Chairperson of the National Council of Provinces;
Honourable Members;
Members of the Executive Council in the various Provinces;
Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries
Distinguished guests;
Ladies and gentlemen;
Good afternoon.
Chairperson, you will recall the mandate that is bestowed on the agriculture, forestry and fisheries department by the sectors we represent. This mandate is to ensure that our department fulfils its responsibility to provide household food security to all South Africans, that we create jobs and that we increase our sectors’ contribution to the Gross Domestic Product.
Food Security is a Constitutional mandate. The government of the African National Congress has committed itself to ensuring that all citizens, regardless of where they live, are food secure.
As we commemorated World Food Day on the 16th October 2014 in Vhembe, Limpopo, I was struck by the level of food insecurity that still exists in South Africa. From rural areas to urban dwellings, the effects of unemployment and high food costs are trapping citizens into a life of poverty and disempowerment.
Chairperson, I am encouraged by agriculture, forestry and fisheries sectors’ commitment towards ensuring food security and creating gainful employment opportunities for members of our society. However, in our quest to address food security we are faced by a number of challenges, including damage causing animals.
The Norms and Standards for Damage-Causing Animals reside under the Department of Environmental Affairs. The Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries’ role is to ensure that these Norms and Standards are responsive to the unique environment within our sector.
These Norms and Standards were previously discussed with the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in 2011. Today’s discussion is aimed at enriching the consultation process from our sector’s point of view.
Chairperson, damage causing animals’ categorisation is fairly wide. Damage causing animals include animals that prey on livestock and animals that damage crops and forestry plantations. Amongst these are carnivores and herbivores - from genets and civet cats that are sometimes a problem with poultry, to hippos and elephants that escape from secluded confinements; damaging fences, crops and orchards in the process. The damage caused by these animals affects the bottom line of business operations and, in effect, hits smallholder producers the hardest.
In livestock farming, which is an important sector in South Africa, the exposure to damage-causing animals is enormous. I was informed by the National Wool Growers’ Association that loss due to damage-causing animals in the livestock industry is estimated to be over R1 billion.
This loss is largely in the sheep and goat or small stock sectors. It was reported that this loss has also started to eclipse losses attributed to stock theft in our country. The control of damage-causing animals is therefore imperative.
Chairperson, loss of livestock due to damage-causing animals will run contrary to the objectives of the Africa Livestock Development Strategy if unattended. This Strategy was discussed by Ministers responsible for livestock in Kenya last week and forms an integral part of livestock development within the region.
The forestry sector has also been affected by damage-causing animals. The losses in the forestry sector are attributed to damages to animals such as bushbuck, eland and baboons. While there has been minimal intervention in terms of management within the forestry industry the current level of damages dictate otherwise. It is reported that several thousand hectares of plantations, especially in Mpumalanga Province, have been affected by damages from baboons resulting in large economic losses for the timber industry.
The losses in livestock and crop production; and forestry sectors do not only have an impact on food security but also on job creation and our endeavours to increase our sector’s contribution to the Gross Domestic Product. Our response to the challenge of damage-causing animals will ensure that we respond to the Presidential call for agriculture to create 1 million jobs by 2030.
Chairperson, scientists point out that the human-wildlife conflicts are a product of socio-economic and political landscapes. These conflicts are contentious because the resources concerned have economic value and the species are often high profile, and, at times, legally protected. Our actions therefore have to take into consideration aspects of sustainable production which seeks to balance environmental, social and economic concerns.
Speaker, clearly we need to take responsibility on this issue and continue to engage with the Department of Environmental Affairs and our sector stakeholders. This will involve finding holistic management approaches towards issues emanating due to damage causing animals.
I am aware that the National Wool Growers’ Association have been instrumental in initiating the development of the Norms and Standards for Damage-Causing Animals. The initial draft was concluded in 2009 and, at the time, raised serious debates about striking a balance between favouring animal welfare more than production.
As previously articulated, Chairperson, the revised Norms and Standards were presented to the Portfolio Committee on Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries in February 2011 for consultation. The Portfolio Committee raised concerns regarding certain aspects. I will be engaging the Minister of Environmental Affairs to deal with the concerns raised. It is, however, important to note that some of the concerns are being addressed through our technical teams.
Chairperson, the Norms and Standards for Damage-Causing Animals have their grounding in various legislative pieces. The legislation also includes those within the realm of the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.
These include the: Animals Protection Act Performing Animals Protection Act; Animals Diseases Act; Conservation of Agricultural Resources Act; Meat Safety Act; Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professions Act; Animal Improvement Act, and Fertilisers, Farm Feeds, Agricultural Remedies and Stock Remedies Act.
It is therefore expected that these Norms and Standards will have to observe the provisions of the relevant legislation within our sector. Admittedly, these norms and standards will have to strike a fine balance within the production, animal health, animal welfare, conservation and agricultural inputs prerequisites.
To this end, Chairperson, I would like to draw your attention to the concerns I have picked in my engagements with the South African Veterinary Council.
The South African Veterinary Council is a professional body that reports to my Ministry on the Veterinary and Para-Veterinary Professions Act. The concerns raised pertain to the Regulations on Threatened or Protected Species, which is one of the reference legislative pieces for these Norms and Standards. The concerns are about the authority and issuance of permits for veterinarians to treat Threatened or Protected Species. Again, this requires that I engage with Minister Molewa to address this area of concern.
Honourable Chairperson, we support the Minimum Standards for assessing the impact of damage-causing animals. We agree that the interventions to deal with complaints dealing with damage causing animals should be timeous and proportionate to the severity of the damage.
Chairperson, farmers, producers and farm workers should be safe and feel safe. Furthermore, their livelihoods and revenue sources should also be protected. In protecting these livelihoods, our interventions should, as far as possible, identify and remove damage causing animals. We should also adapt and implement management measures to prevent damage by damage-causing animals. Our preference is for non-lethal methods, with lethal methods as the last resort.
The measures implemented should nonetheless be supported by science. I am aware that my predecessor had consulted with the Minister of Environmental Affairs requesting that any decision to phase out certain traps, poisons and hunting methods be held back pending a scientific evaluation of predation and predator management in South Africa.
The Departments of Environmental Affairs and Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, together with sector forums, agreed on the terms of reference for the scientific study. Both departments agreed to fund the scientific evaluation on a quid pro quo basis with the affected industries. The agreement is for the industries to meet the departments on a rand for rand basis.
It is therefore considered prudent to allow for the scientific evaluation to be completed within the transitional provision as contained within the Norms and Standards for Damage-Causing Animals.
Chairperson, I am heartened by the recognition of most of the deterrent methods used by farmers to control damage-causing animals. These methods which can be used without a permit include but not are limited to:
- Livestock herding and shepherding;
- Modern technology like cell phone collars;
- Kraals and other structural barriers;
- Fencing; including jackal proof fencing
- Use of guard animals such as dogs;
- Livestock breeding planning and stock rotations; and
- Veldwagter motion sensing.
The request from stakeholders within the sector for support for jackal proof fencing has been a topical issue. Most recently, organisations such as the Red Meat Producers Organisation, the National Red Meat Producers Organisation and the Wildlife Ranchers Association have voiced the need for fencing in livestock and ranching areas. My department will continue to engage on finding resources to ensure that the much needed deterrents are in place.
Chairperson, while cognisant of the need to respond to damage-causing animals through a restricted method of controls, we are concerned about the capacity to implement these proposed measures. This capacity, which will deal with the issuance of permits regarding restricted methods requires further consultation with the Minister of Environmental Affairs.
Chairperson, we laud the inclusion of the Compensatory Strategy provision within the Norms and Standards. This Strategy is however supported by discretionary powers. Provision in 19 states: “Each conservation authority may develop a compensation strategy for the payment of compensation to a person who has experienced damage caused by a damage-causing animal. It is considered plausible that such a provision should be made obligatory in order to ensure that there is uniformity in the application of the Strategy in the country”.
While there is consensus around the circumstances under which compensation can be considered, the reference to negligence of the producer would require further deliberation to clear any ambiguities. This can be done through a consultative process with the relevant stakeholders.
In conclusion, Chairperson, my commitment is to ensure that we continue to provide sound advice or training to landowners, community members and other stakeholders on damage-causing animals. These Norms and Standards set a regulatory framework for pro-actively engaging in the control of damage-causing animals.
This can be achieved as recent studies show that losses to predators are down to about two percent in the grain or intensive areas and up to four percent in the extensive production areas as opposed to twenty five percent in areas where there is no Predator Management.
There are three critical areas that we need to pay attention to, these are:
- The adaptation of farm management practices to avoid losses;
- The repulsion or control of predators;
- The capture, documentation and promotion of Best Practice by means of sector-specific codes appropriate for each sector and bio system in which livestock or game farming enterprises are located.
In my engagement with the stakeholders in the sector, it is evident that we cannot continue doing things the same way and expect a different result. These Norms and Standards and discussions on damage-causing animals provide us with an opportunity to change course and to decisively address damage-causing animals.
Thank you!
