Instead of progress on critical reforms to end cruelty on lion farms and other abuses, MPs were met with silence from the Agriculture Ministry and a vapid, outdated presentation from the Environment Department. One MP called the no-show “criminal”. Another asked: who benefits from this delay – because it’s certainly not the animals.
At what was supposed to be a joint briefing of the parliamentary environment and agriculture committees on Tuesday, 24 June, an official from Agriculture admitted they had no report to present.
Waiting for a resolution. (Photo: Colin Bell)
Although the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (DFFE) did present a report – “Progress on the Implementation of the Report of the High Level Panel on Captive Animals” – it contained little more than a rehash of information already in the public domain and references to existing and outdated statutes.
It was harshly criticised by MPs for its lack of detail. The report also failed to address critical questions raised during a session earlier this month at which the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) disclosed shocking cruelty on lion breeding farms.
The heated session, intended to assess progress on the implementation of the High-Level Panel (HLP) report on the management of lions, elephants, rhinos and leopards, instead exposed:
- The absence of any meaningful progress in the implementation of the HLP recommendations;
- A lack of political will in the implementation of the HLP recommendations;
- Failure to implement a parliamentary resolution requiring the departments to create a joint workstream on animal welfare;
- A complete failure of collaboration between the two departments;
- Extreme delays by Agriculture in drafting a new Animal Welfare Bill; and
- The absence of the NSPCA in a process central to its mandate.
A session mired in frustration
After the DFFE presented its report, the session quickly devolved into a litany of frustrations. MPs from both committees expressed dismay at Steenhuisen’s no-show and the failure of his department to make a presentation, particularly given the gravity of the issues at hand.
Deputy Minister of Agriculture Bernice Swarts was among the most vocal, stressing the need for tangible action rather than empty promises.
“We must really implement what we say and not just talk,” Swarts said. “When we say departments must collaborate, we must see it in practice. We cannot have a situation where the DFFE says something is not their mandate and Agriculture claims ignorance.”
She further demanded that both departments submit an MOU (between the DFFE and the NSPCA) and the draft Animal Welfare Bill to the committee secretariats by Friday, 27 June. “We cannot allow more delays,” she said. “This matter has dragged on for too long.”
On Steenhuisen’s absence from the meeting, an ANC Study Group report afterwards said: “The meeting was arranged to accommodate the Minister’s attendance and we view his absence in a very negative light given the importance of the issues at hand and matters to be discussed.”
“You knew the date,” snapped MP Montwedi Mothusi. “You chose Tuesday, June 24, knowing full well the portfolio committee meets on Tuesday. This selective engagement is disgraceful.”
These sentiments were echoed by other MPs, who highlighted the lack of progress on key legislative reforms, including the Animal Welfare Bill, which has been in development for nearly five years.
The High-Level Panel’s recommendations have existed since 2019. Yet five years later, virtually no enforceable legislation has followed. The DFFE tried to demonstrate progress, but came under fire for being vague and slow, and merely listing existing legislation.
The EFF’s Nazier Paulsen pressed for accountability. “The problem isn’t that the HLP isn’t law. The problem is your department hasn’t taken decisive action. Our biodiversity is a national heritage. You need to act like it.”
Unanswered questions
MPs grilled the DFFE on several fronts, with many questions left inadequately addressed.
Key concerns included:
The Missing MOU with NSPCA
MPs repeatedly questioned why the NSPCA had not signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the DFFE, despite the critical role the organisation plays in animal welfare enforcement. The DFFE’s response was evasive, stating only that it was “willing to engage further” with the NSPCA.
Poulsen pointed out the absurdity of the situation: “If the NSPCA’s legislation resides with Agriculture, and Agriculture has an MOU with DFFE, why hasn’t the NSPCA signed one with DFFE? This lack of coordination is unacceptable.”
Delays in the Animal Welfare Bill
The Department of Agriculture’s failure to finalise the Animal Welfare Bill was a major point of contention. MP Lillian Manga noted, “this matter has been dragging on for over a decade. Who benefits from this delay? Certainly not the animals, who cannot speak for themselves.”
The DFFE admitted they had not yet seen the draft Bill, despite its purported progress. MP Thandi Makasi demanded clarity: “When will this Bill be tabled? We need concrete timelines, not vague assurances.”
Deputy Minister Swarts confirmed that while meetings between departments had taken place in 2024, no records had been submitted to Parliament. “We expect registers, minutes, timelines. You can’t come to Parliament and wing it.”
Chairperson Dina Pule summed it up: “Five years after the HLP, Agriculture has produced no legislative reform. How is this acceptable?”
The absence of any collaboration between the departments on the drafting of the Animal Welfare Bill has been repeatedly exposed in Answers to Parliamentary Questions.
Overlapping mandates
MPs highlighted the confusion between the Wellbeing Forum and the Wildlife Forum, with conflicting reports on whether minutes and access were shared between the two. Questions were raised about why members of the Wildlife Forum (largely from the wildlife industry) were able to attend the Wellbeing Forum (largely conservation organisations), but the latter were barred from the Wildlife Forum.
DA MP Andrew de Blocq called the DFFE’s explanation “wholly insufficient”, adding, “if there are concerns about professional interests, there are ways to address them – like non-disclosure agreements. This is not a valid excuse for lack of transparency.”
He also criticised the DFFE for not mentioning the three court applications challenging various aspects of the legislation in progress.
He asked why the NSPCA carried the burden of inspections without government funding. “Is there even a single government Environmental Management Inspector (EMI) trained in animal welfare?” he asked, as to his knowledge, EMIs had no animal welfare competence.
Phasing out captive lion breeding
MPs were frustrated at the slow pace of phasing out captive breeding. The ministerial task team, established to explore voluntary exits and eventual prohibition, was evidently invited to the meeting only at the last minute and did not attend. According to the DFFE, “Phase one” is under way, but no timelines for full closure were provided. MPs questioned the gap between intentions and action.
Agriculture’s absence and weak defence
When the Department of Agriculture finally responded following questions, its contribution did little to assuage concerns. The Director of Animal Production, Joel Mamabolo, said “the Department of Agriculture does not see the High-Level Panel report for the animals being discussed today,” a remark that drew sharp rebukes.
Pule slammed the response: “This is the problem – Agriculture doesn’t even recognise its role in this process. How can we expect progress when the department responsible for animal welfare is disengaged?”
As the session concluded, MPs unanimously agreed to send a formal letter to Steenhuisen expressing their disappointment. They also demanded:
- A copy of the MOU between DFFE and Agriculture by 27 June;
- The draft Animal Welfare Bill by the same deadline; and
- A detailed report on the progress of captive lion facility closures.
Bernice Swarts summed up the mood: “We cannot keep delaying this. The animals are suffering and the departments are dragging their feet. We need action, not excuses.”
The session ended with little resolved, but with a clear message: Parliament is watching and patience is wearing thin. DM
