By sticking to a narrow interpretation of export permit requirements, Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Dion George is missing a golden opportunity to end the rampant exploitation of tigers in South Africa, and create international goodwill.
A tiger in the wild. Between 2016 and 2021 nearly 200 live tigers were exported from South Africa. (Photo: Wiki Commons)
An article in Daily Maverick about a mutilated and malnourished tiger on a breeding farm in North West highlights the growing concern over South Africa’s captive-bred tiger population. They are farmed at a scale that has made the country the largest exporter of tigers in the world.
According to the Department Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment’s (DFFE) ministerial task team report of 2024, 626 tigers are known to be kept in captivity in South Africa, often in squalid conditions. No data was received from KwaZulu-Natal or Mpumalanga, so the number could be higher. Tigers are largely bred for trophy hunting, trade in their bones for the tiger wine market in South East Asia and live export.
Tiger farming is a significant animal welfare problem, with issues including indiscriminate breeding, crowding, inappropriate housing systems, genetic abnormalities causing acute suffering, inhumane slaughtering practices, poor diet and early removal of cubs from mothers.
Between 2016 and 2021 nearly 200 live tigers were exported from South Africa.
More recently, a Promotion of Access to Information Act request by the EMS Foundation revealed that in May 2024 a batch of 40 tigers was exported to a single destination in India alone. Although the size of the shipment is surely indicative of its commercial purpose, Environment Minister Dion George does not appear to consider this to be the case, as indicated in his answer to a parliamentary question on 29 November 2024 where no reference was made to this export.
Unregulated tiger farming
South Africa’s national and provincial regulations are already a confusing patchwork for big cat species, but when it comes to tigers and other non-indigenous cats there appears to be a glaring omission.
Tigers are listed under Appendix I of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), so with fewer than 2,500 wild tigers left, the species is threatened with extinction and therefore any commercial international trade in them and their body parts is prohibited.
However, in response to parliamentary questions in 2022, the DFFE said CITES regulations do not apply to South Africa because the country is not a range state for tigers. Tigers are not protected under South Africa’s Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) regulations because they are non-indigenous.
In a follow-up parliamentary question in November 2024, George reiterated his department’s position, saying that their view “remains unchanged”. And then, in April 2025 (responding to another parliamentary question), the minister deftly avoided taking any responsibility for investigating whether tigers are indeed commercial by saying that “there are no commercial breeding operations for tigers in South Africa that are registered with CITES” and that he “has no evidence that the tigers are exported for commercial purposes because the permits are issued by provincial authorities, and the DFFE is not informed about the decision”.
Minister of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment Dion George at the National Stakeholder Consultation in Johannesburg on 28 October 2024, in the run-up to COP29. (Photo: Gallo Images / Luba Lesolle)
The minister’s interpretation of CITES regulations is likely to be incorrect since the regulations on tigers are explicitly directed to all countries, not just range states. The CITES Secretariat also issued this directive, which was published on 6 August 2024, stating: “Parties with intensive operations breeding tigers on a commercial scale shall implement measures to restrict the captive population to a level supportive only to conserving wild tigers; tigers should not be bred for trade in their parts and derivatives.”
George has countered this, stating that “South Africa will not prepare the recommended report to facilitate the work of CITES in conserving tigers in the wild” again, reiterating that “facilities that keep tigers in South Africa do not export tigers for commercial purposes”.
Could this mean South Africa is in contravention of international regulations? That the body of the mutilated tiger in North West, which was euthanised by the NSPCA, was prevented from being removed by the owner because as he himself said “that’s money”, underscores that there is a commercial trade. The same farmer has an additional 81 tigers on his breeding farm and has a history of alleged animal welfare abuses going back to 2019, with investigations by the NSPCA and the Hawks.
Also, exotic or not, all species listed under CITES appendices must require a permit for their export or import. For a permit to be issued, a non-detriment finding (NDF) is required. There has been no NDF for tigers in South Africa. Furthermore, the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, and the Alien and Invasive Species Regulations, 2020 made under it, actually does regulate the import, keeping, breeding, killing and translocation of alien species, and therefore includes exotic big cats. It is further possible for non-indigenous species to be listed as “protected species” in terms of TOPS, but this has never been done.
The Animals Protection Act (APA) also provides for the protection of wild exotic animals. Section 10 specifically empowers the minister of agriculture to, inter alia, “make regulations relating to… the method and form of confinement and accommodation of any animal” as well as “any other reasonable requirements which may be necessary to prevent cruelty to or suffering of any animal”. However, no such regulations have been made. Surely, it is long overdue that these powers are used to prevent the ongoing suffering of tigers (and other animals in captivity)?
This has tended to confuse the issue, with both departments deferring to the other when it comes to tiger farming. In other words, neither is taking responsibility for the cruelty to tigers.
The ‘zoo’ loophole
Under CITES regulations captive-bred tigers are allowed to be internationally traded under certain regulations, notably to zoos, as long as it is for non-commercial purposes such as for educational and conservation benefits. But commercial tiger breeders and traders are exploiting this loophole by placing a CITES Z-Purpose Code (Zoo) on the export certificates, instead of T-Purpose Code (Commercial).
The problem is also that there is no definition of what a zoo is under CITES. Instead, it appears that the trade to zoos is happening under the loose belief that all zoos must be for conservation and education. Not only is this often not the case, but even where this may exist, the commercial aspects predominate.
This female tiger had chewed away part of her front legs at a North West breeding facility. (Photo: NSPCA)
However, despite this, time and again commercial operations have been able to import critically endangered Appendix I species by claiming to be a zoo. These facilities are often commercial enterprises, using animals for entertainment shows and exchanging significant sums of money in doing so. The problem, therefore, is that there is quite clearly a lack of understanding as to what rules apply.
On the supply side, CITES Resolution Conf. 12.10 (Rev. CoP15) does, however, explicitly direct countries to register any facilities that breed tigers in captivity for commercial purposes. To date, there are no tiger-breeding facilities listed in the CITES register for South Africa. Although, according to the minister, the DFFE has sent a list of facilities that breed tigers to the CITES Secretariat, but then reiterates that these facilities do not breed tigers for commercial purposes. The minister appears to be resolutely sticking to his position that tigers are not exported for commercial purposes despite having no evidence apart from the code on the CITES export permit to support this position.
Illegal trade
There have been significant seizures and cases within and from South Africa for almost a decade where organised criminal groups were exposed to the authorities as being involved in the illegal trade of big-cat parts. TRAFFIC’s Wildlife Trade Portal lists almost 100 separate cases of big cats and/or big-cat parts that were seized within or exported from South Africa between 2004 and 2024. More recent trends in seizures show that Vietnamese citizens are working with South Africans for the procurement of big-cat parts for export.
In sticking to a very narrow interpretation of the CITES regulations, and failing to introduce appropriate protective regulations, South Africa is enabling the trade in tigers, and perpetuating their suffering in captivity. From a conservation perspective, the operation and scale of these captive-tiger facilities are a significant obstacle to the protection and recovery of wild tiger populations.
The question is why South Africa continues to defend this odious trade which benefits only a handful of breeders to the detriment of wild tiger populations and our international conservation image. DM
original source: https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2025-04-22-sa-government-continues-to-defend-odious-trade-in-tigers/
