellbeing definition before the Constitutional Court plays a key role in shaping these legal reforms and views the provisions as vital for protecting wildlife from cruelty and neglect. The NGOs maintain that the new laws empower the minister to act on evidence of harm and apply a precautionary approach – critical for ethical wildlife governance. In the other case, a ruling compelling the department to publish quotas may force transparency, but could also deepen the rift between industry and civil society over what kind of wildlife economy the country should pursue. The NGOs warn that without robust processes, the DFFE risks turning quotas into rubber stamps for an unsustainable and exploitative system. With the minister now legally required to disclose internal records behind the quota delays, the next phase of litigation could expose how quota decisions – or indecisions – were made. WRSA has already hinted at further action, including potential contempt applications, if the department fails to comply. As South Africa balances conservation, economic development, ethical consideration and public accountability, these legal battles offer more than just a clash over hunting – they are a litmus test for the future of biodiversity governance in the country. DM Dr Adam Cruise is an investigative environmental journalist, travel writer and academic. He has contributed to a number of international publications, including National Geographic and The Guardian, covering diverse topics from the plight of elephants, rhinos and lions in Africa, to coral reef rejuvenation in Indonesia. Cruise is a doctor of philosophy, specialising in animal and environmental ethics, and is the editor of the online Journal of African Elephants.
The Citizen
03-08-2025
- The Citizen
Ban on new captive lion facilities draws criticism and praise
Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Dion George recently confirmed that a prohibition notice outlawing the establishment of new captive lion facilities for commercial purposes was moving towards formal promulgation under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (No. 10 of 2004), known as Nemba. 'We are committed to enforcing clear, effective and legally robust measures that protect South Africa's natural heritage and address concerns raised by the public, conservation experts and stakeholders,' George said in a press statement. He added that his department intended to implement these reforms without delay. Steps to ensure this will happen included engaging with provincial members of the Executive Council under Section 87A(3) of Nemba. Criticism from sustainable use sector Speaking to Farmer's Weekly, Pieter Swart, chairperson of the executive committee of the Sustainable Use Coalition Southern Africa (SUCo-SA), said a blanket prohibition, particularly on new facilities without performance-based criteria, undermined the sustainable use model by shutting down legally compliant and potentially high-welfare operations. 'SUCo-SA views the prohibition as fundamentally at odds with the principles of sustainable use as articulated under both the [Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora] framework and the SADC Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement. These frameworks emphasise the regulated, science-based and equitable use of wildlife resources for the benefit of conservation and local livelihoods,' he explained. Swart added that the ban could cause significant disruption to the broader wildlife economy and integrated wildlife value chains. These included live animal trade, particularly for tourism and zoological purposes; consumptive uses, such as trophy hunting and the bone trade, non-consumptive uses like photographic tourism and breeding-for-display; and support services like logistics, feed, security and veterinary care. According to him, investor confidence in the broader wildlife economy may weaken if other sectors feared being targeted without due process. 'SUCo-SA's position is that this decision was not adequately grounded in science or socio-economic impact assessment, nor was it preceded by genuine, inclusive stakeholder consultation. 'We urge government to conduct public socio-economic impact assessments, commission peer-reviewed ecological risk-benefit analyses, and adopt transparent stakeholder forums where industry, rural communities and scientists co-develop policy. 'Sound biodiversity policy must integrate evidence, ethics, and economics, not ideology,' he said. Swart added that SUCo-SA believed captive lion facilities still had a legitimate role to play. 'This is particularly [so] in conservation education and outreach, research under ethical frameworks, and a regulated trade, where welfare standards and biosecurity are enforced. The focus should be on improving standards and enforcement, not eliminating legal activities altogether.' Cautious optimism from conservationists Dr Louise de Waal, director and campaign manager of the documentary Blood Lions, said George's announcement on the progress of the prohibition notice for new captive lion facilities was a step in the right direction and showed his commitment to ultimately phasing out the industry. 'We applaud the minister for his commitment to seeing former minister [Barbara] Creecy's vision, to stop the domestication of our iconic lion, through to its conclusion. However, we would like to see more urgency in setting a moratorium on breeding lions, in addition to this prohibition notice, to have a greater impact on curbing the growth of the captive lion population. Currently, thousands of lions and other predators are kept in substandard captive conditions and used for financial gain,' she said. De Waal said the delay in implementing the prohibition notice was frustrating: 'There appears to be a misunderstanding that the industry will be banned in its entirety, but the prohibition notice, while a step in the right direction, will not be a blanket ban. 'Once the prohibition notice is in place, it will only curb the growth of the industry. The breeding, keeping, and trading of captive-bred lions will remain legal for now, which means the industry continues to exist.' Asked how long it would take to root out the captive lion industry entirely, De Waal responded: 'How long is a piece of string? For the industry to be made illegal, the minister will need to change existing legislation, which will most likely take about two years due to the procedural process that needs to be adhered to. This will then be followed by a phase-out process of the industry, which could take another five years or so.' She explained that phasing out an industry that had been allowed to grow for decades couldn't happen overnight and that it needed to be done responsibly for both the animals and people involved. 'In addition, we are hopeful that the minister will extend the closure of the industry to other big cats, so we will not be facing a similar problem in the near future with just a different species, like tigers. 'Unfortunately, the past has proven that this industry indeed includes actors who are willing to take the illegal route and those people will most likely not be deterred by the closure of the industry. Illegal wildlife trade is a global issue that requires specialist enforcement agencies to work together. Under our current law enforcement system, this will be extremely challenging to be rooted out altogether,' De Waal concluded. Breaking news at your fingertips… Follow Caxton Network News on Facebook and join our WhatsApp channel. Nuus wat saakmaak. Volg Caxton Netwerk-nuus op Facebook en sluit aan by ons WhatsApp-kanaal. Read original story on
The South African
16-07-2025
- The South African
Captive lion breeding in South Africa to be BANNED
The Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment has taken steps toward ending captive lion breeding in South Africa, marking a major shift in the country's approach to wildlife conservation and animal welfare. Minister Dr Dion George confirmed on Tuesday that the department is finalising the Prohibition Notice that will officially ban the establishment of new commercial captive lion breeding facilities across the country. 'This marks a turning point in our approach to wildlife conservation,' said George. 'We are committed to enforcing clear, effective, and legally robust measures that protect South Africa's natural heritage.' The new policy forms part of strengthened regulations under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA), 2004 and is guided by the Ministerial Task Team Report and the Policy Position on the sustainable use of elephants, lions, leopards, and rhinoceroses. The Prohibition Notice aligns with international conservation norms and public demands to end the unethical breeding and exploitation of lions for profit – particularly in canned hunting and the bone trade. Following its tabling in the National Council of Provinces (NCOP) on 10 June 2025, the mandatory 30-day consideration period has now elapsed, clearing the way for official promulgation by the Executive Authority. The department is now engaging with provincial Members of the Executive Council (MECs) under Section 87A (3) of NEM:BA to coordinate implementation and enforcement at local levels. Further updates are expected during stakeholder engagements, including the upcoming G20 Environment and Climate Sustainability Working Group meeting taking place in the Kruger National Park. The ban also forms part of broader efforts to overhaul the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations, with a sharper focus on animal well-being, biodiversity protection, and practical enforcement. 'We are building a regulatory foundation that prioritises animal well-being. The department remains fully committed to finalising and implementing these reforms without delay,' George stated. The move is being seen as a clear message to the global conservation community: South Africa is working to phase out unethical wildlife exploitation and reposition itself as a leader in sustainable, ethical biodiversity management. The final Prohibition Notice is expected to be gazetted in the coming weeks. Once enforced, it will prevent the opening of any new captive lion breeding facilities, although existing operations may still fall under separate review and transitional frameworks. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 1 Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news.
