Committee Report on Norms & Standards for trophy hunting of leopards

Meeting report

The Chairperson advised Members that the Committee had been sent reports which came from the provinces on the subject matter on the norms and standards for the trophy hunting of Leopards in South Africa. She asked whether Members would go through the reports province-by-province. The emphasis was on finding out whether there were contraventions between the national norms and standards and provincial regulations. If there was not, then the NCOP can pass the norms and standards.

Ms W Ngwenya (ANC, Gauteng) pointed out that the Members need to know how many provinces supported the documents. Maybe it is better if the Chairperson calls province-by-province so that Members know how many provinces supported and how many did not. She was concerned about time.

The Chairperson asked Mr Kobus Jooste, Committee’s Content Advisor, to explain more about this regulation which is before the Committee and what the Committee is expected to do regarding regulations.

Mr Jooste noted that he will summarise the submissions he received from the provinces. The legislation is on the norms and standards for the trophy hunting of Leopards in South Africa and the way the NCOP considers regulations is not the same as Section 76 pieces of legislation that requires provincial mandates.

 The instruction that provinces receive after a briefing from the Department is to check with their legislation to determine whether there is any clash or challenges between the national legislation and the provincial or municipal regulations or legislation. Provinces can then comment and flag matters to be revised. What is ultimate looked for is whether there is any clash with the provincial or local legislation or regulation.

Five provinces responded and the comments were sent to the department. These provinces were Limpopo, Western Cape, Mpumalanga, Gauteng, and Free State:
Limpopo did not highlight any clashes - it supported and made suggestions.
Western Cape did not highlight any clashes - it supported and made suggestions.
Mpumalanga did not highlight any clashes - it supported and but made the ambiguous response and asked if public participation suggestions are considered.
Gauteng did not highlight any clashes - it supported and made suggestions.
Free State did not highlight any clashes - it supported and made suggestions.

Ms L Bebee (ANC, KZN) noted that her worry is about KZN and she advised the Committee that when she inquired about KZN, it said the Department was supposed to brief it on 3 November 2020 but there was a clash with the sitting and so the briefing never took place and there was no follow up. She asked who is supposed to do the follow-up and who is at fault.

The Chairperson said there cannot be such delays.

Mr A Cloete (FF+, Free State) read the reports and there were certain substantive matters raised, for example, in the Mpumalanga report. What happens in this case?

Ms Bebee interjected and said KZN had just briefed her that it will be meeting with the department the next day at noon.

Ms C Labuschagne (DA, Western Cape) wanted to know in what way the provinces are made to understand that they need to check whether the national norms and standards are in conflict with provincial regulations. This is not the first time this matter has been raised in the Committee. Mpumalanga made an argument that animal welfare is based on the court case when in the sanctuary, animal welfare is taken into account. Considering what Mpumalanga has said, will this be adjusted and will it be done as there is a court case?

Ms Ngwenya noted that in terms of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (Act No. 10 of 2004), Gauteng province supports the norms and standards without any conflict or challenges.

Mr N Nhanha (DA, Eastern Cape) was concerned that the Committee seemed to be rushing matters. The Committee should allow the department to address the extension matter and whether there is time so that provinces left out are given time to engage.

Ms Ngwenya said that according to her understanding, the Committee does not have time as the timeframe was the end of March. There are five provinces that have reported and KZN would soon submit a report. What are the other provinces saying? Time is against the Committee.

The Chairperson agreed that there is no time. The norms and standards were presented in June 2020. The provinces were given ample time. It is unfortunate that the province not briefed by the Department did not seek help from the NCOP.  The Committee has a lot of legislation on its plate and if matters were continuously postponed, it would not finish its work. The rules say five provinces need to support the regulations for the NCOP to pass it. Regarding whether the provinces understand what they were mandated to do in this case, each legislature has legal advisors to explain this. if the provinces do not understand, then they must ask questions to thoroughly understand.

Mr T Matibe (ANC, Limpopo) wanted to understand the challenges with the other provinces. The department must make this clear to the Committee.

Ms Skumsa Ntshanga, Chief Director: Biodiversity Management and Permitting, Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), said the principle of the Department was to accommodate requests for consultation or any additional information requested of the Department. Only Mpumalanga requested engagement through a public participation process. All other provinces, except KZN, did not request participation. KZN however has since communicated and the briefing would take place with the legislature on the next day.

In respect of welfare, the Minister does not have the mandate to legislate on welfare. However, given the outcome of the court case, the situation might change once the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment (NEMLA) Bill is promulgated because it gives the Minister power over biological resources. Once the Bill comes into effect as law, the Department would be in a position to legislate on these resources. Once the Minister takes acceptance of the high-level panel [established to review policies, legislation and related practices on the management, breeding, hunting, trade and handling of elephant, lion, leopard and rhinoceros] report, the necessary legal provisions will be considered.  

The Department had received reports from the other provinces and if given time, the Department can make reflections on some of the comments made. Most provinces support the norms and standards and made suggestions on areas to be improved. Those provinces would be further engaged on these proposals. Most of the recommendations can be accommodated, broadly. The Department will also develop an implementation plan/guidelines to further assist the provinces – some of the comments made can be accommodated therein. There is also a need to conduct roadshows prior to the commencement of the norms and standards to improve awareness knowledge and promote public participation. The Department is confident it can address the concerns and comments raised. Specific organisations would also be engaged where there might not be agreement.

Ms Magdel Boshoff, Deputy Director: Threatened pr Protected Species Policy Development, DEA, said provision was made for the Department to develop and maintain a register that would contain information on permits issued, the number thereof etc.

The Chairperson thanked the Department for coming to the meeting and for its responses. If other provinces still want the Department on the norms and standards, this can be done.

The Report on the norms and standards for trophy hunting of leopards was adopted.  

Other Business
The Committee considered and adopted the minutes of its previous meeting.

The meeting was adjourned.