The commercial captive breeding and trade of predators in South Africa has been allowed to grow since the 1990s. In 2005, fewer than 2,500 lions were kept in 45–50 facilities, which more than doubled by 2013 to approximately 6,200 lions in 149 facilities (Williams et al. 2015). The emergence of this industry was in response to a surge in demand for lion products (Williams and ‘t Sas-Rolfes 2019), initially to supply captive-bred lions for the “canned” or captive trophy hunting industry (Schroeder 2018), and since 2008 also to export lion skeletons to feed the traditional medicine market in Southeast Asia (Williams et al. 2017). This shift was most likely the inadvertent result of international conservation measures to protect tigers (Panthera tigris) that led to the reduced availability of tiger bones and the subsequent substitution with lion bones (Williams et al. 2015). At the same time, a significant number of non-consumptive, tourism-based activities evolved, such as interactive tourism and voluntourism experiences for paying tourists (Schroeder 2018; Coals et al. 2019), creating a multi-sectoral commodity chain for lions (Green et al. 2021) that contributes an estimated ZAR500 million (US$42 million) annually to South Africa’s economy (van der Merwe et al. 2017). It is important to note, however, that these figures have been disputed (e.g., Harvey 2020) as they do not take into account the quantifiable opportunity costs associated with the continuation of the industry.

Although current and accurate information on the scale of the industry is lacking (Harvey 2020), Minister Creecy of DFFE stated in August 2019 that there were 7,979 lions in captivity in South Africa in 366 facilities registered in terms of national legislation (South African National Assembly Question No. 410 (NW1382E) 2019). However, the diversity and quantities of other indigenous and exotic felids, such as cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), leopard (Panthera pardus), caracal (Caracal caracal), serval (Leptailurus serval), tiger, jaguar (Panthera onca), puma (Puma concolor), and liger (captive born hybrid between a male lion and female tiger), in this industry is largely unknown (Harkin and Locke 2022).

The industry is legal in South Africa under a significant number of national and provincial statutes and regulations, as well as international trade agreements. The management of indigenous captive wildlife falls under the mandate of DFFE and provincial nature conservation departments; whereas the protection of captive animals, and wild felids in particular, is the mandate of the Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRRD) and concurrent national and provincial jurisdiction (Centre for Environmental Rights and Endangered Wildlife Trust 2018). The HLP report identified the lack of coordination and harmonisation of legislation and policy resulting from shared competencies, as prescribed in schedules 4 and 5 of the Constitution (referred to as 9+1+1, namely 9 provinces, 1 national DFFE, and 1 national DALRRD), as a key challenge (High-Level Panel Report 2020).

The National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 10 of 2004 (NEMBA), is South Africa’s main biodiversity conservation statute. Under NEMBA, the Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) Regulations, 2007, regulates, among others, the permit system, and the registration of captive breeding and hunting operations (South Africa 2007). These TOPS Regulations also provide for the prohibition of restricted activities involving listed threatened or protected species, including lion, leopard, and cheetah (South Africa 2007). Non-indigenous large felids, such as tiger and puma, are regarded as “alien species” under NEMBA; however, the possession, breeding and trade of such species is still regarded as a restricted activity under chapter 7 and therefore requires a permit (South Africa 2004). Under the TOPS Regulations, any person may apply for a possession permit, i.e., a permit for keeping a specimen or a product or derivative of a listed threatened or protected species in a person’s possession, including lion, leopard, cheetah, and caracal. No permit is valid for more than 12 months, except for a standing permit which may be issued for a period of 36 months. Standing permits, as referred to in TOPS Regulation 5(2), are restricted to, among others, veterinarians, registered captive breeding operations, registered sanctuaries or registered rehabilitation facilities, registered commercial exhibition facilities, and registered wildlife traders working with any listed threatened or protected species. According to TOPS, provincial departments responsible for the conservation of biodiversity in the province may exercise the duty of the permit issuing authority for TOPS permits. Furthermore, the applicant must be prepared to microchip each specimen of a listed threatened or protected species bred or kept at a captive facility.

The TOPS Regulations must be read in conjunction with applicable provincial legislation (South Africa 2007). All nine provinces in South Africa have provincial statutes (see Appendix 2), in addition to or instead of NEMBA and TOPS, but these are ultimately subservient to national legislation (Centre for Environmental Rights and Endangered Wildlife Trust 2018). Two provinces, namely Western Cape and Mpumalanga have still not fully implemented the TOPS Regulations and are therefore not yet compliant with TOPS (South African National Assembly Question No. 80 (NW83E) 2021). In most provinces, except for KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Cape and Western Cape, nature conservation is combined with portfolios of economic development, agriculture, and/or tourism, which divergent mandates can hinder conservation interests (Centre for Environmental Rights and Endangered Wildlife Trust 2018; Wilson 2019; High-Level Panel Report 2020). The plethora of nature conservation statutes relevant to each province and their often outdated nature (see Appendix 2) leads to major inconsistencies in the various regulatory provisions (see Appendix 3) and the overall lack of an enabling legislative environment when dealing with the industry (High-Level Panel Report 2020).

One example of such divergent provincial regulations is the captive hunting of put-and-take animals, which is prohibited under the TOPS Regulations. A put-and-take animal is defined in TOPS as “a live specimen of a captive-bred listed large predator that is released on a property irrespective of the size of the property for the purpose of hunting the animal within a period of 24 months” (South Africa 2004). However, the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa ruled in 2010 that lions should be excluded from the put-and-take listing (SA Predator Breeders Association and Others v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2010), which has led to the nine provinces making non-evidence based decisions on the minimum release time for captive-bred lions, now ranging from 96 hours in the North West up to the TOPS stipulated time of 24 months in Limpopo and Northern Cape (see Appendix 3). Furthermore, the capacity of the provincial authorities has been questioned in terms of monitoring all aspects of the industry (Williams et al. 2015). The inconsistencies in provincial legislation, the absence of a national permit database and the lack of transparency and co-ordination between the provinces, has left legal loopholes that can have detrimental impacts on our captive wildlife (Wilson 2019), thereby presenting compliance challenges (Williams et al. 2015).

The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) governs the international trade in wildlife with the aim to ensure that such trade does not threaten the survival of the species. Under current CITES regulations, the African lion is listed in appendix II and is therefore the only large felid that may be legally traded internationally for commercial purposes (Williams et al. 2017). Despite being a highly contested issue, an annual quota for the bone trade from South Africa’s captive lion population was agreed at the 2016 CITES Conference of the Parties (CoP17) through an annotation to appendix II (Williams et al. 2017). Whereas a zero annual export quota remains for wild lions, “annual export quotas for trade in bones, bone pieces, bone products, claws, skeletons, skulls and teeth for commercial purposes, derived from captive breeding operations in South Africa, will be established and communicated annually to the CITES Secretariat’’ (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) 2017).

Prior to the establishment of a CITES lion bone export quota, the legal trade in lion bones to the international market began in 2008 with 50–60 skeletons, increasing to 1,771 skeletons in 2016 (Williams et al. 2017; Williams et al. 2021) totalling in excess of 6,000 skeletons by 2017 (Bauer et al. 2018). Following CoP17, DFFE set an annual export quota of 800 lion skeletons in 2017 and 2018. A High Court judgement in August 2019 ruled that the setting of the bone quota in 2017 and 2018 was “unlawful and constitutionally invalid” and that consideration should have been given to welfare issues relating to lions in captivity when determining such quota (National Council of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Others 2019). As such, DFFE was not able to set the 2019 and onwards CITES lion bone export quotas and its future determination process was deferred due to deliberations within the HLP (South African National Assembly Question No. 1994 (NW2555E) 2020).

Although little information pertaining to the industry is publicly available, it is possible to obtain data through legal channels, such as the Promotion of Access to Information Act, 2 of 2000 (PAIA) (South Africa 2000). The PAIA came into effect as a means of promoting democratic participation and transparency between South African citizens and private and public bodies by ensuring public access to information (Ngoepe 2008; Dominy 2017; Nkwe and Ngoepe 2021). However, numerous studies have shown that implementation of the PAIA has been limited in terms of its uptake by citizens and the capacity of officials to implement the act consistently and accurately. Approximately 40% of requests for information are ignored by officials (The Archival Platform 2015), which may be the result of insufficient record keeping and support within government organisations (Nkwe and Ngoepe 2021), poor staff capacity, a lack of designated staff trained as information officers, and/or staff intentionally avoiding requests (Darch and Underwood 2005). It has been argued that without effective record management, access to information cannot be realised to its full potential (Ngoepe 2008).

The purpose of this research was to glean valuable insights into the extent and nature of the commercial captive predator industry in South Africa. We also reviewed the efficiency and compliance of the regulatory administration at provincial level using permit information and other related data pertaining to the captive breeding, keeping, and trade of large felids in South Africa, specifically lion, cheetah, leopard, and tiger. The PAIA process (see Appendix 4) was utilised to gain access to records kept by the various provincial departments governing environmental matters. This process should be an effective tool to obtain such information and to both quantify and qualify the extent and nature of this industry, however it has previously been criticised as inadequate and inefficient.

Permit data was obtained via PAIA requests submitted to all nine provincial authorities, namely Eastern Cape, Free State, Gauteng, KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, Mpumalanga, North West, Northern Cape, and Western Cape. As prescribed in the PAIA guide, a Form A (to request access to information held by a public body) was used to request information from the provincial permit issuing authorities (South African Human Rights Commission 2020). The requests were made in the personal capacity of one of the researchers.

A total of 72 PAIA requests were submitted to the nine provinces in South Africa (see Appendix 4 for a more in-depth PAIA process methodology and results description). Eight individual PAIA requests were submitted to each provincial issuing authority for the following information for the reporting period of 2017–2020:

1. Number of big cat breeding and/or keeping facilities and a breakdown of the number of lions, tigers, cheetahs, and other large felid species in captivity in the province;
2. Permits to breed and keep lions, tigers, cheetahs, and other large felid species in captivity;
3. Permits to transfer captive lions, tigers, cheetahs, and other large felid species within the province and/or interprovincially;
4. Permits to hunt captive-bred lions, tigers, cheetahs, and other large felid species;
5. Permits to euthanise any captive lions, tigers, cheetahs, and other large felid species;
6. Registration documents for new-born captive lions, tigers, cheetahs, and other large felid species with microchip numbers, as well as registration of deaths;
7. Inspection reports of captive large felid breeding and keeping facilities produced by the Environmental Management Inspectorate (EMI) within the province;
8. CITES export permits to export lions, tigers, cheetahs, and other large felid species, parts and derivatives internationally.

Document analysis was performed following Bowen (2009) to systematically review and evaluate three types of documents, namely permit documentation received; written communication provided by provincial officials in the form of summary tables, spreadsheets, and email correspondence; and provincial legislation that governs environmental matters. Following the collection and selection of relevant documents, three researchers reviewed, assessed, and categorised the information contained within these documents before synthesising the data into spreadsheets. This enabled the data to be filtered for analysis by PAIA request type, permit type, province, and year. Our primary focus was on large felids, namely lion, cheetah, leopard, and tiger; the permits issued for the keeping and breeding of these felids in captivity; and the subsequent transport, hunting, euthanasia, and international live trade and/or trade in their body parts and derivatives. Data provided on other felids (including jaguar, caracal, serval, and wild cat) were summarised in the spreadsheets, where appropriate, but excluded from the final analysis.

Provincial legislation relevant to the keeping of large felids and other predators in captivity collected mostly through web-based searches, was tabulated in a spreadsheet to aid comparisons of the various regulations governing the industry in South Africa’s nine provinces (see Appendices 2, 3). A document analysis of the EMI inspection reports obtained added valuable information on the extent to which both national and provincial regulations are implemented and enforced. Personal electronic communication with provincial officials were coded and thematically organised, and subsequently utilised to demonstrate common views and challenges expressed by officials across the nine provinces.

Descriptive statistics were used to illustrate the extent of the industry in South Africa and activities across its commodity chain (e.g., Green et al. 2021). This allowed for comparisons to be made across the nine provinces and the four-year reporting period in terms of all permit types and the number of large felids in the system. Where appropriate, provincial results have been described separately due to significant variations in provincial regulations and permit systems employed, with particular reference to the information received through the PAIA process. Furthermore, descriptive statistics were used to present a simplified timeline and account of the PAIA request process (see Appendix 4, Table A3) to demonstrate the challenges encountered in using the PAIA to gain access to information regarding the industry.

To ensure data protection and anonymity during the process of data collection, analysis, and reporting, all raw data files have been saved on password-protected computers by members of the research team only. Where any third-party personal information was provided by provincial officials, this was removed or de-identified during the data processing stage to secure anonymity. No personal information was processed or stored in the UK. All identifiable information has been excluded from reporting. All permit-related data was obtained via the legal public process according to the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) and PAIA guidelines.

A total of eight PAIA requests were submitted to each of the nine provinces in South Africa (n = 72). Satisfactory information was received for 34 requests (47%) sent, while 24 requests (33%) were refused with reasons provided and 14 requests (20%) were ignored or rejected without justification (Fig. 1).

Figure 1.

Number of responses to the PAIA requests (n = 72) and time lapsed in days between initial requests and date of closure.

The South African Human Rights Commission Guide (2020) prescribes a timeframe of 30 and 180 days within which a PAIA request should reach completion, although it should be noted that there are a number of permutations from the standard response process that legally allows for additional response time. Only one province (Western Cape) completed the PAIA process in less than 30 days with no permutations (Fig. 1 and Appendix 4, Table A3).

The permit and other data received from the nine provincial nature conservation authorities for the period 2017–2020 was highly variable in quality and quantity (Fig. 2) and hence it is reasonable to assume that many of the datasets obtained for any of the permit types discussed below were incomplete. For example, the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development, Environmental Affairs and Tourism (DEDEAT) provided summary permit information for only one of the six regions in the province, namely the Amathole region (see Appendix 5, Table A4). On further enquiry, the provincial official insisted that no further permits to keep large felids in captivity were issued in any of the other regions in the province, despite clear evidence that additional captive facilities (including a registered big cat sanctuary) do exist in other regions of the province.

Figure 2.

A provincial breakdown of the number of TOPS permits and other documents received for the period 2017–2020.

On the other hand, the Free State Department of Small Business Development, Tourism and Environmental Affairs (DESTEA) provided digital copies of permits issued, containing a total of 734 TOPS permits, 272 EMI inspection reports, and 228 CITES permits (see Appendix 5, Table A5). For a more in-depth analysis of the Free State permit data see also Heinrich et al. (2022). The Gauteng Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (GDARD) provided both digital and hard copies of permits issued, namely 390 TOPS permits, including 43 taxidermy and cargo export permits, and 364 CITES permits (see Appendix 5, Table A6). Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife provided summary information and detailed EMI inspection reports via email for one facility in KwaZulu-Natal (see Appendix 5, Table A7). The Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism (LEDET) provided summary information via email showing that a total of 60 captivity, 224 transport, 127 hunting and 5,744 CITES export permits were issued by the province for the reporting period (see Appendix 5, Table A8). The Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) provided electronic copies of three TOPS captivity permits and 12 EMI inspection reports for six facilities (see Appendix 5, Table A9). In 2012, MTPA implemented an electronic register in the form of Microsoft Excel documents, and it has been reported that four (67%) facilities have still not adopted the system. Summary information was provided by the North West Department of Rural, Environmental and Agricultural Development (READ) for a total of 174 captivity, 609 transport, and 1,544 hunting permits, utilising an electronic permitting system (see Appendix 5, Table A9). The Northern Cape Department of Environment and Nature Conservation (DENC) provided digital copies of one captivity permit, 24 hunting permits (for wild, self-sustaining lions) and 33 CITES permits (see Appendix 5, Table A10). CapeNature provided detailed summary information on 103 captivity, 109 transport, and 129 CITES permits for the Western Cape province issued utilising an electronic permit system between 2017–2020 (see Appendix 5, Table A11).

A national overview is provided below by type of TOPS permit and other documents received, as well as highlighting the more pertinent issues on a provincial basis. Supplementary provincial permit summary tables are provided in Appendix 5.

According to the information received via the PAIA requests, approximately 275 unique captive predator facilities were issued with TOPS captivity permits by their respective provincial authorities to keep at least 5,508 lions, 496 cheetahs, 198 leopards, 382 tigers, and 804 other felids in South Africa in any one year between 2017–2020 (Fig. 3).

Figure 3.

A provincial breakdown of the number of unique captive predator facilities issued with TOPS captivity permits and the quantities of large felids registered per province according to those permits (2017–2020).

The top three provinces in terms of the number of unique captive predator facilities are the Free State (n = 123; 44.7%), North West (n = 90; 32.7%) and Western Cape (n = 26; 9.5%). Respectively, these three provinces hold 43%, 27.9% and 1.6% of the total number of large felids (n = 7,388) in South Africa (Fig. 3).

Of the 21 captivity permits received from GDARD, 15 permits (78.9%) omitted the number of large felids held at those facilities in Gauteng. In Limpopo, LEDET stated that 60 captivity permits were issued between 2017–2020 but did not provide any information on the number of large felids kept by those facilities. The Northern Cape only allows lions to be released onto extensive wildlife systems, as free roaming and self-sustaining populations, and thus no captive large felids exist in the province, except for one rehabilitation facility. CapeNature issues keeping permits in the Western Cape, but no breeding permits, as the breeding of carnivores in captivity is only supported as part of conservation breeding programmes (CapeNature 2017). See also Appendix 5 for more detailed provincial captivity permit data.

The summary information provided by READ showed that the number of unique facilities in the North West issued with TOPS captivity permits between 2017–2020 increased by 16.9%, the number of indigenous large felids (lion, cheetah, and leopard) increased by 14.2%, and the number of exotic large felids (tiger, jaguar, and puma) by 34.8% (see Appendix 5, Table A10).

Notably, of the 417 captivity permits received from DESTEA in the Free State, 65 permits (15.4%) did not list microchip numbers for the registered animals. Similarly, 19 captivity permits (90.5%) received from GDARD (Gauteng) omitted microchip numbers.

Seven out of the nine provincial authorities provided no information on the registration of births and deaths of large felids. In KwaZulu-Natal, facilities reportedly keep birth and mortality records and inform the Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife conservation officer of death due to natural causes or ill-health as soon as such events occur (see Appendix 3). The Northern Cape has no captive large felids and hence DENC holds no information on birth and death, whereas CapeNature stated that this information does not need to be reported to them by captive wildlife facilities.

A total of 1,275 transport permits were issued between 2017–2020, indicating a high level of movement and trade activity of large felids across South Africa, both intra- and interprovincially. The majority of permits (n = 1,066; 83.6%) were issued by the Free State, Limpopo and North West authorities, and nearly all permits (99.6%) did not specify whether the transfers involved live animals or carcasses.

The 233 transport permits received from DESTEA demonstrate a high level of activity both within the Free State and to and from other provinces whereby 1,099 felids were transferred, including 869 lions (79.1%) (Fig. 4). LEDET provided summary information stating that 224 transport permits (intraprovincial and interprovincial export) were issued in Limpopo, but no information was given regarding interprovincial import or on the quantity and species of large felids transported. READ issued a total of 609 transport permits to import 237 lions (38.9%) into the North West from other provinces between 2017–2020.

Figure 4.

A provincial breakdown of the number of TOPS transport permits issued by the provincial authorities and the quantities of lions and other large felids moved intra- and interprovincially (2017–2020).

Four provinces (Eastern Cape, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and Northern Cape) either did not provide any information pertaining to transport permits or had not issued transport permits between 2017–2020 (Fig. 4). See also Appendix 5 for more detailed provincial transport permit data.

The hunting permit information received indicates that at least 1,707 hunting permits were issued across the country during the four-year reporting period to hunt and/or capture 1,572 captive lions in addition to numerous other indigenous captive felids, including cheetah and leopard (Fig. 5).

Figure 5.

A provincial breakdown of the number of TOPS hunting permits issued by the provincial authorities and the quantity of lions and other large felids involved (2017–2020). All hunting permits in the Western Cape are Prohibited Hunting Method Permits (PHMP) that include the capture of predators for other purposes.

READ issued the vast majority of captive hunting permits (n = 1,544; 90.5%) with an average of 386 lions killed every year in the North West, however no information was provided on the number of facilities involved in captive hunting in the province. The hunting of exotic large felids, such as tiger and jaguar, is considered a restricted activity under NEMBA and requires a TOPS permit. However, READ confirmed by electronic communication that they do not issue hunting permits for exotic species, as this is not a requirement under the provincial legislation. Such hunts only require written permission from the landowner (see Appendix 3).

All 18 captive hunting permits issued by DESTEA involved only two unique facilities in the Free State, with one permit indicating unspecified special conditions, one permit for a bow hunt and the remainder for rifle hunts, where specified. LEDET only provided the number of permits issued in Limpopo and gave no information on the number of facilities involved, nor on the quantity and species of felids. Mpumalanga and the Northern Cape have no captive hunting facilities but issued permits for wild lion hunts.

The Nature and Environmental Conservation Ordinance No. 19 of 1974 applicable in the Western Cape (see Appendix 2) defines the word “hunt” in relation to any wild animal as “by any means whatsoever to hunt or search for, to kill, capture or attempt to kill or capture, or to pursue, follow or drive with intent to kill or capture, or to shoot at, poison, lie in wait for or wilfully disturb” (South Africa 1975). Therefore, all hunting permits issued by CapeNature are known as Prohibited Hunting Method Permits (PHMP) and include the capture of predators for other purposes, i.e., capture without killing. While a total of 18 PHMPs were issued by CapeNature between 2017–2020, no trophy hunting permits were issued for large felids.

The remaining three provinces (Eastern Cape, Gauteng and KwaZulu-Natal) did not issue hunting permits during the four-year reporting period (Fig. 5).

Information regarding euthanasia permits provided by the provinces indicated that between 2017–2020 at least 69 permits were issued to euthanise 1,092 lions in three provinces, namely Eastern Cape, Free State and Gauteng (Fig. 6).

Figure 6.

A provincial breakdown of the number of euthanasia permits issued by the provincial authorities to the number of unique captive facilities and the quantity of lions involved (2017–2020).

The Free State is the only province that issues bulk euthanasia permits, however, this restricted activity needs to be carried out by a veterinarian and monitored by a DESTEA official. Only 33 unique facilities were involved in this restricted activity in the province and a total of 235 lions (21.6%) were euthanised by one facility alone. Four euthanasia permits involving a total of 230 lions (21.2%) did not list microchip numbers.

The Eastern Cape and Gauteng issued one and two euthanasia permits respectively for veterinarian reasons. While no permits are required in the Western Cape to euthanise a wild animal held in captivity, euthanasia is prohibited in the North West (Williams & ‘t Sas-Rolfes 2019) and therefore such permits are not issued by READ. The four remaining provinces did not issue permits to euthanise captive lions during the reporting period.

Only three provinces provided digital copies of EMI inspection reports for the four-year reporting period. A total of 282 inspection reports were received, namely from the Free State (n = 272; 96.5%), KwaZulu-Natal (n = 2; 0.7%), and Mpumalanga (n = 8; 2.8%).

Routine EMI compliance inspections were conducted in the Free State province for the purpose of new applications or renewal of captivity permits, or when new enclosures were built. Two different forms as well as generic feedback reports were used to report on such inspections (see Appendix 6). The level of detail provided by the individual EMIs across all inspection reports varied widely and fell broadly into three categories, namely reports omitting almost all required information other than owner’s name, location, inspector’s name, and a one-sentence recommendation (n = 101; 37.1%); reports that included an intermediate level of detail, such as number of camps, fence type, height and electrification, and number of animals (n = 125; 46.0%); and highly detailed reports, that included comprehensive descriptions, enclosure maps/layouts, and photographs (n = 46; 16.9%) (see Appendix 6). The level of detail appeared to be directly linked to individual EMI officials and was often subjective in nature.

The inspection reports for one facility for 2017 and 2018 received from Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife were highly detailed feedback reports, including areas of concern and action points. The reports noted ongoing non-compliance with some permit conditions set by the authority in 2014, including inadequate enclosures for some species, lack of veterinary care, lack of socialisation and enrichment, removal of young animals from adults, and uncontrolled breeding. In 2019, inspections for that facility were not conducted due to an ongoing case with the South African Police Service (SAPS) and in 2020 inspections were postponed due to COVID‐19 lockdown restrictions.

The inspection reports from Mpumalanga Tourism and Parks Agency (MTPA) utilise standardised forms and report on record keeping and permits, fencing, disease and DNA management, condition of animals, feeding and nutrition, enclosures, veterinary, and other general aspects of supervision and safety, by using simple “yes” or “no” responses. However, the conditions to comply with the provincial norms and standards were not clarified or defined. One facility failed to implement the electronic system utilised in Mpumalanga and did not keep accurate and up-to-date registers for its animals over numerous inspections. A 2019 EMI inspection report highlighted transgressions going back to 2014, namely not keeping accurate records or having the appropriate permits in place when animals were acquired, sent to other facilities, or died. For example, at least three leopards were unaccounted for, and the deaths of multiple lions had not been recorded. Further infractions included operating as a rehabilitation centre without the correct permits and protocols in place.

A second facility in Mpumalanga inspected in 2019 also demonstrated serious transgressions that had resulted in a court order. The facility was found to illegally possess predators, had exported seven tigers to the North West without the required transport permits, had no records for the deaths of several predators, as well as inadequate fencing and welfare concerns such as a lack of water and enrichment. The implications of the above non-compliances were not noted in the EMI inspection reports, although the information officer confirmed by email that “enforcement actions are taken”, although what those entailed remains unclear.

No inspection reports were received from the other six provinces, namely Eastern Cape, Gauteng, Limpopo, North West, Northern Cape, and Western Cape.

Information provided on CITES permits indicates that at least 6,380 CITES export permits were issued by the provinces between 2017–2020 for a minimum of 1,366 lions and 294 other felids, including permits for trophy exports (n = 473; 7.4%), permits (n = 19; 0.3%) for 456 lion skeletons, and live export permits (n = 70; 1.1%) for 188 lions and 76 other felids (Fig. 7).

Figure 7.

A provincial breakdown of the number of CITES export permits issued by the provincial authorities, the number (where specified) of live and dead lions and live and dead other felids exported from South Africa (2017–2020).

The Gauteng authority (GDARD) issued a total of 275 CITES export permits mostly for trophy export (n = 236; 85.8%), live exports (n = 33; 12%), and for lion skeletons (n = 6; 2.2%). The vast majority of permits (n = 248; 90.2%) involved lions (n = 436) and were imported by countries such as China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam. Live lions (n = 74) were exported from Gauteng through CITES to zoos for commercial and captive breeding purposes, including 34 lions (48.6%) to three individual zoos in China. Interestingly, 22 lion skeletons were exported to Laos in 2017 and 30 skeletons to Vietnam in 2019.

The Free State authority (DESTEA) issued 214 CITES permits to export 688 lions, including permits for live exports (n = 36; 16.8%) mostly to China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Thailand; permits for trophy exports (n = 166; 77.6%); and for lion skeletons to Vietnam (n = 8; 3.7%).

The Northern Cape authority (DENC) issued 25 permits for the export of lion trophies originating from captive lion hunts conducted in neighbouring provinces, mostly in the North West. A total of 30 captive-bred lions and one caracal were processed and exported by taxidermists in the province.

CapeNature issued CITES export permits (n = 46; 37.7%) for trophy purposes for at least 12 captive and 34 wild animals and is the only province to issue permits (n = 13; 10.7%) for the collection of specimens from wild caracals for scientific purposes (i.e., meat, blood and serum samples, etc.).

Limpopo (n = 5,744; 90%) and North West (n = 51; 0.8%) issued CITES permits but provided no information on the purpose of the permits, the importing countries, whether permits to import and/or re-export were included, or the species or quantities of large felids involved (Fig. 7). The Eastern Cape (DEDEAT) and Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife did not issue any CITES export permits between 2017–2020 and MTPA did not provide any information on CITES permits from Mpumalanga (Fig. 7).

Four provincial authorities, DESTEA (n = 14), GDARD (n = 89), DENC (n = 8) and CapeNature (n = 129) issued CITES permits for import and/or re-export, which were excluded from the final analysis.

A number of challenges were encountered while utilising the PAIA process, notably difficulties in obtaining the correct contact details for the relevant information officers and maintaining long-term contact with those staff facilitating the collection of the requested information. Provincial PAIA manuals, if made available, are often not updated to reflect the current contact details of information officers and therefore contact had to be re-initiated with new officials, further delaying the research process. Non-compliance with the stipulated PAIA process was further demonstrated by information officers either not responding at all or not responding in a timely manner due to, for example, staff capacity issues, which was acknowledged by several provinces in electronic communications citing human resource constraints as a reason for delays.

One provincial authority which was particularly challenging was the Limpopo authority (LEDET), who argued that a full research proposal including purpose statements was needed to access the requested information. However, this contradicts the PAIA Act which states that a requester’s right to access information is not affected by “any reasons the requester gives for requesting access; or the information officer’s belief as to what the requester’s reasons are for requesting access” (South Africa 2000). Subsequently, the LEDET provincial officials argued that the requests could not be fulfilled due to sensitive third-party information. Only after the researcher insisted on their refusal being provided in writing was summary information on the requested data shared via email.

The PAIA process is designed to be an accessible and effective tool to obtain information; however, in practice, inadequacies and inefficiencies have been described by several researchers across various departments (McKinley 2003; Peekhaus 2014; van der Mey and Eyal 2014; Berliner 2017; Marais et al. 2017). Our experience of using the PAIA process to obtain information from the provincial nature conservation departments was consistent with the findings of these studies referenced above.

In 2019, at least 275 unique captive predator facilities traded with valid TOPS permits that allowed them to keep 5,508 lions and 1,880 other felids for a wide range of commercial purposes, including captive hunting, live trade, and lion bone export. However, with 53% of the PAIA requests either refused, rejected or ignored, there is no evidence that any of the datasets are complete and therefore we cannot accurately quantify the true magnitude and nature of South Africa’s commercial captive predator industry. Nevertheless, the data obtained provides an indication of the most modest extent of the industry. Furthermore, the information obtained was highly inconsistent across South Africa’s nine provincial departments both in terms of quantity, quality, and detail. Four provinces provided copies of actual permits (Free State, Gauteng, Mpumalanga, and Northern Cape), four provided summary tables for the requested information (Eastern Cape, Limpopo, North West, and Western Cape), and one province provided informal email responses and some report documents (KwaZulu-Natal).

TOPS captivity permits issued by the provincial authorities are generally valid for one year and are issued to register, operate, keep, and/or breed wild animal species. However, captivity permits issued by GDARD (Gauteng) are more prescriptive according to purpose, such as to register, establish and operate, keep and/or breed, and display purposes. The registration certificates and permits to establish and operate issued by GDARD are valid for three years, as are the establish and operate permits issued by MTPA (Mpumalanga). Hence, facilities issued with such permits in, for example, 2017 can still legally operate until 2020. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the number of facilities operating within these two provinces with valid permits differed from the number of permits issued per year (see Appendix 5, Tables A6, A9). Due to an incomplete dataset provided by Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife, it is not clear whether permit holders in the province are required to renew permits annually.

As illustrated by Appendix 3, the provincial regulations relating to the keeping and breeding of large felids in captivity and any associated activities, such as captive hunting and euthanasia of lions, varies considerably across provincial borders (Williams et al. 2015). Some provinces, such as KwaZulu-Natal, Northern Cape, and Western Cape, have more stringent regulations governing captive wildlife. For example, the Northern Cape does not issue breeding or keeping permits and thus no captive large felids exist in this province; and the Western Cape does not allow commercial captive breeding but will issue keeping permits for large felids. In KwaZulu-Natal, breeding and removal of cubs is not permitted under the Standard Terms and Conditions for the Keeping of Wild Animals in Captivity (Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife 2013). On the other end of the scale are the North West and Free State provinces, which allow the widespread commercial trade of large felids, reflected in much higher numbers of TOPS permits issued and captive large felids recorded in those provinces. The North West even showed a steady increase between 2017 and 2020 in the number of captive facilities as well as the quantity of large felids (see Appendix 5, Table A10). Furthermore, this province offers the shortest period (96 hours) between the release of a captive-bred lion and the hunt taking place, making the North West also attractive for trophy hunting operators, as is evident from the number of hunting permits issued by READ. Out of the 1,707 hunting permits issued in South Africa between 2017–2020, 90.5% (n = 1,544) were issued in the North West province (see Appendix 5, Table A10), demonstrating that the province’s lenient regulations are preferred by industry players. It is interesting to note that 230 lions were hunted in the North West in 2020, despite extensive COVID-19 lockdown measures and travel restrictions from March 2020 onwards. Data on the trophy hunting of large exotic felids is extremely limited, which can be explained by provincial legislation such as in the North West (South Africa 1983), where no TOPS hunting permit is required for exotics, only written permission from the landowner where the exotic species will be hunted. In the absence of TOPS permits, no paper trail exists, despite the fact that NEMBA states that hunting of exotics is a restricted activity that requires a TOPS permit.

The lack of uniformity across provincial regulations is also apparent in terms of euthanasia of lions; i.e., the Free State, Eastern Cape, and Gauteng provinces allow euthanasia; the Western Cape and Mpumalanga indicate that euthanasia permits are not issued; and the North West stated that “no method of euthanasia is used in the province”. The remaining provinces (KwaZulu-Natal, Limpopo, and Northern Cape) did not respond to our requests for euthanasia permits, and therefore the incomplete datasets received make it impossible to quantify the true extent of euthanasia of large felids across South Africa. However, we have found that the bulk of euthanasia permits were issued by DESTEA (Free State), most likely for the purpose of harvesting and exporting skeletons to feed the international lion bone trade (Williams and ‘t Sas-Rolfes 2019). From the CITES export permits received, we have evidence that permits were issued by GDARD to export 22 lion skeletons in 2017 to Laos and 30 skeletons in 2019 to Vietnam; and DESTEA issued permits to export 288 lion skeletons in 2018 and 103 skeletons in early 2019, all to Vietnam. Thus, CITES export permits were issued for more than 130 lion skeletons during a zero CITES lion bone export quota and despite previous reports stating that no skeletons were legally exported during 2019 (Williams et al. 2021).

It appears that only a relatively small number of industry players in the Free State are involved in lion euthanasia (33 facilities with 21.6% of the lions euthanised by just one facility) and thus in the lion bone trade, however evidence has shown that lions are freely transported between provinces. Such legal loopholes are widely exploited (Centre for Environmental Rights and Endangered Wildlife Trust 2018), as was evident from the exercise of following microchip numbers of live lions on transport permits from the North West that were subsequently found on euthanasia permits in the Free State (Heinrich et al. 2022). Furthermore, 222 lions were euthanised in the Free State in 2019 and 2020 during the zero CITES export quota period, which could indicate that those bones may have been stockpiled (Williams et al. 2021). Notably, no lion bone stockpile records are kept by the national or provincial authorities and it is therefore impossible to quantify the extent of stockpiled lion bones across South Africa.

In compliance with the TOPS Regulations, where appropriate, studbooks must be kept containing records of births and deaths, translocations and sales, as well as microchip numbers. The issuing authority must be kept informed within a three-month period at the end of each calendar year; however, it is not uncommon for these criteria to be subverted or ignored (Tricorache and Stiles 2021). Despite the fact that TOPS Annexure 2 clearly states that detailed information needs to be submitted on percentage mortalities as well as past, current, and expected annual production of offspring for captive breeding facilities, seven out of the nine provincial authorities were not able to address the PAIA requests dealing with registration of births and deaths. This makes the tracking of captive wildlife through the system from birth to death an impossible task, further compounding the lack of transparency and strict governance of this industry. The Gauteng authority (GDARD) cited their lack of capacity in terms of staff and other resources as the main constraint for not accurately tracking the quantities of captive large felids in the province. In electronic communication with the Western Cape, it was stated that CapeNature “does not have access to this information nor is it a requirement to register and/or microchip animals born in captivity upon birth or death and report it to CapeNature”, which highlights the Western Cape’s apparent non-compliance with the TOPS Regulations. The Limpopo authority (LEDET) refused to provide this information, stating that such “sensitive information” needs to be requested from the facilities directly.

Based on information received from three provinces (Free State, KwaZulu-Natal and Mpumalanga), EMI inspections were of particular concern where they highlighted significant inconsistencies in reporting styles between provinces and even within provincial boundaries. It is noteworthy that EMIs undergo training in respect of compliance and enforcement with the national and provincial conservation legislation, but not on animal welfare issues, due to the lack of legislative mandate (Centre for Environmental Rights and Endangered Wildlife Trust 2019), even though they are tasked with commenting on welfare aspects in their inspection reports. It is therefore not surprising that the welfare conditions went largely unreported or were described in vague and subjective responses. For example, both the Free State and Mpumalanga inspection reports would frequently say “yes” in response to open questions such as the availability of water, shelter or stimulation without further details on the quality and quantity thereof. Although the current legislative mandate for animal welfare lies with the National Council of Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (NSPCA) (Centre for Environmental Rights and Endangered Wildlife Trust 2019), only one EMI inspection report indicated joint inspections to address welfare issues. Where compliance and welfare issues were noted in EMI inspection reports, it was unclear if and what consequences were imposed on facility owners. For example, one official stated in electronic communication that “enforcement actions are taken”, although it remained unclear what such actions would likely entail, despite repeated, long-term welfare and compliance offences that were noted in their inspection reports for that particular facility. The lack of capacity, mandate, and animal welfare training hampers the EMI’s ability to effectively enforce welfare regulations. The NSPCA is mandated with the enforcement of animal protection in South Africa, despite the absence of financial support from the national government, capacity constraints for both NSPCA and provincial departments to adequately address animal welfare. Hence, well-being issues remain a major concern and leave the protection of thousands of captive wild animals vulnerable.

The lack of capacity of provincial nature conservation authorities (Williams et al. 2015) can severely impede their ability to fulfil their mandate as the issuing and enforcement authority for captive wildlife, thereby hindering adherence to relevant regulations. This deficiency also needs to be interrogated in relation to the (re-)issuing of TOPS permits in a timely manner and may be a contributing factor for the large number of facilities that traded with expired TOPS captivity permits between 2017–2020, in particular in the Free State and Limpopo provinces. An audit of captive lion breeding facilities in 2016–2017 conducted by DFFE (then Department of Environmental Affairs) and the provincial EMIs found nearly 40% of the facilities inspected to be non-compliant with either TOPS Regulations and/or permit conditions. In the Free State almost all facilities were found to be operating with expired permits, which were renewed without repercussions (Department of Environmental Affairs 2019; Parliamentary Monitoring Group 2019; Williams and ‘t Sas-Rolfes 2019). Previous studies identified 30 unique TOPS registered breeding and/or hunting facilities in Limpopo (Williams and ‘t Sas-Rolfes 2019), of which only 47% were issued with a valid permit during our research period. Similarly, of the 161 known TOPS facilities in the Free State (Williams and ‘t Sas-Rolfes 2019), between 38 facilities (23.6%) in 2019 and 102 facilities (63.4%) in 2017 would have been trading with expired permits during our research period. These findings cast further doubt on the accuracy of the estimated size of the industry of 275 facilities (according to our research), which can easily exceed 300 facilities. This further illustrates the impact of the lack of capacity of provincial authorities and their subsequent inability to conduct reliable regulation compliance and enforcement in the absence of consequences.

Deficiencies, inconsistencies, inaccuracies, and irregularities pertaining to the regulation of the industry were experienced partly due to the fact that most provinces still work with dated paper-based record keeping systems (except for the North West and Western Cape) and some provinces issue permits at a district rather than provincial level (e.g., Eastern Cape and KwaZulu-Natal), which is further compounded by the lack of a centralised national database. The HLP also identified several challenges in terms of the current permitting system, including the outdated paper-based nature, which is not only slow, reactive, and flawed for monitoring compliance, but is also incapable of facilitating robust and transparent decision-making (High-Level Panel Report 2020). In addition, the many different authorities involved in regulating captive wild animals in South Africa (referred to as 9+1 or 9 provinces plus 1 national DFFE) and the lack of consistency in permitting due to the 9+1 situation further inhibits the system (High-Level Panel Report 2020). This makes the tracking and monitoring of types, quantities, and movement of captive wild animals through the system an onerous and often impossible task.

Our research results outlined above can only reflect the permit information and records received from provincial officials in response to our PAIA requests and may include incomplete datasets. Furthermore, it is important to note that the issuance of a permit does not guarantee the activity was completed or permit conditions adhered to by the applicant. This does raise further uncertainty around the true extent of the commercial captive predator industry in South Africa, which is subject to a lack of regulation and compliance.