August 26, 2003

Attention: Members of the PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

Dear Ms Gwen Mahlangu, and other members of the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs,

Re. Submission by JUSTICE FOR ANIMALS, on:

- National Environmental Management Amendment Bill (B29-03)

- Biodiversity Bill (B30-03)

- The Protected Areas Draft Bill (B39-03)

Firstly, please accept our thanks for the opportunity to make a submission to the portfolio committee re. the abovementioned bills.

It is not our intention to attempt to address every point of our concern as relates to the abovementioned three bills which are today the subject of submissions before this committee by representatives of the South African animal care community. It is, however, our intention to express our concern that these bills contain a number of clauses that indicate a lack of respect for animals on the part of those responsible for drafting the bills, and also a lack of respect for the constitutional and moral rights of those members of the South African community for whom the basic rights of animals are as inviolable as are the basic rights of humans. These rights would include the right to life, the right to liberty and the right to freedom of choice movement and association. Ultimately animals also have the right not to be regarded as the property of humans. Animals are sentient beings with inherent value in themselves, whose lives are not reducible to whatever value humans might place on them.

This appeal to this portfolio committee is intended to ensure that animals as individuals, and irrespective of whether they are of a plentiful or endangered species, are protected within the law as individuals with inherent value and that the law makes it possible for interested and affected individuals, groups and communities to represent the interests of those animals whenever it is deemed necessary to do so. There must be no legislation controlling the destiny of any animal to the extent that far reaching and irreversible actions concerning that animal can be carried out by or on the behalf of the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEAT), South African National Parks (SANParks), provincial and municipal conservation authorities or private individuals acting in accordance with environmental legislation, without fair consultation with, and input from, the interested and affected parties i.e. animal care community.

We are concerned that there are specific clauses in the abovementioned legislation, which clauses will not be specifically referred to in this submission but which are specifically highlighted in another submission by the animal welfare community that you will hear today, that will allow the DEAT, SANParks and others to make arbitrary decisions regarding the management of indigenous wild animals, non-indigenous wild animals who are free-roaming and living in areas of South Africa, feral animals ("un-owned", free-roaming domestic animals), indigenous and non-indigenous wild animals being held captive and bred for commercial purpose and indigenous wild animals caught for commercial purposes. It is our firm belief that any decisions which, if executed, would negatively affect the rights and welfare of individual animals as per the aforementioned categories of animals must not be taken without consultation by the authorities with the interested and affected members of the animal rights and animal welfare community.

It is regrettable that the majority of those currently entrusted with the task of drafting legislation for the management and protection of the natural environment, and all of the animals living in it, do not recognise the rights of animals and regard those animals as expendable if advised so by so-called "experts and professionals". The purpose of this submission is inform the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs that there are other individuals and groups of constitutionally empowered South Africans who do not see animals as expendable and replaceable, and who oppose the drafting and gazetting of legislation that allows animals to be "managed" as if they are utility items without inherent value.

We propose the following:

• That nothing to be contained in the bills amending B29-03, B30-03 and B39-03 would allow the various authorities from national down to municipal level to act against the interests and rights of individual animals without consultation with, and input from, the animal rights and animal welfare community;
• That where it is shown, after consultation with interested and affected parties, that there are valid reasons for moving or reducing any number of animals from a particular area, this be done humanely and that all non-lethal methods of doing so are fairly considered;
• That amendments to B29-03, B30-03 and B39-03 contain clauses which compel the environmental and conservation authorities, including DEAT and SANParks, to notify the public of any intended management plan that will seriously and irreversibly affect the rights and welfare or any animal, wild or feral;
• That amendments to B29-03, B30-03 and B39-03 compel the environmental and conservation authorities, including DEAT and SANParks, to consult with interested and affected members of the public on any such matter, and prevents such authorities from making and carrying out any such arbitrary and undemocratic decision;
• That amendments to B29-03, B30-03 and B39-03 contain clauses that embrace the principle of "cooperative management";
• That amendments to B29-03, B30-03 and B39-03 not contain any clauses which deny interested and affected parties the opportunity to participate in and to influence environmental conservation policies in South Africa in a manner consistent with their rights as enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa .

In conclusion, we wish to notify the Portfolio Committee on Environmental Affairs that we understand the importance of protecting biodiversity, that we are respectful of the needs of humans to utilise natural resources and that we understand the enormity of the task facing the State on matters of environmental conservation. It is our contention, however, that whilst protecting biodiversity, meeting the needs of humans and conserving the environment, the State also has a responsibility to the individual animals whose lives are affected by legislation and management decisions.

Thank you.