New Government “guidelines” for the management of damage-causing animals in South Africa is a regressive step. Herewith are the detailed comments developed for Landmark Foundation by Bool Smuts.
Landmark Foundation’s Submission on the Draft Guidelines for the Management of Damage-Causing Animals in South Africa
Government Notice №7650 | Government Gazette №54938 | 2 July 2026
Landmark Foundation Trust (NPO 039–416)
31 July 2026
Table of Contents
1.1 The submitting organisation. 5
1.2 Purpose and scope of this submission. 5
Chapter 2 — Constitutional and Legislative Framework. 7
2.1 Animal welfare legislation operates concurrently. 7
Chapter 3 — The Legal Form of the Instrument 9
3.1 The notice identifies no empowering provision. 9
3.2 The reason advanced for the change of instrument does not withstand examination. 9
3.3 The Schedule allocates its mandatory language to the wrong provisions. 10
3.4 The enforcement mechanism relied upon is not provided for in the Schedule. 11
3.5 Relief sought under this Chapter 11
Chapter 4 — The Legal Status and Administrative Function of the Guidelines. 13
Chapter 5 — Production Landscapes: The Frontline of Biodiversity Conservation. 14
Chapter 6 — General Comments on the Draft Guidelines. 16
Chapter 7 — Principles for the Constitutional Governance of Human–Wildlife Conflict 17
Chapter 8 — Overarching Recommendations. 18
8.1 Risk-sharing and the cost of prevention. 18
Chapter 9 — Principles for Administrative Decision-Making. 20
9.2 Structured Administrative Discretion. 20
9.3 Evidence-Based Decision-Making. 20
9.5 Ecological Selectivity. 20
9.6 Transparency, the Permit Record and Public Accountability. 20
Preliminary: methods for which prohibition is sought 24
Annexure B — Proposed Amendments. 58
Part A — General Amendments. 58
Part B — Chapter 1 of the Schedule: Interpretation, Purpose and Application. 60
Part C — Clauses 4 and 5: Duty of Care and Assessment of Impact 60
Part D — Clauses 6 to 8: Translocation, Deterrent Methods and Regulated Methods. 61
Part E — Clauses 9 to 15: Minimum Requirements for Regulated Methods. 62
Part F — Clauses 16 and 17, Annexure A and Background. 67
Submission Details
Submitted by
Landmark Foundation Trust (NPO 039–416)
Represented by
Bool Smuts, General Manager and authorised representative
Instrument
Draft Guidelines for the Management of Damage-Causing Animals in South Africa
Published
Government Notice №7650, Government Gazette №54938, 2 July 2026
Submitted to
The Director-General, Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment
For attention
Mr Mncedisi Cindi
By email
dcaguidelines@dffe.gov.za
Date of submission
31 July 2026
This submission is lodged within the period for comment. Landmark Foundation reserves the right to supplement it by way of the supplementary submission referred to in the covering letter.
Executive Summary
This submission presents a comprehensive legal and policy review of the Draft Guidelines for the Management of Damage-Causing Animals in South Africa, published for public comment by the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment in Government Gazette №7650 of 2 July 2026. The review evaluates the Draft Guidelines against the constitutional framework governing environmental management in South Africa, the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (“NEMBA”), the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”), relevant provincial biodiversity legislation, applicable animal welfare legislation, and internationally recognised principles of biodiversity governance.
The submission recognises the Department’s important initiative in seeking to establish a nationally coherent framework for managing human–wildlife conflict. The Draft Guidelines, which should be Norms and Standards, represent a significant policy development by promoting integrated management approaches, encouraging non-lethal interventions where appropriate, improving consistency in permitting practices, and recognising the importance of balancing biodiversity conservation with the legitimate interests of landowners and rural communities.
At the same time, the review identifies a number of legal, administrative and policy issues that should be addressed before the Guidelines are finalized as Norms and Standards.
The central conclusion of this submission is that the Draft Guidelines provide an appropriate policy foundation but require further refinement to ensure full constitutional compliance, improved legal certainty, enhanced administrative consistency and stronger scientific legitimacy.
The submission emphasises that the management of damage-causing animals should not be viewed solely as predator control, but rather as a broader question of environmental governance requiring the reconciliation of biodiversity conservation, agricultural sustainability, animal welfare and socio-economic realities within an integrated constitutional framework.
A detailed clause-by-clause analysis identifies areas where definitions should be clarified, discretionary powers more clearly structured, permitting processes strengthened, and decision-making criteria made more transparent and consistent. Particular attention is given to ensuring that administrative decisions remain lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, while allowing sufficient flexibility to accommodate differing ecological conditions across South Africa.
The review further recommends greater emphasis on adaptive management, evidence-based decision-making and continuous monitoring. Effective management interventions should be informed by reliable scientific information, regular evaluation of outcomes and periodic revision of management practices as new knowledge becomes available. Monitoring and reporting obligations should therefore be strengthened to support long-term policy development and improved implementation.
Specific recommendations are made regarding the regulation of management interventions, including cage traps, darting, and call-and-shoot methods. In respect of four methods — leghold traps, poison collars charged with sodium monofluoroacetate, poison ejecting apparatus charged with sodium cyanide, and the use of dogs — the submission does not seek regulation but prohibition. Those methods are incapable of discriminating between target and non-target animals and cannot be rendered selective by any condition available to an issuing authority. Across all regulated methods, the submission recommends a consistent hierarchy based on proportionality, requiring that preventative and non-lethal measures be prioritised wherever reasonably practicable, with lethal interventions remaining available only where properly justified.
The submission also recommends strengthening provisions relating to carcass disposal, ecological risk management, monitoring, reporting, record keeping and institutional oversight. Enhanced reporting mechanisms would improve accountability while generating valuable information to inform future policy development.
Annexure A provides a detailed clause-by-clause legal analysis of the Draft Guidelines. Annexure B sets out proposed amendments to individual provisions, together with explanatory commentary supporting each recommendation.
Overall, the submission concludes that the Draft Guidelines constitute a valuable and necessary step towards establishing a nationally coherent approach to the management of damage-causing animals. Subject to the amendments proposed in this submission, the Guidelines have the potential to provide a balanced, legally robust and scientifically credible framework that advances biodiversity conservation while recognising the legitimate interests of affected landowners, agricultural producers and rural communities.
The recommendations contained herein are respectfully submitted with the objective of assisting the Department in strengthening the Draft Guidelines and promoting an integrated, constitutionally compliant and sustainable approach to human–wildlife conflict management in South Africa.
Landmark Foundation further objects to the issue of the instrument in the form of guidelines rather than as norms and standards. The instruments published for comment in 2010 and in 2016 were norms and standards issued under the Biodiversity Act. The present instrument is not, and the notice identifies no provision under which the Minister acts. The Department explains that change by reference to the enforcement of norms and standards in respect of species that are not listed as threatened or protected, being, on its own account, the species most frequently involved.
Landmark Foundation does not accept that explanation. The power to issue norms and standards is directed at the conservation of biodiversity generally, and the Department itself twice published draft norms and standards directed at these same non-listed species. That objection is developed in Chapter 3 and is maintained throughout. This submission is advanced without prejudice to it.
Chapter 1 — Introduction
1.1 The submitting organisation
This submission is made by Landmark Foundation Trust, a registered non-profit organisation (NPO 039–416) working on the conservation of apex predators and on the mitigation of conflict between predators and livestock production across the Western, Northern and Eastern Cape.
Landmark Foundation’s predator conservation programme includes the monitoring of leopard and other predator populations, the rescue, rehabilitation and release of trapped and injured predators, the implementation and evaluation of non-lethal conflict mitigation on commercial and communal livestock enterprises, participation in conservation law enforcement, and contribution to peer-reviewed research on the ecology of the species affected by this instrument and on the comparative effectiveness of lethal and non-lethal conflict mitigation. The submission draws upon Landmark’s operational and research record.
1.2 Purpose and scope of this submission
This submission is made in response to the Draft National Guidelines for the Management of Damage-Causing Animals. It is intended to assist the Department in strengthening the Guidelines so that they provide a nationally consistent, constitutionally grounded and scientifically robust framework for decision-making.
Landmark Foundation records at the outset that the instruments published for public comment in 2010 and in 2016 were Norms and Standards, and that the present instrument has been reduced to guidelines. That reduction is regrettable and Landmark Foundation submits that it should be rectified.
The Department explains in the Background that non-compliance with norms and standards does not constitute an offence, and that in respect of species not listed as threatened or protected the regulatory mechanism required for uniform implementation and enforcement would be lacking. Landmark Foundation does not accept that this justifies the course adopted.
The power to issue norms and standards is directed at the objectives of the Biodiversity Act, which extend to the conservation of biodiversity generally and are not confined to listed threatened or protected species. That the 2010 and 2016 instruments were themselves developed as Norms and Standards, for the management of the same non-listed species, demonstrates that the Department has twice regarded the power as competent for this subject matter. What the Department identifies is not a limitation on the power to issue norms and standards, but a limitation on one route by which their breach may be sanctioned.
That limitation is in any event overstated. The Background states that the provisions could be enforceable through a permit condition issued under the Biodiversity Act or under provincial conservation legislation. That route is equally available to norms and standards, and the methods regulated in clause 8 are defined as methods for which a permit is generally required. Whatever enforceability guidelines may derive from permit conditions, norms and standards would derive at least as much.
The remedy adopted also aggravates the difficulty it is said to address. If the concern is that compliance cannot be assured, the issue of a less enforceable instrument cannot answer it. This objection is developed in Chapter 3.
South Africa’s biodiversity is conserved not only within protected areas but across production landscapes, where most human–wildlife interactions occur. With approximately 80% of the country comprising production landscapes, the future of biodiversity conservation depends on governance systems that enable coexistence while protecting ecological integrity. The management of damage-causing animals is therefore fundamentally an exercise in constitutional biodiversity governance.
The submission advances three central propositions. First, that human–wildlife conflict should be understood within the constitutional framework of environmental rights, public trusteeship and sustainable development. Secondly, that the Draft Guidelines, or as recommended Norms and Standards, should function as the nationally accepted framework for the lawful, rational, consistent and scientifically informed exercise of administrative discretion. Thirdly, that effective governance requires evidence-based, ecologically selective and ethically defensible management interventions that retain informed human judgement while promoting adaptive management.
The recommendations that follow seek to strengthen the Draft Guidelines/Norms and Standards by improving legal certainty, administrative consistency, biodiversity outcomes and public accountability. They are offered in a constructive spirit to support the development of a durable national framework capable of guiding decision-makers across South Africa’s diverse ecological and socio-economic landscapes.
Chapter 2 — Constitutional and Legislative Framework
This chapter sets out the constitutional and statutory framework within which the Draft National Guidelines, or rather the Norms and Standards should be understood and implemented.
The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 establishes environmental governance through section 24, which guarantees everyone the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being and requires the environment to be protected for the benefit of present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures. This obligation is complemented by the principles of cooperative governance and accountable public administration.
The National Environmental Management Act, 1998 (NEMA) provides the overarching environmental management principles applicable to all organs of state. These include sustainable development, the precautionary approach, public participation, transparency, accountability and the recognition that the environment is held in public trust. The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004 (NEMBA) gives effect to these principles by providing for the management and conservation of biodiversity and by establishing mechanisms for protecting ecosystems, species and ecological processes.
The Draft Guidelines, or rather the Norms and Standards, should therefore be interpreted as an instrument that supports the lawful implementation of these statutory duties. Decisions concerning damage-causing animals are not merely operational wildlife management choices; they are administrative decisions that must be lawful, rational, procedurally fair and supported by relevant evidence. Consequently, the principles embodied in the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, 2000 (PAJA), and the constitutional principle of legality apply to decisions taken under the Guidelines.
The constitutional doctrine of public trusteeship is central to this submission. Biodiversity is held in trust for the people of South Africa, including future generations. Issuing authorities therefore exercise public powers that must advance conservation objectives while balancing legitimate social and economic interests. Administrative discretion should never be arbitrary but must be structured by constitutional values, scientific evidence and the objectives of biodiversity conservation.
Taken together, the Constitution, NEMA, NEMBA and PAJA provide the legal foundation upon which these Guidelines and the Norms and Standards should rest. The recommendations that follow seek to strengthen the Draft Guidelines/Norms and Standards so that they consistently promote lawful, rational, transparent and scientifically informed decision-making across South Africa. It is inconceivable that it is asserted that Norms and Standards cannot be issued in respect of biodiversity management affecting species that are not listed and threatened or protected.
2.1 Animal welfare legislation operates concurrently
The Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 applies to the management of damage-causing animals concurrently with the biodiversity legislation, and its application is not displaced by the issue of a permit. A permit issued under the Biodiversity Act, or under provincial biodiversity legislation, authorises the holder to do what would otherwise be prohibited by that legislation. It does not authorise conduct that constitutes an offence under a different statute, and it affords no defence to a charge of causing unnecessary suffering.
This has a consequence which the Draft Guidelines do not disclose. Where the Guidelines endorse a method that cannot be employed without causing unnecessary suffering, a permit holder who employs that method in accordance with the Guidelines, and in accordance with every condition of the permit, may nonetheless incur liability. The instrument thereby exposes those who rely upon it to a risk of which it gives them no notice.
Landmark Foundation submits that the final instrument should state expressly that compliance with the Guidelines, and/or Norms of Standards, and with any permit issued under them, does not exempt any person from the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962 or from any other applicable legislation. Landmark Foundation further submits that the presence of that risk is a further reason why the methods identified in Chapter 8 should be prohibited rather than endorsed: an instrument of government should not commend to landowners a practice that may expose them to prosecution.
The constitutional dimension of animal welfare is settled. In National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another 2017 (1) SACR 284 (CC), the Constitutional Court recognised the connection between animal welfare and the constitutional protection of the environment. Decisions taken under these Guidelines engage that connection directly.
Chapter 3 — The Legal Form of the Instrument
Landmark Foundation objects to the issue of this instrument in the form of guidelines, and submits that it should be issued as norms and standards.
The Department’s own Background records the history. It states that Draft Norms and Standards for the Management of Damage-Causing Animals “were developed in terms of section 9 of the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004” and published for public participation in Government Gazette №33806 of 26 November 2010 under Government Notice №1084, and again in Government Gazette №40412 of 10 November 2016 under Government Notice №749.
The 2010 and 2016 instruments were norms and standards. The present instrument is guidelines. The change is not explained anywhere in the notice or in the Schedule, and it is a change in the direction of reduced enforceability.
3.1 The notice identifies no empowering provision
The notice cites the Biodiversity Act in its heading. It records that the Minister “hereby consult[s] on my intention to issue Guidelines for the Management of Damage-Causing Animals in South Africa, as set out in the Schedule hereto”. It does not identify the section of the Act under which the Minister purports to act.
Where a member of the Executive exercises a statutory power, the source of that power should appear on the face of the instrument, so that those affected by it, and those required to implement it, can determine the nature and the limits of what has been issued. Landmark Foundation requests that the empowering provision be identified expressly, and reserves its position on whether the Act confers a power to issue an instrument of this kind in this form.
3.2 The reason advanced for the change of instrument does not withstand examination
The Background states that “non-compliance with norms and standards issued under the Biodiversity Act currently does not constitute an offence”, and that although provisions applying to listed threatened or protected species are enforceable through permit conditions, “Many species that are responsible for damage or livestock predation, e.g. black-backed jackal, caracal, porcupine, warthog, bushpig or hippopotamus are not listed as threatened or protected species”, with the consequence that “the regulatory mechanism required for the uniform implementation and enforcement of national norms and standards in respect of non-listed species, would be lacking”.
Landmark Foundation disputes the accuracy of that assertion and does not adopt or accept it.
Landmark Foundation does not accept that this justifies the course adopted. The proposition conflates two distinct matters: the competence to issue norms and standards, and the reach of one mechanism by which their breach may be sanctioned. A limitation on the second is not a limitation on the first.
The power to issue norms and standards is directed at the achievement of the objectives of the Biodiversity Act. Those objectives extend to the management and conservation of biological diversity generally and are not confined to species listed as threatened or protected. The Department does not suggest that the Act restricts the subject matter of norms and standards to listed species, and Landmark Foundation submits that it does not.
The Department’s own conduct is inconsistent with the proposition it now advances. The Background records that the 2010 and 2016 instruments were developed as Norms and Standards in terms of section 9 of the Act, and were directed at the management of damage-causing animals. The species principally concerned were then, as now, black-backed jackal and caracal, neither of which is listed. The Department has therefore twice taken the view that the power was competent for precisely this subject matter. Landmark Foundation requests that the Department identify the basis upon which it has departed from that view.
The stated limitation is in any event overstated on the Department’s own account. The Background continues, in the following paragraph, that the provisions “could nonetheless be enforceable through a permit condition, either issued in terms of the Biodiversity Act, or in terms of provincial conservation legislation to the extent that a provincial permit is required”, and that “the breaching of a permit condition would constitute a punishable offence”. That route is not peculiar to guidelines. It is equally available to norms and standards, and it turns not on the listing status of the species but on whether a permit is required. The methods regulated in clause 8 are defined as methods that generally require a permit. Whatever enforceability guidelines may derive from permit conditions, norms and standards would derive at least as much, and would derive it with the additional weight attaching to an instrument issued under an express statutory power.
The remedy adopted also aggravates the difficulty it is said to address. If the concern is that compliance cannot be assured in respect of non-listed species, the issue of an instrument that is by common cause weaker cannot answer it. The Department has identified a deficiency in the regulatory architecture and has responded by reducing the status of the instrument rather than by addressing the deficiency.
The Background states that the guidelines are intended as an interim measure. No period is specified, no review date is fixed, and the 2010 and 2016 precedents suggest that an interim measure in this field may endure for many years.
3.3 The Schedule allocates its mandatory language to the wrong provisions
Throughout Part 3 of the Schedule, the obligations bearing on animal welfare, non-target species and public safety are expressed as “should”. The obligations to comply with whatever conditions an issuing authority determines are expressed as “must”.
By way of illustration: a cage trap “should” be checked once every 24 hours (clause 9(1)©); a trapped animal “should” be covered to reduce stress (clause 9(1)(d)); a non-target animal “should” be released from a cage trap (clause 9(1)(e)); a leghold trap “should” be checked once every 24 hours (clause 13(1)(b)); leghold traps “should not” be set in the places listed in clause 13(4); and the use of leghold traps “should be considered as a last resort only” (clause 13(5)). By contrast, the user of each of those methods “must comply with the conditions applicable … as determined by the relevant issuing authority”.
The instrument is internally inconsistent on this point in a manner that discloses the difficulty. Clause 4(3)(b) provides that a person who has captured a non-target animal “must release the animal as soon as possible”. Clause 9(1)(e) provides that the same person “should safely release a non-target animal immediately after its discovery in the cage trap”. The same obligation is mandatory in Chapter 2 of the Schedule and hortatory in Part 3.
Landmark Foundation submits that every provision bearing on animal welfare, on non-target species, or on public safety should be recast in mandatory terms, and that the present allocation of mandatory language exclusively to administrative compliance inverts the priorities the instrument itself professes.
3.4 The enforcement mechanism relied upon is not provided for in the Schedule
The Background states that the provisions “could nonetheless be enforceable through a permit condition” and that “in most cases, the breaching of a permit condition would constitute a punishable offence in terms of the particular legislation under which the permit was issued”. That is the only enforcement route the Department identifies.
Yet no provision of the Schedule directs an issuing authority to incorporate the minimum requirements in Part 3 into the conditions of any permit. The mechanism upon which the instrument’s entire practical effect depends is left to inference. That omission is significant for a further reason. The permit-condition route is the mechanism upon which the Department relies to answer the enforceability difficulty canvassed above, and it is available equally to norms and standards. Having identified it, the Department has not provided for it.
3.5 Relief sought under this Chapter
Landmark Foundation submits that the Department should:
· issue the instrument as norms and standards rather than as guidelines;
· identify expressly the provision of the Biodiversity Act under which it is issued;
· identify the basis upon which it now regards norms and standards as unavailable or ineffective in respect of species that are not listed as threatened or protected, having twice previously published draft norms and standards directed at the management of those same species;
· recast in mandatory terms every provision bearing on animal welfare, non-target species or public safety;
· insert an express provision directing issuing authorities to incorporate the applicable minimum requirements in Part 3 as conditions of every permit authorising a regulated method;
· state what steps the Department proposes to take to secure compliance in respect of species that are not listed as threatened or protected, being, on the Department’s own account, the species most frequently involved; and
· if the instrument is to remain interim, specify the period of its operation and the date by which the permanent instrument will be issued.
Landmark Foundation records that its participation in this process, and the detailed clause-by-clause analysis in Annexure A, should not be construed as acceptance that the instrument is properly issued in guideline form. That objection is maintained, and the analysis which follows is advanced without prejudice to it.
Chapter 4 — The Legal Status and Administrative Function of the Guidelines
This Chapter proceeds on the alternative footing that the instrument is issued in the form presently proposed. Nothing in it derogates from the objection recorded in Chapter 3.
The legal effectiveness of the Draft National Guidelines depends not only on their substantive content but also on a clear understanding of their intended administrative function. This submission supports the Guidelines as a national governance instrument that promotes consistent, lawful and scientifically informed decision-making across all issuing authorities.
Although the Guidelines do not have the status of primary legislation, or even Norms or Standards, they should not be regarded as mere suggestions that may be ignored without justification. Their purpose is to structure the exercise of administrative discretion under the National Environmental Management Act, the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act and related legislation. In this sense they provide an authoritative benchmark for decision-making while preserving the flexibility necessary to respond to differing ecological and social circumstances.
Administrative discretion is not unfettered. Under the Constitution and the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, decisions must be lawful, rational, procedurally fair and based on relevant considerations. Properly drafted Guidelines assist decision-makers by identifying the factors that should ordinarily be considered, promoting consistency between provinces and reducing arbitrary or poorly reasoned outcomes.
Accordingly, the final Guidelines and Norms and Standards should expressly state that they are intended to provide the nationally accepted framework for the exercise of administrative discretion in relation to damage-causing animals. Departures from the Guidelines should be exceptional, justified by the facts of the particular case, supported by appropriate scientific evidence and recorded with clear reasons. Such an approach preserves flexibility while enhancing transparency, accountability and public confidence.
The Guidelines/Norms or Standards also have an important coordinating function across South Africa’s administrative landscape. Human–wildlife conflict frequently crosses ecological, property and provincial boundaries. A nationally consistent framework assists conservation authorities, protected area managers, municipalities and private landholders by establishing common principles and expectations while still allowing locally appropriate implementation.
The submission therefore recommends that the final Guidelines/Norms and Standards explicitly recognise their role in promoting consistency, improving the quality of administrative decision-making, supporting evidence-based biodiversity governance and strengthening constitutional accountability. Their enduring value will lie not simply in recommending management practices, but in establishing a coherent national framework for lawful, rational and scientifically informed administrative action.
Chapter 5 — Production Landscapes: The Frontline of Biodiversity Conservation
South Africa’s biodiversity future will be determined as much by the management of production landscapes as by the stewardship of protected areas. Approximately 80% of the country’s terrestrial landscape falls outside the formal protected area estate and is used for agriculture, livestock production, forestry, game ranching and other productive land uses. These landscapes are not ecological margins; they constitute the primary arena within which biodiversity persists, ecological connectivity is maintained and human–wildlife conflict is experienced.
This reality fundamentally changes the policy context within which the Draft National Guidelines (and Norms and Standards for the Management of Damage Causing Animals) should operate. Such Guidelines are not concerned only with resolving isolated incidents involving individual animals. They are intended to guide decisions made repeatedly across the very landscapes upon which the long-term conservation of species, ecological processes and landscape connectivity depends.
Production landscapes support extensive areas of natural and semi-natural habitat that sustain wildlife populations, enable dispersal between protected areas and buffer ecological systems against fragmentation. They therefore perform an indispensable conservation function. At the same time, these landscapes are where farmers, rural communities and wildlife managers experience the direct costs and risks associated with human–wildlife interactions. Conservation policy must therefore recognise that biodiversity persistence and rural livelihoods are inseparable rather than competing objectives.
For this reason, the management of damage-causing animals should be understood as a question of landscape governance rather than simply animal control. Decisions taken in response to conflict influence ecological resilience, predator-prey dynamics, genetic connectivity, public confidence in conservation institutions and the willingness of landholders to retain wildlife on productive land. Poorly reasoned or inconsistent decisions can undermine these broader conservation objectives, while transparent, evidence-based and proportionate decisions strengthen coexistence.
The submission therefore recommends that the final Guidelines/Norms and Standards explicitly recognise production landscapes as central to South Africa’s biodiversity strategy. Their purpose should be to promote coexistence wherever reasonably achievable, encourage prevention and non-lethal interventions where appropriate, and ensure that any management intervention is ecologically selective, ethically defensible and scientifically justified. Indiscriminate methods — including poisons, gin traps, cyanide devices and the hunting of wildlife with dogs where these cannot demonstrate ecological selectivity and acceptable welfare outcomes — are inconsistent with these objectives because they create unacceptable risks to non-target species, biodiversity, welfare of animals and public confidence.
Recognising production landscapes as the frontline, and spatially the far greater area of biodiversity conservation also reinforces the constitutional obligation of the State, as public trustee of biodiversity, to promote coherent governance across the broader landscape. The Draft Guidelines therefore occupy a strategically important position within South Africa’s conservation framework: they influence how biodiversity survives, connects and is governed across the landscapes where people and wildlife coexist every day.
Chapter 6 — General Comments on the Draft Guidelines
The Draft National Guidelines, or as we recommend the Norms and Standards as it should be, represent an important opportunity to strengthen the governance of human–wildlife conflict through a nationally consistent, constitutionally aligned and scientifically credible framework. The initiative is welcomed and supported. The comments in this submission are directed at strengthening these standards so that they better fulfil their intended administrative and conservation functions.
Overall, the Draft Guidelines would benefit from a clearer articulation of their purpose, legal status and governance objectives. They should move beyond describing available management options and instead provide a structured framework for lawful, rational and evidence-based administrative decision-making. Throughout the document, greater emphasis should be placed on biodiversity conservation, ecological integrity, proportionality, transparency and accountability.
The submission recommends that the Guidelines expressly recognise that management decisions occur within complex ecological and social systems. Management interventions should therefore be informed by the best available scientific evidence, local ecological conditions and documented risk assessments rather than by fixed assumptions or historical practice alone. Adaptive management should be identified as a guiding principle, requiring monitoring, evaluation and continual learning.
The Guidelines should also more clearly establish a hierarchy of management responses. Prevention, husbandry improvements, landscape planning and non-lethal conflict mitigation should ordinarily be considered before lethal interventions are authorised. Where lethal management is necessary, methods should be demonstrably selective, humane where possible, scientifically justified and proportionate to the conservation and management objectives being pursued.
Greater consistency is also required in the use of terminology. Terms such as damage-causing animal, management intervention, translocation, relocation, euthanasia and culling should be carefully defined and used consistently throughout the document. Precision of language is essential because these terms influence both administrative decisions and public understanding.
Finally, the Guidelines should explicitly acknowledge that they operate within South Africa’s constitutional biodiversity governance framework. Their overarching purpose is not simply to reduce conflict, but to promote coexistence wherever reasonably achievable while ensuring that decisions affecting wildlife remain lawful, transparent, ethically defensible and supportive of long-term biodiversity conservation across production landscapes.
Chapter 7 — Principles for the Constitutional Governance of Human–Wildlife Conflict
Human–wildlife conflict should be governed through constitutional principles rather than ad hoc responses to individual incidents. The Draft National Guidelines, or better still its Norms and Standards, provide an opportunity to articulate a coherent governance framework that promotes biodiversity conservation, legal certainty and public confidence while recognising the realities of production landscapes across all spheres of government.
The first principle is constitutional public trusteeship. Biodiversity is held in trust by the State for the benefit of present and future generations. Decisions affecting damage-causing animals must therefore advance the long-term conservation of biodiversity rather than focus solely on immediate conflict resolution.
The second principle is lawful and structured administrative discretion. Decision-makers should exercise judgement within a nationally consistent framework informed by legislation, scientific evidence and the facts of each case. Discretion should be guided, not arbitrary, and departures from the Guidelines and the Norms and Standards should be justified with written reasons.
The third principle is ecological sustainability. Management interventions should maintain ecological processes, species persistence and landscape connectivity. Individual decisions should consider cumulative ecological effects and avoid undermining broader conservation objectives.
The fourth principle is ecological selectivity and proportionality. Management responses should be proportionate to the identified risk and directed at the specific management objective. Indiscriminate methods that create unacceptable risks to non-target species, ecosystem integrity or public safety are inconsistent with this principle, as is cruelty to animals.
The fifth principle is coexistence across production landscapes. Because most biodiversity persists outside protected areas, the objective should be to enable coexistence wherever reasonably achievable through prevention, husbandry, adaptive management and evidence-based mitigation before resorting to lethal interventions.
The sixth principle is ethical accountability. Animal welfare should be considered throughout decision-making. Euthanasia should be reserved for circumstances involving irremediable suffering, whereas culling represents a management decision undertaken for conservation or human purposes and should never be conflated with euthanasia. Methods associated with prolonged suffering or secondary ecological harm, including poisons, require especially rigorous scrutiny.
The seventh principle is adaptive management. Decisions should be monitored, reviewed and refined as new evidence emerges. The Guidelines and Norms and Standards should encourage learning, transparency and continuous improvement.
Together these principles provide a coherent constitutional framework for governing human–wildlife conflict. They strengthen consistency across administrative authorities while retaining sufficient flexibility to respond to differing ecological, social and economic circumstances.
Chapter 8 — Overarching Recommendations
The following overarching recommendations are intended to strengthen the Draft National Guidelines, or as recommended the Norms and Standards, as a coherent governance instrument.
1. Clarify Purpose: State expressly that the Guidelines provide the nationally accepted framework for the lawful, rational, consistent and scientifically informed exercise of administrative discretion in managing human–wildlife conflict.
2. Embed Constitutional Governance: Explicitly align the Guidelines with section 24 of the Constitution, NEMA, NEMBA, PAJA and the doctrine of public trusteeship.
3. Recognise Production Landscapes: Acknowledge that approximately 80% of South Africa consists of production landscapes where coexistence is essential to biodiversity conservation.
4. Establish a Decision Hierarchy: Prioritise prevention, husbandry, landscape planning and non-lethal mitigation before lethal interventions, subject to case-specific circumstances.
5. Require Evidence-Based Decisions: Require decisions to be supported by the best available scientific evidence, documented risk assessment and relevant ecological information.
6. Promote Ecological Selectivity: Authorise only interventions capable of achieving defined management objectives while minimising impacts on non-target species and ecosystem integrity.
7. Strengthen Accountability: Require written reasons for significant decisions and for departures from the Guidelines, with appropriate record keeping and review. Require further that each issuing authority maintain a public register of permits issued authorising regulated methods, that the register be submitted to the Department at intervals not exceeding twelve months, and that the Department publish the aggregated national data annually.
8. Improve Terminology: Use consistent definitions throughout, particularly for euthanasia, culling, translocation, relocation and damage-causing animals.
9. Prohibit Indiscriminate Methods: Prohibit leghold traps, poison collars and poison ejecting apparatus. These methods are incapable of discriminating between target and non-target animals and cannot be rendered selective by any condition available to an issuing authority.
10. Adopt Adaptive Management: Require monitoring, evaluation and periodic review so that management improves through experience and new scientific knowledge.
8.1 Risk-sharing and the cost of prevention
The Draft Guidelines/Norms and Standards impose upon landowners a duty of care under clause 4, and an expectation under clauses 5 and 7 that preventative measures will have been implemented before a regulated method is authorised. The measures contemplated in clause 7 — predator-resistant fencing, night enclosures, livestock guarding animals, shepherding, collars and motion detection — carry real capital and operating cost. The Guidelines offer nothing in return and establish no mechanism by which that cost may be shared.
This bears directly on equity of implementation. Clause 2(a)(iii) identifies subsistence farmers and communities as intended beneficiaries of the Guidelines/Norms and Standards. A framework which conditions access to lawful management upon prior expenditure, without providing any means of meeting that expenditure, will in practice operate differently as between a commercial enterprise and a communal stockholder. The Background acknowledges that interventions should consider the socio-economic position of landowners, but the Schedule gives that acknowledgement no effect.
The form at Annexure A to the Draft Guidelines compounds the difficulty. Section K asks whether the complainant has “previously received compensation for damage or loss experienced” and invites details “including amount if monetary”. The form thereby assumes the existence of a compensation mechanism which the Guidelines do not establish and which no national scheme provides.
Landmark Foundation submits that the final instrument should commit the Department to develop, within a specified period, a risk-sharing or incentive mechanism linked to demonstrated implementation of non-lethal measures; and that in the interim the Guidelines should provide that the proportionality of the preventative measures expected of a landowner is to be assessed having regard to the scale of the enterprise and the resources available to it.
Chapter 9 — Principles for Administrative Decision-Making
9.1 Introduction
The effectiveness of the Draft National Guidelines/Norms and Standards will ultimately depend upon the quality, consistency and transparency of administrative decisions. Flexibility must be accompanied by a structured framework that promotes constitutional compliance, scientific integrity and accountability.
9.2 Structured Administrative Discretion
Administrative discretion is necessary but not unfettered. Decisions should be lawful, rational, procedurally fair, evidence-based, proportionate and consistent with biodiversity conservation objectives. The Guidelines should provide the nationally accepted framework within which that discretion is exercised.
9.3 Evidence-Based Decision-Making
Authorities should consider species identity and conservation status, nature of damage, reliability of evidence, previous mitigation measures, ecological context, likely effectiveness, impacts on non-target species that may be affected by any administrative decision in respect of these standards, and cumulative ecological consequences.
9.4 Proportionality
The least harmful intervention capable of achieving the legitimate management objective should ordinarily be preferred. Prevention, husbandry improvements, exclusion, deterrence and targeted non-lethal measures should generally precede lethal interventions where appropriate.
9.5 Ecological Selectivity
Management interventions should minimise impacts on non-target species, ecosystem processes and biodiversity. Indiscriminate methods require the highest level of scrutiny.
9.6 Transparency, the Permit Record and Public Accountability
Authorities should record the evidence considered, reasons for decisions, conditions imposed, monitoring requirements and reasons for any departure from the Guidelines.
Recording is not, however, sufficient. The Draft Guidelines are one-directional in their treatment of information. Clause 5 requires the reporting of damage to the issuing authority. Clause 17(2) requires the person reporting an incident to keep records. Clause 17(3) requires the user of a regulated method to submit an annual report to the issuing authority. The form at Annexure A reserves a section for official use only. Every obligation runs towards the issuing authority, and not one runs outward. No provision requires an issuing authority to transmit anything to the Department, to publish anything, or to disclose anything to any person.
The starting point is the character of the resource. South Africa’s biological diversity is not the property of the landholder on whose land it happens to occur. The environment is held in public trust for the people, and the State is the trustee of the Republic’s biological diversity. A decision to authorise the killing of an indigenous predator is therefore not a private arrangement between a landholder and an official. It is the exercise of a public power over an asset held in trust for everyone, and the beneficiaries of that trust are entitled to know how it is being exercised.
That principle also fixes the limits of what should be disclosed, and Landmark Foundation is careful to observe them. What is held in trust is the wildlife, not the affairs of the landholder. Accordingly it is the decision that must be public — the species, the method authorised, the district, the conditions imposed and the outcome — and not the person. Identity numbers, contact details and the identification of individual properties form no part of what the public is entitled to see, and should be withheld. The register should disclose what has been done to the public’s wildlife. It should not disclose who lives where.
The consequences of the present silence are substantial. The stated purpose of promoting a uniform national approach cannot be verified, because no person is in a position to compare the practice of one issuing authority with that of another. The Department cannot assess whether the instrument is achieving its objects. Interested and affected parties cannot identify decisions in time to exercise the rights conferred by the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act. And the right of access to information conferred by section 32 of the Constitution is of limited practical value where the existence and nature of the record are themselves unknown.
The most serious consequence is internal to the instrument. Clause 5(7) requires an issuing authority, in proposing a management intervention, to consider the broader impact of that intervention, including on the species as a whole and on other landowners. That is a cumulative assessment. It cannot be undertaken by an authority that does not know what it has previously authorised in the same area, and it certainly cannot be undertaken by an authority that has no sight of what neighbouring authorities have authorised in respect of the same population. The Draft Guidelines impose a duty of cumulative assessment while withholding the information without which the duty cannot be discharged. Each decision is accordingly taken as though it were the only one.
Landmark Foundation submits that the final instrument should provide for the following.
(a) A public register, maintained by each issuing authority, of every permit issued authorising a regulated method, recording the species, the method authorised, the magisterial district, the date of issue and of expiry, the conditions imposed, and the outcome subsequently reported under clause 17.
(b) The submission by each issuing authority to the Department, at intervals not exceeding twelve months, of the data contained in that register.
© The maintenance by the Department of a national inventory of that data, and annual publication of it in aggregated form, in a format permitting independent analysis.
(d) The furnishing of written reasons for any decision authorising a regulated method, on request, in accordance with the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act.
(e) The protection of personal information, by recording location at magisterial district rather than at property level, and by excluding identity numbers, contact details and the names of natural persons from the public register.
Paragraph (e) is not a qualification of the principle but an application of it. The object is accountability for the exercise of a public power over a public resource, and nothing more. Nothing in this recommendation requires the identification of any person, and Landmark Foundation would oppose a register that did.
9.7 Adaptive Management
Management should include monitoring, evaluation and learning so future decisions improve with experience and emerging scientific evidence.
9.8 National Consistency
Consistency requires common legal principles, scientific standards and transparent reasoning while allowing locally appropriate outcomes.
9.9 Summary
The Guidelines should establish a nationally consistent framework founded upon lawful administrative discretion, evidence-based decision-making, proportionality, ecological selectivity, transparency, accountability, adaptive management and constitutional biodiversity governance.
Chapter 10 — Conclusion
The Draft National Guidelines, as it currently is referred to a present, is an important opportunity to strengthen South Africa’s approach to the governance of human–wildlife conflict. This submission supports their development and recommends refinements that will enhance their legal certainty, scientific credibility and practical implementation, but strongly recommend that it be structed and developed as a Norms and Standards framework.
The central proposition advanced throughout this submission is that the management of damage-causing animals is fundamentally an exercise in constitutional biodiversity governance. Decisions taken under the Guidelines influence not only individual conflict events but also the long-term conservation of biodiversity across the production landscapes where most wildlife persists and where ecological connectivity is maintained.
Accordingly, the Guidelines should function as the nationally accepted framework for the lawful, rational, consistent and scientifically informed exercise of administrative discretion. Their value lies in promoting structured decision-making, transparency, accountability and adaptive management while retaining sufficient flexibility to respond to local ecological circumstances.
The recommendations contained in this submission seek to strengthen coexistence, improve biodiversity outcomes and enhance public confidence by promoting prevention, evidence-based management, ecological selectivity, ethical accountability and continuous learning. They also emphasise the importance of nationally consistent administrative practice supported by clear reasons and sound scientific evidence.
The Department is commended for initiating this process, but our critique in its downgrading it as mere guidelines is stated clearly, as opposed to a 17 year process to develop clear Norms and Standards. With the refinements proposed in this submission, the final Guidelines or rather the Norms and Standards have the potential to become an enduring governance instrument that supports both biodiversity conservation and sustainable human livelihoods across South Africa’s diverse landscapes.
Annexure A — Clause-by-Clause Analysis
Clause-by-Clause Analysis of the Draft Guidelines for the Management of Damage-Causing Animals in South Africa.
This Annexure is advanced without prejudice to the objection to the legal form of the instrument recorded in Chapter 3.
Preliminary: methods for which prohibition is sought
Landmark Foundation’s primary submission in respect of leghold traps, poison collars charged with sodium monofluoroacetate, and poison ejecting apparatus charged with sodium cyanide, and dog hunting is that none of these methods should be endorsed by the Guidelines or Standards, and that each should be prohibited.
The submission proceeds from a proposition drawn from the Draft Guidelines themselves. Clause 2(b) states that a purpose of the Guidelines is to “reduce the indiscriminate killing and suffering caused by some of the management interventions relating to damage-causing animals”. The Department has therefore accepted that some of the methods presently in use are indiscriminate and cause suffering. The three methods identified above are those methods. A device that cannot discriminate between a target and a non-target animal cannot be made to discriminate by the attachment of a permit condition, and the minimum requirements in Part 3 do not and cannot cure the defect.
The submission is advanced on the following legal footing: section 24 of the Constitution; the environmental management principles in section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, and in particular the risk-averse and cautious approach required where there are limits to current knowledge, and the duty to avoid, minimise and remedy environmental harm; the State’s trusteeship of biological diversity under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004; and the prohibition on causing unnecessary suffering under the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962.
Where the Department declines to prohibit a method, the minimum conditions set out in the alternative under each clause below are advanced. They are advanced in the alternative only, and nothing in them should be read as acceptance that the method is capable of being used consistently with the objectives of the Guidelines.
Clause 1 — Definitions
Current Provision
Clause 1 contains the definitions applicable throughout the Draft Guidelines, including definitions relating to damage-causing animals, management interventions, regulated methods, landowners, competent persons, conservation authorities and other technical terminology.
Analysis
The definitions provide an appropriate interpretative foundation for the document and generally align with terminology used in the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act 10 of 2004 (“NEMBA”). The incorporation of terminology already defined in the Biodiversity Act promotes legislative consistency and reduces unnecessary duplication.
Nevertheless, several definitions would benefit from greater precision to improve legal certainty and ensure nationally consistent implementation. A number of key concepts rely upon subjective interpretation, creating the potential for inconsistent application between issuing authorities and provinces.
In particular, the definition of “damage-causing animal” depends upon proof that an animal causes “substantial loss” or “substantial damage”. The Guidelines do not define either threshold. This creates uncertainty and much operational variance regarding when management interventions become justified and may result in differing administrative interpretations across jurisdictions.
Similarly, the distinction between an “adequately trained person” and a “competent person” lacks objective criteria. The absence of nationally recognised competency standards may undermine consistent permitting decisions and enforcement.
Landmark Foundation draws attention to a further and more serious difficulty. Neither “adequately trained person” nor “competent person” is used in any operative provision of the Schedule. Chapter 2 does not require that a regulated method be applied by an adequately trained person, by a competent person, or by any person possessing any qualification at all. The general practice is that farm workers apply these methods. The minimum-requirements provisions in Part 3 instead identify the persons to whom they apply as “a person or group of persons contemplated in paragraph 2(a) or ©”. The consequence is that the Draft Guidelines establish two categories of competency and impose neither. With the single exception of darting, which clause 11 properly reserves to a registered veterinarian or an appropriately licensed person, there is no competency requirement anywhere in the Schedule governing the deployment of a cage trap, a poison collar, a leghold trap, call and shoot, dogs, or a poison ejecting apparatus.
The definition of “competent person” is also, on its face, circular and unreviewable: a person is competent if the issuing authority regards that person as competent. No criteria are prescribed, no record of the assessment is required, and no review lies against it.
The definition of “management intervention” appropriately recognises both lethal and non-lethal approaches but could better reflect the adaptive management philosophy that underpins modern biodiversity governance.
Two further definitional defects should be recorded. First, “damage-causing animal” is defined as “an individual wild vertebrate animal, or a group of wild invertebrate animals”, while clause 3(b) applies the Guidelines only to “a wild vertebrate animal”. Invertebrates are defined into the instrument and then excluded from its scope. Secondly, “poison” is defined as a substance used “to kill or impair” a damage-causing animal, which contemplates the deliberate sub-lethal impairment of a free-ranging wild animal as a legitimate management outcome. Extensive inputs on definition strengthening had been advanced by Landmark Foundation inputs to the 2011 and 2016 public submissions of the prior Norms and Standards and are still applicable and not repeated here.
Recommendation
It is recommended that Clause 1 be amended to:
· define objective criteria or assessment factors for determining “substantial loss” and “substantial damage”, proportionate to the scale and nature of the affected enterprise;
· establish nationally consistent competency standards for persons authorised to undertake regulated management interventions, and require in a substantive provision of Chapter 2 that every regulated method be applied only by a person meeting those standards;
· delete the category of “competent person” or, if it is retained, subject it to published criteria, a written record of the competency assessment, and a right of review;
· include cross-references where definitions originate in legislation administered under NEMBA or other applicable legislation;
· resolve the contradiction between the definition of “damage-causing animal” and clause 3(b) in respect of invertebrates;
· specify that the onus of establishing that an animal is a damage-causing animal rests on the applicant, that the standard is proof on a balance of probabilities on objectively verifiable evidence, and that attribution of the damage to the species must be established rather than assumed;
· delete the words “or impair” from the definition of “poison”; and
· clarify that management interventions should be implemented within an adaptive management framework informed by scientific evidence and ongoing monitoring.
Motivation
Greater precision within the definitions will enhance legal certainty, reduce administrative inconsistency, and strengthen the lawful implementation of the Guidelines/Standards. Clear definitions also promote procedural fairness by ensuring that similarly situated persons receive consistent treatment across provinces. Where a definition is the gateway to the exercise of a power to kill, imprecision in that definition deprives the affected party of certainty as to when the power arises and deprives the decision-maker of any standard against which to exercise it.
Clause 2 — Purpose
Current Provision
Clause 2 sets out the purpose of the Draft Guidelines, namely to provide practical guidance for the management of damage-causing animals, promote integrated management approaches, reduce indiscriminate killing and suffering, encourage appropriate management interventions, establish minimum requirements for regulated methods and promote greater national consistency.
Analysis
The purpose clause appropriately recognises that management of damage-causing animals involves balancing biodiversity conservation with legitimate agricultural and public interests. The emphasis placed upon integrated management, deterrent measures and responsible intervention reflects contemporary approaches to human–wildlife conflict management. Its express recognition of subsistence farmers and communities at clause 2(a)(iii) is welcomed.
However, the clause would benefit from explicitly recognising the constitutional and statutory framework within which the Guidelines operate and the statutory origin of the legislative enabling power from which these Regulations or Norms and Standards emanate. Section 24 of the Constitution establishes the right to an environment that is not harmful to health or well-being while requiring biodiversity conservation through ecologically sustainable development. Similarly, the National Environmental Management Act establishes principles of sustainable development, cooperative governance and integrated environmental management that are directly relevant to these Guidelines.
Although these principles underpin the Draft Guidelines, they are not expressly acknowledged. The down regulation to Guidelines instead of Norms and Standards may in fact be the reason for this and thus Landmark Foundation strong recommendation to the restructuring this as Norms and Standards as originally contemplated in the NEMBA. Their inclusion would strengthen the legal coherence of the document and provide clearer interpretative guidance to issuing authorities.
The purpose clause should also place greater emphasis on adaptive management, recognising that management interventions should evolve in response to scientific knowledge, monitoring outcomes and changing ecological conditions.
Two structural difficulties should further be recorded. First, the clause is defectively numbered: it runs from items (a) to (d) and then continues with an item numbered “(2)”, there being no subparagraph (1). This suggests a rushed release and inadequate editorial input or last-minute changes that were not well consulted.
Secondly, and more seriously, the operative provisions of the Schedule identify the class of persons entitled to deploy regulated methods by cross-reference into this clause. Clauses 6(4), 8(4), 9(1), 10(1), 12, 13(1), 14(1), 15(1) and 17(3) each refer to “a person or group of persons contemplated in paragraph 2(a) or ©”, or to a variant of that formula. The class of persons entitled to deploy the most hazardous methods in the instrument is therefore defined not by a substantive provision but by a statement of purpose which confers no entitlement on anyone, and which through clause 2(a) extends to every landowner in the Republic as widely defined in clause 1. Clause 2(c) is in addition self-referential, authorising “a duly authorised person” without identifying the source of the authorisation. The formula is also applied inconsistently: clauses 12 and 13 use “paragraph 2(a) and ©” where the remaining provisions use “or”.
Recommendation
Clause 2 should be amended to:
· expressly recognise section 24 of the Constitution as the constitutional foundation for the Guidelines or Norms and Standards;
· acknowledge the environmental management principles contained in section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act, including the risk-averse and cautious approach and the duty to avoid, minimise and remedy environmental harm;
· recognise adaptive management as an overarching management philosophy;
· emphasise evidence-based decision-making;
· confirm that prevention, deterrence and non-lethal interventions should be preferred wherever reasonably practicable before lethal measures are authorised;
· correct the numbering of the clause and verify every cross-reference into it; and
· remove the identification of persons entitled to apply regulated methods from the purpose clause, and insert a substantive provision identifying that class directly by reference to permit holding and to the competency requirement proposed under clause 1.
Motivation
Explicit recognition of constitutional environmental governance principles will strengthen the legal status of the Guidelines and promote consistent interpretation across administrative authorities. Greater emphasis on adaptive management will ensure that implementation remains responsive to evolving ecological knowledge. A purpose clause states objectives; it does not confer entitlements, and using it to identify the persons who may deploy poison and traps leaves the most consequential question in the instrument without a proper answer.
Clause 3 — Application
Current Provision
Clause 3 identifies the legislation that should be read together with the Guidelines and provides that the Guidelines apply to the management of wild vertebrate animals that become damage-causing animals within South Africa, while excluding domestic and feral animals.
Analysis
The application clause appropriately identifies the principal legislative instruments governing biodiversity management and recognises that the Guidelines must operate alongside existing statutory frameworks and within it.
The list at clause 3(a) does not, however, include the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998. That is a conspicuous omission in an instrument issued by the Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment and which is the seminal framework Act that gives expression to the section 24 rights in the Constitution. NEMA is the framework statute for environmental governance in the Republic, and its section 2 principles bind the exercise of every discretion conferred by the Schedule whether the Schedule says so or not. Those principles — in particular the risk-averse and cautious approach, the duty to avoid or minimise environmental harm, and the State’s trusteeship of the environment — are the principles most directly engaged by decisions to authorise poison, leghold traps, hunting with dogs and cyanide ejectors. Their absence from clause 3(a) invites issuing authorities to approach those decisions as though the principles did not apply.
Additional clarity is also desirable regarding the relationship between the Guidelines and provincial biodiversity legislation. Provincial permitting systems currently differ in several respects, creating potential uncertainty regarding the practical application of nationally issued Guidelines or Standards. It is all too clear when scrutinizing provincial hunting notices, damage-causing animal management operative practices and the permissive state of current operations in this field. The practices vary greatly between Provinces and are generally a fallback on operations from pre-constitutional periods where the focus was on lethal controls and permissive destruction of wildlife. That remains the greatest risk for this initiative and a blight on South African biodiversity governance across expansive landscapes. The published Guidelines does little to address this lacuna.
The clause should also clarify that the Guidelines supplement rather than replace existing statutory obligations and that compliance with the Guidelines does not exempt any person from complying with other applicable legislation, and in particular from the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962.A major weakness is the enabling provision being relied on in contrast to earlier Norms and Standards publications.
Further, the Background states that the provisions of the Guidelines “could nonetheless be enforceable through a permit condition”. That is the only enforcement mechanism the Department identifies, yet no provision of the Schedule directs an issuing authority to incorporate the minimum requirements in Part 3 into the conditions of any permit. It seems to suggest some sort of voluntary provision that has emerged through the down-regulation from Norms and Standards to Guidelines, which we oppose.
The exclusion of feral and domestic animals
Clause 3(c) provides that the Guidelines do not apply to domestic animals that have become wild or feral. The exclusion is stated without qualification or explanation, and Landmark Foundation submits that it creates a substantial gap.
Free-roaming and feral domestic dogs are a significant agent of small-livestock loss in many South African districts, and the misattribution of such loss to indigenous predators is among the principal drivers of unjustified predator control. An instrument whose declared purpose includes reducing indiscriminate killing, and which requires proof that an animal is a damage-causing animal before a regulated method may be directed at it, cannot coherently exclude from its scope the category of animal most frequently confused with the target species.
The practical effect of clause 3(c), read with the absence of any requirement that damage be attributed to a species on evidence, is that a landowner experiencing loss caused by feral dogs may lawfully obtain authorisation to deploy a regulated method against a caracal, a jackal or a leopard. The damage is real; the attribution is wrong; and the Guidelines contain nothing requiring the attribution to be tested.
Landmark Foundation does not propose that the management of feral domestic animals be regulated by this instrument, which is directed at indigenous wildlife and is not suited to that task. What is proposed is narrower: that before a regulated method may be authorised against an indigenous species, the possibility that the damage was caused by a domestic animal that has become wild or feral must be considered and excluded on the evidence, and that the incident report required by clause 5 and the form at Annexure A record that this was done.
Recommendation
Clause 3 should be amended to:
· include the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998, and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, in the list at clause 3(a), and state expressly that the section 2 principles apply to every decision taken under the Guidelines;
· clarify that the Guidelines supplement applicable legislation and do not replace statutory obligations, and that compliance with the Guidelines does not exempt any person from the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962;
· provide that, notwithstanding clause 3(c), no regulated method may be authorised against an indigenous species unless the possibility that the damage was caused by a domestic animal that has become wild or feral has been considered and excluded on the evidence, and that consideration recorded;
· direct issuing authorities to incorporate the applicable minimum requirements in Part 3 as express conditions of every permit authorising a regulated method;
· explain the relationship between national Guidelines and provincial permitting systems;
· encourage nationally consistent implementation while recognising lawful provincial regulatory variation; and
· emphasise cooperative governance between national, provincial and local authorities responsible for biodiversity management.
· that it is reverted back to formal Norms and Standards for the Management of Damage Causing Animals as was done in 2010 and 2016 and enforce concurrent provincial applicability.
Motivation
Clearer application provisions will improve legal certainty, minimise conflicting interpretations and promote consistent implementation across South Africa while respecting the constitutional allocation of legislative and administrative responsibilities. Restoring NEMA and the Constitution to the list at clause 3(a) is corrective rather than innovative: those instruments apply in any event, and their omission can only mislead. The proposed qualification of clause 3(c) does not extend the instrument to feral animals; it requires only that the cause of the damage be established before an indigenous animal is killed for it.
General Observation on Clauses 1 to 3
Clauses 1 to 3 establish the interpretative and legal foundation of the Draft Guidelines. They are generally logically structured and provide an appropriate framework for the substantive provisions that follow, noting the serious deficiencies above. Nevertheless, greater precision in terminology, stronger constitutional alignment and improved clarification of the interaction between national and provincial regulatory systems would significantly enhance the legal robustness and practical implementation of the Guidelines.
Three defects are of a different order from ordinary imprecision. The Schedule defines two categories of competency and then imposes neither, so that the deployment of leghold traps, hunting dogs, Compound 1080 and sodium cyanide is subject to no competency requirement at all. The class of persons entitled to deploy those methods is identified by cross-reference into a statement of purpose that confers no entitlement on anyone. And the gateway definition of “damage-causing animal” requires proof without prescribing a standard, allocating an onus, or requiring that the damage be attributed to the species said to have caused it, while clause 3(c) simultaneously excludes from the instrument the category of animal most often responsible for the misattribution.
The recommended amendments are intended to improve legal certainty, strengthen administrative consistency and reinforce the constitutional principles of sustainable development, cooperative governance and evidence-based environmental management that underpin South African biodiversity law.
Clause 4
Duty of Care
Current Provision
Clause 4 establishes a general duty of care applicable to persons whose activities may result in conflict with wild vertebrate animals. It recognises that human–wildlife conflict is an inherent feature of shared landscapes and encourages landowners and other affected persons to anticipate and minimise conflict through reasonable preventative measures. The clause further provides for the humane treatment of injured animals and the immediate release of non-target animals captured during management interventions.
Analysis
The inclusion of a general duty of care is one of the strongest features of the Draft Guidelines. The clause appropriately recognises that conflict between humans and wildlife cannot be entirely eliminated and that responsibility for managing such conflict extends beyond reactive predator control to proactive risk management.
The clause is also broadly consistent with the environmental management principles contained in section 2 of the National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”), particularly the principles requiring avoidance or minimisation of environmental harm, responsible environmental stewardship, and sustainable management of natural resources, inclusive of impacts on other species and by-catch that the method may affect.
The obligation placed upon landowners to implement reasonable preventative measures before resorting to management interventions reflects internationally accepted approaches to human–wildlife conflict management and reinforces the principle that lethal control should not constitute the default response. It addresses specifically impact on non-target individuals and species.
Subparagraph (3) appropriately incorporates animal welfare considerations by requiring humane treatment of injured animals and immediate release of non-target animals. This provision aligns with the constitutional recognition of animal welfare as an important component of environmental protection, as recognised in National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development and Another 2017 (1) SACR 284 (CC).
Nevertheless, several aspects of the clause would benefit from greater clarity.
The concept of “reasonable measures” remains open-ended. While paragraph 7 provides examples of deterrent methods, the Guidelines do not indicate how issuing authorities should assess whether sufficient preventative measures have been implemented before permits authorising regulated interventions are issued. This is indeed a glaring weakness and deficiency in the current approach.
Similarly, the clause provides no guidance regarding proportionality. The extent of preventative measures expected from a commercial livestock producer may differ substantially from those reasonably expected from subsistence farmers or communal land users. Without express recognition of differing socio-economic circumstances, implementation may become inconsistent and potentially inequitable.
The duty of care should also recognise that management decisions ought to be informed by ecological conditions, species behaviour, landscape characteristics and scientific evidence rather than adopting a uniform approach in every circumstance.
Recommendation
Clause 4 should be amended to —
· expressly recognise that the duty of care must be implemented proportionately, having regard to the nature of the land use, available resources and the scale of risk;
· clarify that “reasonable measures” should be assessed objectively, taking into account practicality, affordability and likely effectiveness;
· require issuing authorities to consider whether preventative measures have been appropriately implemented before authorising regulated management interventions;
· expressly incorporate adaptive management principles by encouraging continual review of the effectiveness of preventative measures;
· reinforce that humane treatment of both target and non-target animals remains an overriding consideration throughout all management interventions.
Motivation
The proposed amendments would improve consistency in administrative decision-making while ensuring that implementation remains fair, practical and responsive to differing circumstances. A clearer articulation of the duty of care would also strengthen alignment with constitutional environmental principles and promote greater acceptance of the Guidelines among affected stakeholders, and more precisely if contained in the recommended structure of the Norms and Standards.
Clause 5
Assessment of the Impact Caused by Damage-Causing Animals
Current Provision
Clause 5 establishes procedures for reporting incidents involving damage-causing animals and provides for inspections, investigations and assessment of the extent of damage by issuing authorities. It further identifies matters that should be considered when determining appropriate management interventions and encourages the use of deterrent measures before lethal interventions are considered.
Analysis
Clause 5 represents the operational foundation of the current Draft Guidelines. By requiring evidence-based assessment before management interventions are authorised, the clause appropriately moves away from historical approaches based primarily upon perception or anecdotal evidence which has no verification attached.
The requirement that issuing authorities conduct inspections where required by applicable legislation, together with the detailed reporting requirements contained in subparagraph (3), promotes informed administrative decision-making and strengthens accountability.
The emphasis placed upon documenting previous deterrent measures, recurring damage and supporting evidence is consistent with adaptive management principles and encourages decisions based upon objectively verifiable information.
The clause also correctly requires issuing authorities to consider broader ecological impacts, rather than focusing exclusively upon individual incidents of livestock predation or property damage. This represents an important recognition that management interventions may have consequences extending beyond the immediate conflict situation.
Notwithstanding these strengths, several aspects require refinement.
First, the clause affords issuing authorities considerable discretion without identifying the relative weight that should be assigned to competing considerations. While flexibility is desirable, excessive discretion may lead to inconsistent decisions across provinces, as has been the historical practice.
Secondly, the Guidelines do not establish minimum evidentiary standards required to demonstrate that a particular animal is responsible for recurring damage. A formal Norms and Standards will address this deficiency. Modern wildlife management increasingly relies upon forensic evidence, site evaluations and carcass inspections, photographic evidence, camera trap records, DNA analysis and other scientific techniques. Greater encouragement of objective verification would reduce disputes regarding causation.
Thirdly, although deterrent measures are appropriately emphasised, the clause does not establish a clear decision-making hierarchy indicating when lethal interventions become proportionate after non-lethal measures have failed.
Finally, while subparagraph (9) appropriately discourages the killing of animals where damage results from human negligence, additional guidance would assist issuing authorities in determining the extent to which negligence contributed to the conflict.
Recommendation
Clause 5 should be amended to —
· establish clearer decision-making criteria for issuing authorities when evaluating permit applications and recommending management interventions;
· encourage the use of objective scientific evidence, including photographic records, forensic investigations and other reliable methods of verification where reasonably available;
· introduce a proportional decision-making hierarchy requiring documented consideration of preventative and non-lethal measures before lethal interventions are authorised;
· provide guidance regarding assessment of recurring incidents and cumulative damage;
· clarify factors relevant to determining whether human negligence materially contributed to the conflict.
Motivation
Strengthening the assessment framework will improve administrative consistency, enhance procedural fairness and reinforce evidence-based environmental governance. Clearer assessment criteria will also reduce disputes, improve transparency and increase public confidence in permitting decisions while supporting more effective long-term management of human–wildlife conflict.
General Observation on Clauses 4–5
Clauses 4 and 5 establish the central decision-making framework underpinning the Draft Guidelines. Together they appropriately recognise that effective management of damage-causing animals requires proactive prevention, objective assessment and informed decision-making rather than reactive responses alone.
The recommended amendments seek to strengthen these provisions by promoting proportionality, transparency, scientific evidence and adaptive management while preserving the flexibility necessary to respond to diverse ecological and socio-economic circumstances across South Africa. These refinements would significantly enhance the legal robustness, administrative consistency and practical effectiveness of the Draft Guidelines.
Clause 6
Guidelines for the Translocation of Damage-Causing Animals
Current Provision
Clause 6 regulates the translocation of damage-causing animals and provides that translocation should only occur where conflict cannot reasonably be mitigated in the area where the damage has occurred. The clause requires compliance with applicable legislation and prescribes consent requirements, record-keeping obligations and encourages post-release monitoring through the use of tracking devices where practicable.
Analysis
Clause 6 represents a welcome recognition that translocation may provide an important non-lethal management option in appropriate circumstances, the latter being the emphasis. By requiring that translocation only be considered where conflict cannot reasonably be mitigated at the site of origin, the Guidelines appropriately discourage unnecessary relocation of wildlife.
The requirement that translocation comply with applicable legislation and be authorised by the relevant issuing authority is consistent with established conservation practice and ensures appropriate regulatory oversight.
The provisions requiring written consent from affected landowners, together with comprehensive record-keeping obligations, significantly improve administrative accountability and traceability.
The encouragement of post-release monitoring through tracking technology reflects internationally accepted conservation practice and recognises that translocation should not be regarded as complete merely upon release of the animal.
Notwithstanding these strengths, several shortcomings remain.
The Guidelines do not establish objective ecological criteria for determining when translocation is appropriate. Modern conservation science recognises that translocation frequently carries significant risks, including disruption of established social structures, increased mortality, disease transmission, genetic consequences, displacement of resident populations and renewed conflict at release sites.
Although subparagraph (3) requires consideration of potential impacts on receiving populations, the provision remains relatively general and does not require formal ecological risk assessment.
The Guidelines likewise do not distinguish between species for which translocation has demonstrated conservation value and species for which repeated relocation has historically proved ineffective. The different species have differing requirements and one only needs to interrogate differences between TOPS species like lion, leopard, cheetah, elephants, wild dogs to appreciate the species-specific needs.
Furthermore, while monitoring is encouraged, no minimum monitoring period or reporting obligation is prescribed following release.
Recommendation
Clause 6 should be amended to —
· require ecological feasibility assessments before approving translocation;
· require consideration of animal welfare, disease risk, genetic integrity and habitat suitability as mandatory assessment criteria;
· distinguish between species for which translocation is scientifically appropriate and those for which alternative interventions are preferable;
· prescribe minimum post-release monitoring requirements and reporting periods where tracking devices are utilised;
· require adaptive review of translocation outcomes to inform future permitting decisions.
Motivation
The proposed amendments would align the Guidelines with internationally accepted wildlife translocation principles, reduce unintended ecological consequences and improve evidence-based decision-making. Greater reliance upon ecological assessment will also improve long-term conservation outcomes while ensuring that translocation is used only where it represents an appropriate management intervention.
Herewith are for example peer-reviewed translocation recommendations for leopards:
PROPOSED PROTOCOLS OF LEOPARD TRANSLOCATIONS
Conditions required for consideration for translocation of Damage Causing Leopards
1. Leopard causes validated, repeated, regular losses to livestock where several non-lethal mitigation actions have failed.
2. All mitigation measures proposed by conservation authorities have been exhausted.
3. Leopard causes validated, repeated and regular, and excessive losses to wild game or domestic specimens managed in breeding camps, which is inconsistent with the animal’s natural behaviour and is ecologically or excessively commercially damaging in areas with Certificates of Adequate Enclosures for the species affected.
4. Leopard presents an imminent and realistic threat to human life.
Pre-conditions for translocation to be undertaken
1. Ensuring the release site is large enough to support leopards in a wild free-roaming territory.
2. Release site habitat has depleted presence or absent leopard activity, as is reasonably possible to determine or areas where such releases would be tolerated and provide opportunities for ecological dispersal
3. Encourage ecologically compatible release site habitat to the original capture site habitat.
4. Receiving habitat has adequate suitable natural prey availability.
5. Release site is considered to have no or very low chance of post release human-carnivore conflict present.
6. Release site is not surrounded by intensive livestock farming or intensive game breeding camps with rare, very high value game which is also natural prey for leopards.
7. Released leopards must be GPS satellite collared and monitored, and form part of a scientific analysis of the efficacy of such translocations.
8. Basic morphology, sex of the animal and reason for translocation should be collected.
9. Genetic analysis of all leopards will be undertaken to understand the genetics of local populations, and best available information must be consulted, i.e., ecotypes, subspecies.
10. Consideration should be given to local institutional arrangements and variations of different leopard conservation imperatives in each region by considering variations in leopard biological responses within their respective areas.
Post-translocation objectives
1. Leopards are not to be habituated or kept captive beyond the release period deemed appropriate by the conservation authorities and veterinarians caring for the animals.
2. Leopards must be GPS Satellite collared and monitored for as long as possible, but at least six-months post release, and form part of the scientific analysis of the efficacity of translocations.
3. Preferentially leopards are to be released into state/ or collaborating private protected areas wherefrom they had been extirpated.
4. Private landowners or entities receiving the translocated leopards must be encouraged to contribute towards the costs of translocation, collars and any costs incurred in monitoring or analysis of the translocation effort.
5. Private protected area entities receiving the leopards must enter a legal contract with the authorities to take all legal and financial responsibility for any damage that may result from the relocated animal.
6. Any subsequent interference with the leopard must be subject to relevant permitting.
7. The entities receiving the leopards will comply with all permit requirements and conditions.
8. Translocated leopards may not be hunted.
9. Entities that want to receive leopards may not canvas for leopards to be labelled as DCA, any such actions will disqualify applicants from participating in translocations.
10. Leopards will be randomly allocated to receiving entities by the authorities if competing private applications exist, but ecological considerations will more than likely be able to discriminate the most suitable release sites.
11. The authorities may elect to serially send opposite sexes sequentially to the same location should attempts be supported to re-establish leopards in former areas of distribution (i.e., reintroduction).
Clause 7
Deterrent Methods to Prevent or Minimise Damage
Current Provision
Clause 7 identifies a wide range of acceptable non-lethal deterrent measures, including fencing, livestock guarding animals, shepherding, protective collars, alarms, lights, camera traps, GPS monitoring and other husbandry practices. The clause further provides that the most effective management generally involves the combination and alternation of multiple deterrent methods.
Analysis
Clause 7 represents one of the strongest components of the Draft Guidelines.
By placing deterrent measures at the centre of damage-causing animal management, the Guidelines appropriately adopt internationally recognised principles favouring prevention over reactive lethal control. There is a growing body of scientific evidence supporting this approach and its efficacy.
The extensive list of available deterrent measures provides practical guidance to landowners while recognising that successful conflict mitigation often depends upon integrated management rather than reliance upon a single intervention.
The explicit recognition that combinations of deterrent measures generally provide the greatest effectiveness reflects current ecological research regarding predator behaviour and habituation.
The clause also aligns closely with the White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity, which promotes coexistence between people and wildlife through preventative management approaches.
Nevertheless, certain refinements would strengthen the provision.
The list of deterrent methods remains illustrative rather than evidence-based. No indication is provided regarding the relative effectiveness of different interventions under differing ecological or farming conditions.
Similarly, the clause does not recognise that effectiveness varies according to predator species, livestock production system, landscape characteristics and available financial resources.
Although the clause encourages multiple interventions, it provides no guidance regarding adaptive evaluation of effectiveness over time.
Finally, greater recognition should be given to emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence-assisted monitoring systems, automated detection devices and remote sensing technologies that have become increasingly available for livestock protection.
Recommendation
Clause 7 should be amended to —
· encourage selection of deterrent methods according to species-specific behavioural characteristics;
· recognise that effectiveness should be evaluated through ongoing monitoring and adaptive management;
· include reference to emerging technologies where appropriate;
· encourage issuing authorities to provide technical guidance regarding the suitability of deterrent methods under differing ecological circumstances;
· expressly recognise that socio-economic considerations may influence the practicality of particular deterrent methods.
Motivation
Strengthening Clause 7 would reinforce prevention as the primary management objective while promoting more effective and evidence-based implementation of non-lethal conflict mitigation measures. Greater flexibility and adaptive evaluation would improve long-term effectiveness while reducing unnecessary reliance upon lethal interventions.
Clause 8
Regulated Methods to Manage Damage or Damage-Causing Animals
Current Provision
Clause 8 identifies management interventions generally requiring permits under applicable biodiversity legislation, including cage traps, poison collars, darting, call-and-shoot, leghold traps, dogs and poison ejecting apparatus. Permit holders are required to comply with applicable legislation and the minimum requirements prescribed in Part 3 of the Guidelines.
Analysis
Clause 8 establishes the principal regulatory mechanism governing management interventions involving elevated ecological, welfare or public safety risks.
The requirement that these methods generally be subject to permitting appropriately promotes regulatory oversight and accountability while recognising the potentially significant impacts associated with their use. This would be strengthened through reverting back to enabling provisions of Norms and Standards.
The clause also correctly acknowledges that individual methods remain prohibited where they are prohibited under other applicable legislation, thereby reinforcing legal consistency.
The encouragement of training for authorised persons is similarly commendable and reflects recognition that competent implementation significantly influences both effectiveness and animal welfare outcomes, especially considering that these methods are currently widely operated by complete untrained persons.
However, several aspects warrant reconsideration.
The clause treats a diverse range of interventions under a relatively uniform permitting framework despite substantial differences in the risks presented by each method. For example, chemical immobilisation performed by veterinarians presents very different regulatory considerations from poison-based management interventions, gin traps, and dog hunting.
Similarly, the Guidelines provide limited guidance regarding circumstances in which particular regulated methods should be preferred over others.
No hierarchy is established to guide issuing authorities in selecting the least invasive intervention capable of effectively resolving the conflict.
The clause would also benefit from greater incorporation of proportionality principles, requiring regulatory decisions to balance conservation objectives, animal welfare, human safety and agricultural interests in each individual case.
Recommendation
Clause 8 should be amended to —
· establish a decision-making hierarchy favouring the least invasive effective intervention;
· distinguish between regulated methods according to their ecological, welfare and public safety risks;
· require issuing authorities to provide written reasons where more invasive management interventions are authorised;
· strengthen competency requirements for persons authorised to implement regulated methods;
· incorporate adaptive review of permitting decisions based upon monitoring outcomes and scientific evidence.
Motivation
The proposed amendments would improve transparency, consistency and accountability within the permitting system while promoting proportionate decision-making. Differentiating regulatory approaches according to risk would better align management interventions with constitutional environmental principles, biodiversity conservation objectives and contemporary standards of animal welfare.
General Observation on Clauses 6–8
Clauses 6 to 8 collectively establish the transition from preventative management toward regulated intervention. They appropriately prioritise prevention, recognise translocation as a potential non-lethal option and provide a structured permitting framework for more invasive management methods.
The proposed amendments seek to strengthen scientific rigour, adaptive management, proportionality and administrative consistency while maintaining sufficient flexibility for issuing authorities to respond effectively to diverse human–wildlife conflict situations. Collectively, these refinements would improve both conservation outcomes and regulatory certainty, reinforcing the overall objective of promoting integrated and evidence-based management of damage-causing animals in South Africa.
Clause 9
Minimum Requirements for the Use of Cage Traps
Current Provision
Clause 9 prescribes the minimum standards applicable to the use of cage traps for the live capture of damage-causing animals. The clause regulates trap placement, inspection intervals, humane handling of captured animals, release of non-target species, and design specifications intended to minimise injury and unnecessary suffering.
Analysis
Clause 9 represents an important advancement in establishing nationally consistent welfare standards for the live capture of wildlife. Unlike historical practices, which often varied considerably between jurisdictions, the clause introduces minimum operational requirements that promote humane treatment and accountability.
The requirement that traps be inspected at least every 24 hours reflects accepted animal welfare principles by reducing prolonged confinement and unnecessary stress. Likewise, the provisions requiring shade, protection from environmental exposure and prompt attention to captured animals demonstrate an appropriate recognition that capture itself constitutes a significant welfare event.
The requirement that non-target animals be released immediately further supports biodiversity conservation by reducing incidental impacts associated with trapping activities.
The prescribed design specifications, including smooth mesh construction, safety catches and appropriately sized traps, also represent sound operational practice intended to minimise injury.
However, several shortcomings remain.
A maximum inspection interval of 24 hours may not adequately protect animal welfare during periods of extreme weather or where highly stress-sensitive species are involved. International best practice increasingly favours more frequent inspections, particularly where ambient temperatures are high or where prolonged restraint may increase mortality.
Similarly, the Guidelines do not require regular maintenance or certification of cage traps to ensure continued compliance with minimum design standards.
The provisions also remain largely procedural and do not establish competency requirements for persons responsible for monitoring or handling trapped animals.
Recommendation
Clause 9 should be amended to —
· require inspection intervals appropriate to climatic conditions and target species, with more frequent inspections where reasonably practicable;
· require routine maintenance and inspection of cage traps to ensure continued compliance with prescribed standards;
· require persons responsible for trap monitoring to possess appropriate training in humane wildlife handling;
· encourage electronic monitoring technologies where feasible to facilitate rapid response following capture;
· require written records of trap inspections as part of permit compliance.
Motivation
The proposed amendments would further reduce unnecessary suffering, improve accountability and strengthen consistency with internationally recognised animal welfare standards while preserving the operational flexibility required for effective wildlife management.
Clause 10
Minimum Requirements for the Use of Poison Collars
Current Provision
Clause 10 regulates the use of poison collars fitted to livestock for predator control. It prescribes warning signage, disposal of poisoned carcasses, safe storage requirements and limits the poison used to sodium monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080), or any subsequently registered alternative.
Analysis
Clause 10 attempts to regulate one of the most controversial management interventions contained within the Draft Guidelines.
The inclusion of strict storage requirements, warning notices and disposal obligations reflects an acknowledgement of the significant ecological and public safety risks associated with poison-based predator management.
Get Bool Smuts’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Nevertheless, poison collars remain inherently problematic from both ecological and animal welfare perspectives.
Secondary poisoning of scavengers and non-target predators continues to represent one of the principal conservation concerns associated with toxic predator control. Although the clause requires prompt carcass disposal, the effectiveness of this safeguard depends heavily upon timely discovery and discovery at all, which cannot always be guaranteed under field conditions.
Furthermore, the Guidelines provide no scientific justification explaining why poison collars should remain available where numerous alternative non-lethal methods are increasingly recognised as effective, not least the extreme suffering it causes in the killing process.
The clause also provides limited guidance regarding monitoring, auditing or reporting of poison collar use, despite the heightened environmental risks associated with toxic substances.
Given the constitutional importance increasingly attached to biodiversity conservation and animal welfare, continued reliance upon poison-based interventions should be approached with considerable caution and consideration to making it a prohibited method.
Recommendation
Primary submission: the use of poison collars should be prohibited, and clause 10 should be deleted.
Clause 10(3) provides that “only sodium monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080) should be used in a poison collar”. The Guidelines contain no ecological risk assessment supporting that endorsement, no assessment of secondary poisoning risk, and no explanation of why a toxin of this character should remain available at all.
The method is unreliable in its operation and indiscriminate in its consequences. It depends upon a predator attacking the neck of the collared animal and puncturing a compartment. Predators that attack the flank, hindquarters or abdomen will not trigger it, so the method does not reliably reach the animals at which it is directed. Conversely, once a compartment is punctured, the toxin is released into the environment, onto the collared animal, and into any animal that subsequently feeds on the carcass of either the collared animal or the poisoned predator.
The safeguards in clause 10(1)© and (d) require prompt removal and disposal of carcasses “upon discovery thereof”. Their efficacy depends entirely upon timely discovery, which under extensive rangeland conditions cannot be assured and frequently will not occur. A safeguard conditioned on discovery is no safeguard in respect of what is not discovered, and it is precisely the undiscovered carcass that presents the secondary poisoning risk to scavenging birds and mammals.
Compound 1080 causes death by disruption of cellular respiration following a latent period. Death is neither immediate nor humane, and no practical field antidote exists. The method is therefore incapable of satisfying any standard of humane killing, and its use is difficult to reconcile with clause 4(3)(a) of the Guidelines themselves, which requires that an animal injured to the point of suffering be treated by a veterinarian or humanely killed.
Landmark Foundation further submits that the registration status of Compound 1080 for this purpose should be stated expressly in any final instrument. Clause 10(2) requires that the collar “must be registered in terms of applicable legislation” without identifying the legislation, the registration, or the holder of it.
Alternative submission, if the Department declines to prohibit:
· poison collars should be prohibited within the known range of any species listed as threatened or protected, and within the foraging range of any vulture species;
· every deployment should be registered with the issuing authority before the collar is fitted, recording the property, the number of collars, the period of deployment and the GPS coordinates of the camp;
· collared animals should be inspected daily and the inspection recorded;
· every punctured collar, every collared animal that does not survive, and every non-target animal found dead within the deployment area should be reported to the issuing authority;
· the issuing authority should be required to satisfy itself, on recorded reasons, that non-lethal measures have been implemented and have failed, before authorising deployment; and
· the registration status of the toxin and of the device should be verified and recorded on the face of every permit.
Motivation
Poison collars cannot be reconciled with the ecological selectivity principle the Guidelines themselves advance. The safeguards presently proposed depend upon the discovery of carcasses that will frequently not be discovered, and the toxin endorsed causes a protracted death for which no field antidote exists. Prohibition is the only response proportionate to those characteristics. The conditions advanced in the alternative would, if prohibition is declined, at least render deployment traceable and auditable, which it is not at present.
Clause 11
Minimum Requirements for the Darting of Damage-Causing Animals
Current Provision
Clause 11 regulates chemical immobilisation of damage-causing animals by restricting darting to registered veterinarians or appropriately authorised persons operating under applicable legislation and permit conditions.
Analysis
Clause 11 appropriately recognises that chemical immobilisation constitutes a specialised veterinary procedure requiring significant technical competence.
Restricting darting to registered veterinarians or specifically authorised individuals substantially reduces the risk of injury, mortality and inappropriate drug administration.
The cross-reference to the South African Veterinary Council appropriately reinforces existing professional regulatory frameworks while avoiding unnecessary duplication.
Chemical immobilisation frequently represents one of the most humane management interventions available where animals require relocation, veterinary treatment or scientific examination.
However, the clause could be strengthened by addressing operational standards beyond professional authorisation.
No guidance is provided regarding post-dart monitoring, emergency contingency planning, reversal agents or welfare assessment following recovery.
Similarly, the clause does not require reporting of unsuccessful darting attempts or accidental mortalities, despite their potential value for improving future management practices.
Recommendation
Clause 11 should be amended to —
· require documented capture protocols addressing animal welfare throughout the immobilisation process;
· require contingency plans for emergencies arising during darting operations;
· require reporting of unsuccessful immobilisation events and mortalities;
· encourage continuing professional training in wildlife chemical immobilisation;
· require post-release monitoring where animals are translocated following immobilisation.
Motivation
These amendments would strengthen animal welfare, improve procedural consistency and contribute valuable operational data for adaptive management while reinforcing existing veterinary regulatory standards.
Clause 12
Minimum Requirements for Call-and-Shoot
Current Provision
Clause 12 regulates the use of the call-and-shoot method by requiring compliance with permit conditions, encouraging the targeting of specific problem animals and prohibiting deliberate attraction of animals from protected areas.
Analysis
Clause 12 appropriately attempts to confine lethal control to identified problem animal individuals rather than encouraging indiscriminate predator removal. This is practically counter to the practice of this method that is almost exclusive focused on species culls.
The prohibition against deliberately attracting wildlife from protected areas represents an important safeguard preventing inappropriate expansion of predator control beyond genuine conflict situations.
Targeted removal of verified problem individuals is generally more consistent with contemporary predator management than broad-scale population reduction.
However, practical implementation presents significant challenges.
Correct identification of individual problem animals is frequently difficult, particularly where several predators occupy overlapping territories. Consequently, the effectiveness of call-and-shoot operations depends heavily upon accurate identification of the individual responsible for recurring damage. The practical implementation hereof is not addressed, let alone administratively monitored and enforced. The Guidelines also provide little guidance regarding the evidentiary threshold necessary before authorising lethal removal. Nor do they establish competency standards for persons undertaking call-and-shoot operations beyond general permit compliance. Animal welfare considerations relating to marksmanship, equipment selection and humane dispatch likewise receive limited attention.
Recommendation
Clause 12 should be amended to —
· require objective evidence supporting identification of the target animal wherever reasonably practicable;
· require competency standards for authorised operators;
· incorporate explicit humane dispatch requirements consistent with accepted animal welfare principles;
· encourage post-operation reporting evaluating effectiveness;
· require issuing authorities to document reasons where lethal intervention is authorised.
Motivation
The proposed amendments would improve accountability, strengthen animal welfare protections and increase confidence that lethal interventions remain targeted, proportionate and scientifically justified rather than becoming routine predator control measures. Practically this remains difficult and the widespread practice is effectively species cull efforts and it remains difficult to foresee compliance with state operations unless it is confined to licensed and monitored operators, which should be considered.
General Observation on Clauses 9–12
Clauses 9–12 establish operational standards governing several of the principal regulated management interventions. Collectively, they represent a significant improvement over the historical absence of nationally consistent guidance regarding implementation of these methods.
The recommended amendments seek to strengthen welfare safeguards, improve accountability, promote professional competency and reinforce evidence-based decision-making. In doing so, the Guidelines would better balance biodiversity conservation, agricultural interests and constitutional obligations relating to environmental protection and humane treatment of wildlife, and the efficiency and practical effectiveness of the Draft Guidelines.
Clause 13
Minimum Requirements for the Use of Leghold Traps
Current Provision
Clause 13 regulates the use of leghold traps by prescribing permit requirements, inspection intervals, design specifications, placement restrictions and operational limitations. It further provides that leghold traps should only be used as a measure of last resort where no other viable management option is available. The Landmark Foundation cannot accept the continued use of these methods nor the rebranding of these devices that are more correctly referred to as gin traps in South Africa.
Analysis
Clause 13 acknowledges the significant animal welfare concerns associated with leghold/gin traps traps and accordingly attempts to regulate their use through detailed technical specifications and operational safeguards.
The requirement that only offset or padded jaws may be used, together with restrictions on serrated or spiked jaws, reflects internationally recognised efforts to minimise injury while retaining trapping effectiveness, but which effectively make no difference to their problematic welfare concern or indiscriminate characteristics. Likewise, the prescribed swivel mechanisms, spring attachments and pan tension settings are intended to reduce indiscriminate nature and suffering, and minimize the capture of smaller non-target species which is a false security or mitigation efforts to promote its continued use.
The placement restrictions represent false mitigation on this device. Prohibiting deployment near watering points, roads, dens, critically endangered species habitat and fence crossings does not reduces risks to non-target wildlife and domestic animals, nor address welfare and cruelty concerns.
Most importantly, subparagraph (5) expressly recognises that leghold traps should be regarded as a management intervention of last resort. This reflects the growing international consensus that trapping methods capable of causing prolonged restraint and crulety should only be authorised where less invasive alternatives have proven ineffective.
Nevertheless, several concerns remain.
The requirement that traps be inspected at least once every twenty-four hours may still permit extended periods of restraint during which animals may suffer injury, dehydration, exposure or predation.
The Guidelines do not prescribe any maximum period during which an animal may remain restrained after discovery.
Similarly, no competency or certification requirements are established for persons responsible for setting or monitoring leghold traps.
The clause also lacks any mechanism requiring systematic evaluation of the effectiveness of leghold trapping relative to alternative interventions.
Recommendation
Primary submission: the use of leghold traps should be prohibited, and clause 13 should be deleted.
The Draft Guidelines advance a single mechanism for the selectivity of the leghold trap. Clause 13(2)© requires a screw capable of adjusting pan tension, “which should be set for at least 1.75 kg to exclude most foxes and carnivores smaller than the black-backed jackal”. It does nothing for animals above that threshold and this mechanism is widely disregarded in practice anyway.
This is the impact on an adult male leopard of the leghold/gin traps as contemplated under the published guidelines and standards. Any attempt to portray the off-set jaws, trigger plate or swivels on the chain as mitigating features does not change the impact of these devices.
That mechanism operates in one direction only. It excludes animals lighter than the threshold. It does not, and cannot, exclude anything heavier. Every species heavier than a black-backed jackal remains fully susceptible, including caracal, leopard, brown hyaena, honey badger, aardwolf and African wild dog, together with domestic dogs, livestock and children. A weight threshold set at the lower bound is not selectivity; above the threshold the device does not discriminate at all. The Guidelines therefore endorse a device whose only stated safeguard is inoperative against precisely those species whose conservation status makes their capture most serious. A 5mm set back has no protection o limbs greater than that thickness and the abhorrent injuries still persists.
The exclusion in clause 13(4)(f) does not remedy this. It provides that a leghold trap should not be set “in areas where critically endangered animal species occur”. It omits endangered, vulnerable and protected species entirely, and it is cast in permissive rather than mandatory terms.
The welfare consequences are inherent in the device and are not susceptible to mitigation by condition. Capture is effected by closing sprung jaws on a limb. The captured animal remains restrained and conscious, and struggles. Clause 13(1)(b) permits an interval of up to 24 hours before the trap need be checked, and that requirement is itself expressed as “should” rather than “must”. The suffering caused during that interval is not incidental to the method; it is the method.
Clause 13(5) provides that leghold traps “should be considered as a last resort only, where no other viable method is possible”. That provision is an acknowledgement by the Department that the device is not an ordinary management tool. Landmark Foundation submits that the acknowledgement is correct and that the appropriate response to it is prohibition, rather than a permissive last-resort formulation which, being cast in “should”, imposes no obligation on any issuing authority.
A permit issued under biodiversity legislation does not authorise conduct that would otherwise constitute an offence under the Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962. An instrument that endorses a device incapable of being used without causing the suffering described above places permit holders in a position of legal jeopardy which the Guidelines nowhere disclose to them.
Alternative submission, regrettably if the Department declines to prohibit:
· the use of leghold traps should be prohibited within the known range of any species listed as threatened or protected, and clause 13(4)(f) should be extended accordingly and recast in mandatory terms;
· traps should be required to be inspected at first light on every day on which they are set, and the interval in clause 13(1)(b) recast as a mandatory obligation;
· every capture, including every non-target capture and every injury observed, should be reported to the issuing authority as a condition of the permit;
· the set location of every trap should be recorded by GPS coordinate and furnished to the issuing authority before the trap is set;
· the use of a leghold trap should be permitted only by a person who has completed prescribed national training in its use, in accordance with the competency requirement proposed under clause 1; and
· the Department should confirm the status of leghold/gin traps under each provincial ordinance and applicable provincial legislation, and the Guidelines should record expressly that they do not authorise the use of a device prohibited by provincial law.
Motivation
The single selectivity mechanism the Guidelines advance for this device is inoperative against every species heavier than the weight threshold, which includes each of the listed species whose capture would be most serious. The welfare consequences are inherent in the mechanism of capture and cannot be conditioned away. The Department’s own characterisation of the device as a last resort is an acknowledgement that it stands apart from ordinary management methods, and prohibition gives that acknowledgement effect.
Clause 14
Minimum Requirements for the Use of Dogs
Current Provision
Clause 14 regulates the use of dogs in the management of damage-causing animals by prescribing registration, identification, supervision and operational requirements. Dogs may be used for tracking, pursuing, flushing or retrieving damage-causing animals but may not be used to kill them, which is devoid of the practical realities of hunting with dogs and cannot be operationalized as written in the Guidelines as present.
Analysis
Clause 14 asserts that trained dogs may provide an effective management tool in specific circumstances while simultaneously imposing safeguards intended to prevent abuse. Landmark Foundation asserts this is a false premise.
The registration requirements, identification through microchips or GPS collars and obligations placed upon handlers significantly improve accountability and traceability, but does not address the practical effect of this method. Equally important is the requirement that handlers remain present throughout operations and accept responsibility for the conduct of their dogs.
The prohibition against allowing dogs to kill damage-causing animals represents an important animal welfare safeguard and distinguishes tracking operations from uncontrolled pursuit, but the practical reality is not implementable.
However, several aspects warrant further consideration.
The Guidelines do not prescribe minimum competency or accreditation standards for handlers or dogs. Similarly, no guidance is provided regarding training methods, welfare standards applicable to working dogs or operational circumstances in which dog-assisted management may be inappropriate. The clause also remains silent regarding interactions with threatened or protected species and does not expressly prohibit the use of dogs where there is a significant likelihood of disturbance to sensitive wildlife populations.
It is Landmark Foundation that this method be prohibited as it cannot and does not address the unselective, cruel and ecological impact of the method
Recommendation
Alternative submission, regrettably if the Department declines to prohibit the Clause 14 should be amended to —
· require formal accreditation of handlers and operational dogs;
· establish minimum welfare standards applicable to working dogs;
· prohibit the use of dogs where threatened or protected species may be adversely affected, unless specifically authorised;
· require operational records documenting each deployment;
· require issuing authorities to evaluate the effectiveness and welfare implications of dog-assisted management.
· Require authority to accompany dog hunts.
Motivation
These amendments would strengthen professional standards, improve accountability and ensure that the use of dogs remains consistent with both conservation objectives and accepted animal welfare principles.
Clause 15
Minimum Requirements for the Use of a Poison Ejecting Apparatus
Current Provision
Clause 15 regulates the use of poison ejecting apparatus through permit requirements, operational restrictions, approved poison specifications, warning notices, placement limitations, daily inspections and restrictions where threatened predator species occur.
Analysis
Clause 15 regulates arguably the most controversial management intervention contained within the Draft Guidelines. It is inconceivable that the guidelines is contemplating the return of a methods discarded in the 1980s and that will distribute cyanide in the environment.
The extensive operational safeguards — including daily inspection, warning signage, species-specific placement restrictions and prohibition within areas supporting threatened predators — reflect an appreciation of the significant ecological risks associated with poison-based management, though its permissive allowance in the guidelines remains a major concern.
The requirement that the apparatus operate through sealed cyanide capsules reduces certain risks associated with loose toxic substances and promotes greater operational consistency.
Nevertheless, significant concerns remain.
The use of sodium cyanide continues to present substantial risks to non-target wildlife, scavengers, domestic animals and, potentially, humans.
Although the apparatus is designed to target specific predators, complete species selectivity cannot be guaranteed nor individual targeted specificity.
Secondary poisoning, accidental activation and unintended ecological consequences remain well documented within international conservation literature.
Furthermore, the clause relies heavily upon operator compliance without establishing comprehensive auditing or verification mechanisms, and entirely lacking in oversight.
The continued inclusion of poison ejecting apparatus should therefore be carefully evaluated against contemporary biodiversity conservation principles and the increasing availability of effective non-lethal alternatives.
The Guidelines also do not explain why poison ejecting apparatus remains necessary where integrated preventative management has been successfully implemented.
Recommendation
Primary submission: the use of poison ejecting apparatus should be prohibited, and clause 15 should be deleted.
Of the methods addressed in this submission, the gin traps, dog hunting and poison ejecting apparatus is the least capable of discrimination. Clause 15(3) describes the device: it fires sodium cyanide from a sealed capsule by means of a spring-driven plunger. It is triggered by an animal pulling on a baited head. It discharges into the mouth of whatever pulls it.
The device has no capacity whatever to identify what has triggered it. It cannot distinguish a black-backed jackal from a caracal, a honey badger, an aardwolf, a brown hyaena, a domestic dog, or a child. Nor can it prevent the subsequent scavenging from the poisoned carcass and secondary and even tertiary poisoning. Clause 15(1)(e) requires the use of “an appropriate lure to limit the possibility of attracting animals of non-target species”, which is an attractant-based mitigation of a mechanism that operates on contact; it reduces the probability of a non-target approach and does nothing at all once the approach has occurred. Nor such lures exist that attract culprit individual or even exclusively specific species.
The exclusions are inadequate on their own terms. Clause 15(2) prohibits placement only where “predator species that are listed as threatened species” occur or are likely to occur. It omits protected species. It omits non-predator species entirely, notwithstanding that the device is triggered by pulling rather than by predation. Clause 15(1)(d) addresses public safety only by excluding “public land used as recreational areas by the public”, which does not extend to farm workers, to persons exercising rights of access, or to communal land.
The timing provisions are internally inconsistent. Clause 15(1)(g) requires the device to be checked every 24 hours; clause 15(1)(h) permits it to remain in place for three days. There is no obligation to record an activation, to recover the carcass of an animal that has moved off before dying, or to report a non-target death.
Sodium cyanide causes death by cellular asphyxiation — chemical suffocation. An animal that receives a sub-lethal dose and moves away will die elsewhere, unrecorded, and its carcass will present a further hazard. The method is not capable of being rendered selective, humane or accountable by any condition available to an issuing authority.
Alternative submission, if the Department, regrettably, declines to prohibit:
· the device should be prohibited within the known range of any species listed as threatened or protected, and clause 15(2) extended accordingly;
· the device should be prohibited on any land to which any person other than the landholder has a right of access, including communal land and land occupied by farm workers and their households;
· every activation should be reported to the issuing authority within 24 hours, whether or not a carcass is recovered, and whether or not the animal is a target species;
· the placement period in clause 15(1)(h) should be reduced to the period between consecutive daily inspections, and both provisions recast in mandatory terms;
· warning signage under clause 15(1)(f) should be prescribed as to size, wording, language and placement, and required at every point of access to the property; and
· the device should be deployed only by a person who has completed prescribed national training, in accordance with the competency requirement proposed under clause 1.
Motivation
A device triggered by contact and discharging into the mouth of whatever pulls it cannot be rendered selective. The lure-based mitigation the Guidelines propose operates before contact and is irrelevant after it. The exclusions omit protected species, omit non-predators altogether, and leave farm workers and communal land users unprotected. Prohibition is the only response available that is proportionate to those characteristics.
General Observation on Clauses 13–15
Clauses 13–15 regulate the most invasive management interventions authorised under the Draft Guidelines. Collectively, they recognise the need for strict regulation where management techniques carry elevated risks to biodiversity, animal welfare and public safety.
While the Draft Guidelines represent a considerable improvement over fragmented historical regulation, further refinement is required to ensure that these interventions remain genuinely exceptional, scientifically justified and subject to rigorous oversight. The proposed amendments reinforce the principles of proportionality, accountability, adaptive management and humane treatment that underpin modern biodiversity governance and would significantly strengthen the legal defensibility and practical implementation of the Guidelines.
Clause 16
Disposal of Carcasses
Current Provision
Clause 16 regulates the disposal of carcasses of damage-causing animals following management interventions. It authorises the issuing authority to determine appropriate disposal methods and prescribes specific requirements where poison or lead ammunition has been used. Poisoned carcasses must be burned or buried with lime, while carcasses containing lead projectiles must be buried to prevent scavenger exposure. Burial near watercourses is prohibited.
Analysis
Clause 16 appropriately recognises that carcass disposal forms an integral component of responsible wildlife management rather than merely an administrative consequence of lethal intervention.
The provisions relating to poisoned carcasses are particularly important. Secondary poisoning remains one of the most significant ecological risks associated with toxic predator control, affecting scavenging birds, mammals and other non-target wildlife. Requiring immediate destruction or deep burial substantially reduces these risks. The major problem that goes to the heart of this issue is the vast majority of poisoned carcasses are never retrieved and this secondary poisoning is inevitable.
Similarly, the requirement that carcasses containing lead ammunition be buried reflects increasing scientific recognition of lead toxicosis among scavenging species, particularly vultures and large raptors.
The prohibition on burial near water sources appropriately protects surface and groundwater from contamination and aligns with broader environmental management principles.
Nevertheless that our recommendation that these methods be prohibited, several aspects could be strengthened should they be persisted with. The clause does not specify timeframes within which carcasses must be disposed of, leaving uncertainty regarding compliance expectations. Nor does it prescribe record-keeping obligations documenting carcass disposal, particularly where poison has been employed. The provision also does not encourage the gradual transition toward non-lead ammunition, despite growing international concern regarding environmental lead contamination. Finally, the Guidelines do not address biosecurity considerations where carcasses may present disease transmission risks.
Recommendation
Clause 16 should be amended to —
· prescribe maximum timeframes for carcass disposal following discovery;
· require written records documenting carcass disposal where regulated management interventions are used;
· encourage progressive transition toward non-lead ammunition where operationally feasible;
· incorporate biosecurity guidance where carcasses present disease risks;
· require issuing authorities to monitor compliance with carcass disposal requirements during permit audits.
Motivation
These amendments would reduce ecological risks associated with secondary poisoning and environmental contamination while improving regulatory accountability and consistency with modern conservation practice.
Clause 17
Monitoring and Reporting
Current Provision
Clause 17 requires monitoring of regulated management interventions and provides for record-keeping relating to damage incidents, management interventions, captured or killed animals, photographic documentation and annual reporting to the issuing authority.
Analysis
Clause 17 is arguably the most significant provision within the Draft Guidelines from a governance perspective.
Its emphasis on systematic monitoring and reporting provides the foundation for adaptive management and evidence-based policy development.
The requirement that both landowners and persons implementing management interventions maintain records introduce an important level of accountability that has historically been absent from many predator management programmes.
The detailed reporting requirements — including species identification, biological measurements, photographic documentation and intervention outcomes — create the potential for a valuable national database capable of informing future policy and scientific research.
Such information would substantially improve understanding of human-wildlife conflict patterns, intervention effectiveness and broader conservation outcomes.
The inclusion of Annexure A as a standardised reporting template further promotes national consistency and facilitates comparable data collection across jurisdictions.
Despite these considerable strengths, several important limitations remain.
The Guidelines do not specify how reported information will be stored, analysed or utilised.
No obligation is placed upon issuing authorities to publish aggregated statistics or periodically evaluate management outcomes.
Similarly, there is no provision requiring periodic review of the Guidelines themselves in light of monitoring data and emerging scientific evidence.
The reporting obligations are also largely one-directional, requiring information from permit holders without establishing reciprocal obligations upon government to evaluate and disseminate findings.
Finally, while comprehensive reporting is encouraged, the administrative burden placed upon smaller landowners and subsistence farmers may require practical support or simplified reporting mechanisms.
Recommendation
Clause 17 is the provision on which the adaptive management ambitions of the Guidelines depend, and as drafted it cannot support them. It records lethal outputs and records nothing about effect.
Clause 17(3) requires the user of a regulated method to report annually on the species involved, the number of damage-causing and non-target animals captured or killed, and the sex, length, weight, approximate age and condition of each. It requires nothing whatever about whether the intervention achieved its purpose. There is no obligation to report whether the damage that prompted the intervention thereafter reduced, continued or increased. There is no obligation to report on the deterrent methods listed in clause 7 or on their effectiveness, notwithstanding that clause 5(6) requires the issuing authority to consider whether such measures were implemented. And there is no provision for the aggregation, analysis or publication of the data collected: reports are submitted to the relevant issuing authority and go no further.
The consequence is that the Guidelines will generate a record of what was killed, held in nine provincial repositories, in a form permitting no assessment of whether killing achieved anything.
Clause 17 should accordingly be amended to require:
· reporting of the outcome of every management intervention, including whether damage or loss recurred within a specified period following the intervention;
· reporting of the deterrent measures implemented under clause 7 and of their observed effectiveness;
· the establishment and maintenance by the Department of a national database into which provincial issuing authorities are required to submit the data collected;
· annual publication by the Department of the aggregated data in a form permitting independent analysis which is publicly available (inclusive of a public register of all permits issued in relation to these Guidelines or Norms and Standards; and
· express linkage of that data to a review of the instrument at intervals not exceeding five years.
Motivation
Without paragraphs dealing with a public database and publication of the data, the five-yearly review proposed elsewhere in this submission cannot be conducted, because the information necessary to conduct it will not exist in any accessible form. A monitoring provision that measures only mortality cannot inform the adaptive management the Guidelines profess to adopt, and cannot answer the question the Department itself poses in the Background, namely why predation persists notwithstanding decades of intervention.
Overall Evaluation of the Draft Guidelines
The Draft Guidelines, especially if formulated as Norms and Standards, represent an advancement in South Africa’s approach to managing damage-causing animals. They move beyond the historically fragmented provincial regulatory landscape by promoting greater national consistency, encouraging integrated management approaches and recognising the importance of balancing biodiversity conservation with legitimate agricultural interests.
Several aspects deserve particular commendation.
The emphasis on preventative management through deterrent measures reflects contemporary conservation thinking and appropriately prioritises coexistence before lethal intervention. The incorporation of minimum operational standards for regulated management methods represents a substantial improvement in promoting animal welfare and reducing unnecessary suffering. Likewise, the introduction of structured reporting requirements provides the foundations for adaptive management and evidence-based policy development, especially if presented in public databases and publication of permits granted.
Nevertheless, the Draft Guidelines remain constrained by their legal status as non-binding guidance. Their effectiveness will depend heavily upon consistent implementation through provincial permitting systems and the willingness of issuing authorities to apply their provisions uniformly. That constraint is the subject of the objection recorded in Chapter 3, and is the reason Landmark Foundation submits that the instrument should be issued as norms and standards, that its welfare-critical provisions should be recast in mandatory terms, and that its minimum requirements should be incorporated as express permit conditions.
Several provisions would benefit from stronger scientific grounding, clearer decision-making criteria and more explicit incorporation of adaptive management principles. Greater attention should also be given to proportionality, transparency, competency standards and periodic review based upon accumulated monitoring data.
From a constitutional perspective, the Draft Guidelines broadly support the objectives of section 24 of the Constitution by promoting environmentally responsible management while recognising the legitimate socio-economic interests of landowners and rural communities. They also reflect many of the principles contained within the National Environmental Management Act and the White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity.
Concluding Observation
Subject to the amendments proposed throughout this submission, the Draft Guidelines provide a foundation for improving the management of damage-causing animals in South Africa. Their principal strength lies in promoting integrated, evidence-based and nationally consistent management practices while recognising the importance of balancing conservation objectives, animal welfare and sustainable agricultural production.
If the recommended refinements are incorporated, the Guidelines will more effectively achieve their stated purpose of reducing human-wildlife conflict through a transparent, scientifically informed and constitutionally compliant regulatory framework.
Annexure B — Proposed Amendments
Proposed Amendments to the Draft Guidelines for the Management of Damage-Causing Animals in South Africa.
Introduction
This Annexure consolidates the principal amendments recommended in the submission. It is intended to provide the Department with a practical drafting roadmap to strengthen the Draft Guidelines, and suggest reverting them back to Norms and Standards to improve constitutional compliance, promote lawful and rational administrative decision-making, and enhance national consistency while respecting provincial legislative competence.
Part A — General Amendments
Recommendation
Proposed Amendment
Reason
Legal form of the instrument
Issue the instrument as norms and standards under the Biodiversity Act rather than as guidelines. Identify on the face of the notice the provision under which the Minister acts.
To give the instrument the enforceability its own stated purpose requires, and to remedy the enforceability gap the Department identifies in the Background.
Mandatory language
Recast from “should” to “must” every provision in Part 3 bearing on animal welfare, non-target species or public safety. Resolve the inconsistency between clause 4(3)(b) and clause 9(1)(e).
To align the instrument’s operative language with its stated purposes, and to correct the present allocation of mandatory language exclusively to administrative compliance.
Enforcement mechanism
Direct issuing authorities to incorporate the applicable minimum requirements in Part 3 as express conditions of every permit authorising a regulated method.
To provide expressly for the only enforcement route the Department identifies.
Prohibited methods
Delete clauses 10, 13, 14 and 15, and provide that poison collars, leghold traps, dog hunting and poison ejecting apparatus may not authorised.
These methods cannot discriminate between target and non-target animals and cannot be rendered selective by permit condition, nor are humane.
Relationship with provincial legislation
Clarify that implementation must occur consistently with applicable provincial biodiversity legislation while promoting nationally consistent administrative practice. This will be strengthened through Norms and Standards adoption
To support cooperative governance.
Adaptive management
Insert an overarching adaptive-management principle requiring monitoring, review and evidence-based refinement of interventions.
To reflect modern biodiversity governance.
Proportionality
Require management interventions to be proportionate to the severity, frequency and nature of the damage.
To ensure rational and constitutionally compliant decision-making.
Procedural fairness
State that administrative decisions under the Guidelines should be lawful, reasonable, procedurally fair and accompanied by reasons where required by law.
To reinforce administrative justice.
Risk-sharing
Commit the Department to develop, within a specified period, a risk-sharing or incentive mechanism linked to demonstrated implementation of non-lethal measures.
To give effect to the socio-economic considerations the Background acknowledges, and to the recognition of subsistence farmers in clause 2(a)(iii).
Public permit register and national inventory
Require each issuing authority to maintain a public register of permits issued authorising regulated methods; to submit that register to the Department at intervals not exceeding twelve months; and require the Department to maintain a national inventory and to publish the aggregated data annually. Exclude identity numbers, contact details, names of natural persons and property-level location from the public register.
Biological diversity is held in public trust, and the exercise of a public power over a trust asset must be accountable. Disclosure of the decision, without disclosure of the person, enables the cumulative assessment required by clause 5(7), permits verification of national uniformity, and gives effect to section 32 of the Constitution.
Part B — Chapter 1 of the Schedule: Interpretation, Purpose and Application
This Part contains clause-specific amendments to Chapter 1 of the Draft Guidelines. Each recommendation is intended to improve legal certainty, constitutional compliance and administrative implementation.
Clause
Current Position
Recommended Amendment
Rationale
1 Definitions
Definitions provided.
Refine defined terms such as ‘damage-causing animal‘, ‘competent person’ and ‘management intervention’ to reduce ambiguity and align with enabling legislation.
Improves certainty and consistent interpretation.
2 Purpose
Sets out objectives.
Add explicit references to constitutional governance, legality, proportionality and adaptive management.
Aligns objectives with constitutional and administrative law.
3 Application
Explains legislative interaction.
Clarify that the Guidelines are interpretive guidance and operate alongside national and provincial legislation without creating new legal obligations. Revert to Norms and Standards.
Avoids jurisdictional uncertainty and reinforces legality.
Further clause-specific amendments will continue in the subsequent parts of Annexure B.
Part C — Clauses 4 and 5: Duty of Care and Assessment of Impact
This Part sets out proposed amendments to strengthen the constitutional, administrative and practical operation of clauses 4 and 5 of the Draft Guidelines.
Clause
Current Provision
Recommended Amendment
Reason
4 Duty of Care
Establishes general responsibilities of persons experiencing human–wildlife conflict.
Expand the duty to require reasonable, proportionate preventative measures authorize shared responsibilities of landowners and competent authorities; require humane, evidence-based interventions; and clarify that deterrent measures should ordinarily precede lethal methods unless immediate threats to life exist.
Improves constitutional proportionality, promotes preventative conservation and supports rational administration.
5 Assessment of Impact
Provides for reporting, inspections and assessment before management interventions.
Require documented reasons for decisions; consistent assessment criteria; consideration of scientific evidence, cumulative impacts and previous mitigation; and written justification where lethal interventions authorised.
Promotes legality, transparency, procedural fairness and nationally consistent decision-making.
Key Cross-cutting Recommendation
Insert an overarching requirement that every significant administrative decision under these Guidelines should be recorded in writing, supported by reasons, and retained for monitoring, review and adaptive management. Also insert transparency requirements to ensure public access to permits issued and results of monitoring to evaluate the outcomes of management.
Part D — Clauses 6 to 8: Translocation, Deterrent Methods and Regulated Methods
This Part contains proposed amendments to the operational provisions governing translocation, deterrent methods and regulated management interventions.
Clause
Current Provision
Recommended Amendment
Reason
6 Translocation
Provides guidance for translocation of damage-causing animals.
Require evidence-based suitability assessments, animal welfare considerations, ecosystem compatibility, post-release monitoring and documented reasons where translocation is approved or refused.
Improves ecological sustainability, accountability and adaptive management.
7 Deterrent Methods
Lists acceptable non-lethal deterrent methods.
Expressly establish deterrent measures as the preferred first response where reasonably practicable, supported by periodic evaluation of effectiveness and local circumstances.
Reinforces proportionality and preventative conservation.
8 Regulated Methods
Lists regulated interventions requiring permits. List prohibited methods.
Clarify that permit decisions must be based on transparent criteria, scientific evidence, necessity and proportionality, with written reasons recorded for each autherisation.
Promotes constitutional legality, consistency and reviewable administrative decision-making.
General Recommendation
Insert a provision requiring issuing authorities to maintain a central register of authorized permits, management interventions to support monitoring, transparency of outcomes and future policy review.
Part E — Clauses 9 to 15: Minimum Requirements for Regulated Methods
Introduction
The provisions contained in clauses 9–15 regulate the operational methods that may be employed in the management of damage-causing animals. While these provisions seek to minimise unnecessary suffering and promote more consistent management practices, several amendments are recommended to ensure that the Guidelines remain constitutionally compliant, administratively rational, scientifically defensible, and consistent with modern biodiversity governance.
Across all regulated methods, the Guidelines should adopt four overarching principles:
· proportionality between the nature of the damage and the intervention employed;
· application of the least harmful effective intervention;
· transparent administrative oversight through documented decision-making; and
· continual adaptive management informed by monitoring and scientific review.
Clause 9
Minimum Requirements for Cage Traps
Current Position:
Clause 9 establishes operational standards governing the use of cage traps, including inspection intervals, protection of captured animals, and minimum design standards.
Proposed Amendment:
The Guidelines should additionally require —
· maintenance of inspection logs recording the date and time of every inspection;
· mandatory reporting of all non-target captures;
· maximum holding periods that may not be exceeded under any circumstances except genuine emergencies;
· recording of injuries sustained by captured animals;
· mandatory veterinary assessment where significant injuries occur;
· periodic auditing of cage-trap use by issuing authorities.
Rationale
These amendments would improve accountability, facilitate monitoring, strengthen animal welfare protections, and provide valuable data for future adaptive management.
Clause 10
Minimum Requirements for Poison Collars
Current Position
Clause 10 regulates the use of poison collars and specifies sodium monofluoroacetate as the approved toxic substance.
Proposed Amendment
Our recommendation is that this method should be prohibited. Before authorising the use of poison collars, issuing authorities should require —
· a documented ecological risk assessment;
· assessment of potential impacts upon non-target wildlife;
· written justification explaining why alternative interventions are unsuitable;
· detailed records of deployment;
· mandatory reporting of all poisoning incidents;
· periodic review of continued authorisation.
Rationale
Poisons represent one of the highest-risk management interventions. Additional procedural safeguards are necessary to minimise ecological harm and ensure that their use remains strictly proportionate.
Clause 11
Minimum Requirements for Darting
Current Position
The draft requires darting to be undertaken only by suitably authorised persons.
Proposed Amendment
The Guidelines should further require —
· written veterinary protocols;
· post-immobilisation monitoring;
· recording of drugs administered;
· reporting of injuries or mortalities associated with darting;
· assessment of animal welfare outcomes following release or relocation.
Rationale
Chemical immobilisation carries inherent risks. Standardised protocols improve both professional practice and conservation outcomes.
Clause 12
Minimum Requirements for Call and Shoot
Current Position
The clause limits call-and-shoot methods primarily to known problem animals.
Proposed Amendment
The Guidelines should consider only employing inhouse state service providers operating under controlled conditions, but must expressly require —
· positive identification of the target animal wherever reasonably possible;
· written justification where lethal control is authorised;
· confirmation that less invasive alternatives have been considered;
· documentation explaining why lethal intervention was necessary.
Rationale
These amendments reinforce constitutional requirements of rationality, necessity and proportionality, focusing on problem individual animals and not species culls.
Clause 13
Minimum Requirements for Leghold/Gin Traps
Current Position
Clause 13 contains design requirements and limitations governing the placement and use of leghold traps.
Proposed Amendment
The Guidelines should prohibit this method or if persisted with provide that —
· leghold traps may only be authorised as a genuine measure of last resort;
· issuing authorities must provide written reasons supporting their authorisation;
· enhanced welfare safeguards apply to trapped animals;
· monitoring frequency should be increased;
· all incidents involving non-target species must be reported.
Rationale
Leghold/Gin traps remain among the most controversial wildlife management methods. They ought to be prohibitted. Their continued use requires particularly strong procedural safeguards and independent oversight.
Clause 14
Minimum Requirements for the Use of Dogs
Current Position
Clause 14 regulates the registration and use of dogs during management interventions.
Proposed Amendment
The Guidelines aught to prohibit this method, but should it be allowed it additionally requires —
· competency standards for handlers;
· minimum welfare standards for working dogs;
· operational records for each deployment;
· reporting of injuries to either dogs or wildlife;
· state official should accompany all hunts;
· periodic review of handler registration.
Rationale
These amendments promote controlled implementation while protecting both domestic animals and wildlife.
Clause 15
Minimum Requirements for Poison Ejecting Apparatus
Current Position
Clause 15 regulates poison ejecting devices through permitting and operational controls.
Proposed Amendment
The Guidelines should prohibit this method, but should it be persisted with it additionally requires —
· site-specific ecological risk assessments;
· documented justification for each deployment;
· monitoring of non-target impacts;
· periodic inspection by issuing authorities;
· comprehensive reporting of all deployments;
· mandatory removal immediately once the management objective has been achieved.
Rationale
Poison ejecting apparatus presents significant ecological risks. Greater administrative oversight is therefore justified.
General Recommendation
The Guidelines should introduce a new concluding provision applicable to all regulated methods:
All regulated management interventions should be implemented within an adaptive management framework that incorporates monitoring, scientific review, record-keeping, transparency, periodic reassessment, and continual refinement of management practices.
Issuing authorities should maintain centralised records of permits issued that are publicly transparent, interventions authorised, outcomes achieved, non-target impacts, and compliance history. Such information should inform future revisions of the Guidelines and contribute to evidence-based national policy and transparent public accountability of the management of public trust assets.
Part F — Clauses 16 and 17, Annexure A and Background
Introduction
The final provisions of the Guidelines address carcass disposal, monitoring and reporting, and include the prescribed incident reporting form together with explanatory background information. These provisions are fundamental to ensuring accountability, transparency and evidence-based adaptive management. While generally appropriate, they would benefit from stronger governance requirements and clearer integration with constitutional principles of legality, accountability and cooperative environmental governance.
Clause 16
Disposal of Carcasses
Current Position
Clause 16 regulates the disposal of carcasses of damage-causing animals, particularly where poison or lead ammunition has been used, with the objective of preventing secondary poisoning and environmental contamination.
Proposed Amendment
The Guidelines should additionally require —
· all carcass disposal to comply with recognised environmental health and biosecurity standards;
· disposal records to be maintained where lethal management interventions have been authorised;
· immediate reporting where secondary poisoning of non-target species is suspected;
· investigation by the issuing authority where repeated secondary poisoning incidents occur;
· guidance regarding disposal where protected scavenger species may be affected.
Rationale
Secondary poisoning remains one of the principal ecological risks associated with lethal predator management. Improved documentation and oversight will strengthen environmental protection and assist future monitoring. This provision would fall away if these methods are prohibited as recommended.
Clause 17
Monitoring and Reporting
Current Position
Clause 17 requires records to be maintained and annual reports submitted to issuing authorities concerning management interventions.
Proposed Amendment
The monitoring provisions should be significantly strengthened by requiring —
· standardised reporting formats nationally;
· digital submission where practicable;
· maintenance of provincial and national databases;
· public database of all permits issued and all statistics reported on outcomes;
· publication of anonymised annual statistical reports;
· periodic review of intervention effectiveness;
· incorporation of monitoring results into future revisions of the Guidelines;
· integration of monitoring with broader human–wildlife conflict research programmes.
Rationale
Monitoring is the cornerstone of adaptive environmental governance. Permits give lethal control access to public trust assets and as such the public have rights to know which assets have been allocated to private interests. Without reliable information, neither conservation authorities, nor policymakers, or the public can determine whether management interventions remain lawful, effective or proportionate.
Annexure A of the Guidelines
Damage-Causing Animal Incident Report Form
Current Position
The Incident Report Form captures information regarding damage, management interventions and reporting.
Proposed Amendment
The reporting template should additionally include —
· reference number linked to permit records;
· GPS-enabled location fields;
· identification of threatened or protected species where relevant;
· assessment of non-target impacts;
· indication whether constitutional proportionality considerations were evaluated;
· confirmation that non-lethal alternatives were considered before lethal intervention;
· follow-up assessment recording the effectiveness of the intervention;
· space for recording lessons learned for adaptive management.
Rationale
The reporting template should function not merely as an administrative record, but as a governance instrument that generates reliable information for future decision-making and policy development.
Background Section
Current Position
The Background provides an overview of livestock predation, economic impacts, scientific assessments, historical policy development and the rationale for the Guidelines.
Proposed Amendment
The Background should be expanded to include explicit reference to —
· section 24 of the Constitution;
· the constitutional principles governing environmental management;
· the National Environmental Management Act, 1998;
· the ecosystem approach adopted in the White Paper on Conservation and Sustainable Use of South Africa’s Biodiversity (2023);
· the need for integrated landscape governance across protected areas and production landscapes;
· adaptive management as the preferred governance framework for human–wildlife conflict.
The Background should also acknowledge that —
· human–wildlife conflict represents a socio-ecological governance challenge rather than solely a wildlife management problem;
· biodiversity conservation and agricultural sustainability are complementary constitutional objectives;
· management interventions should contribute to coexistence wherever reasonably practicable.
· DCA is a public trust asset and is subject to public accountability in its management.
Rationale
The Background establishes the interpretative framework for the Guidelines. Anchoring the document explicitly within constitutional environmental governance will strengthen its legal coherence and improve consistency in implementation across provinces.
General Concluding Recommendation
The following concluding provision should be inserted immediately before the end of the Guidelines:
The Guidelines should be reviewed at intervals not exceeding five years, or earlier where significant scientific developments, legislative amendments, or monitoring results indicate that revision is necessary. Such review should be undertaken through a transparent public participation process informed by the best available scientific evidence and practical implementation experience.
Overall Recommendation
Taken together, the proposed amendments are intended to strengthen the Guidelines by —
· reverting to Norms and Standards
· improving constitutional compliance;
· reinforcing administrative legality and procedural fairness;
· promoting proportional and evidence-based decision-making;
· enhancing animal welfare safeguards;
· improving ecological sustainability;
· strengthening monitoring, reporting and adaptive management;
· public accountability and transparent reporting;
· supporting nationally consistent implementation while allowing appropriate provincial flexibility; and
· advancing the constitutional objective of promoting coexistence between people and wildlife within South Africa’s diverse production landscapes.
