The EMS Foundation has launched High Court proceedings against both CapeNature and the Overstrand Municipality, after attempts to resolve concerns over weapons-based baboon management through legal correspondence failed to produce the undertakings sought.
The application, filed in the Western Cape High Court, centres specifically on the use of coercive and weapons-based methods to manage the Betty’s Bay baboon troop – methods the Foundation argues have not been subjected to lawful, transparent or publicly accountable scrutiny.
On 4 June, attorneys acting for the EMS Foundation served a letter of demand on both CapeNature and the Overstrand Municipality, requesting that no additional weapons-based management methods be introduced in Betty’s Bay pending a proper review of the applicable management framework. The Foundation also sought assurances that wildlife management would continue in a manner consistent with South Africa’s constitutional values, environmental legislation and humane conservation principles.
Five days later, on 9 June, the Overstrand Municipality announced it had begun reviewing and updating its Strategic Baboon Management Plan (SBMP) – a development the EMS Foundation welcomed. Under the new programme, a revised draft SBMP is expected to be submitted to an independent panel of wildlife and conservation experts for specialist review by August, followed by a structured public participation process, including public meetings in affected towns across the Overstrand.
“However, no undertaking was provided that weapons-based management methods would be suspended while that review takes place. It is that gap,” Megan Carr, senior researcher of the Foundation, stated in the press release. “That left it with no choice but to approach the High Court.”
Lawful decisions
The EMS Foundation has been a vocal critic of the municipality’s approach to baboon management for several years. Previous concerns raised by the Foundation include the use of paintball guns by a contracted baboon management company – Human Wildlife Solutions (HWS) – and what it described as a lack of transparency around procurement processes that saw contracts worth nearly R31 million awarded to HWS.
In a statement the Foundation was careful to draw a distinction between responsible management and what it is challenging in court. “These proceedings are not directed against responsible baboon management,” the statement reads. “Rather, they seek to ensure that decisions affecting both wildlife and communities are taken lawfully, transparently and in accordance with constitutional principles, proper public participation and sound environmental governance.”
The Foundation expressed concern that increasingly coercive interventions were being “normalised” before their legality, necessity and appropriateness had been properly examined through lawful public processes. “Wildlife management decisions that affect sentient wild animals, local communities and the public interest must be based on sound science, humane principles and accountable decision-making,” the statement said.
The application raises significant questions about the exercise of statutory powers by public authorities, the lawful management of human-wildlife conflict, and the standard of accountability expected of conservation bodies and municipalities.
Adaptive strategy
In a press statement from June the OM indicated that they have began reviewing and updating their Strategic Baboon Management Plan (SBMP).
“This review stems from a growing recognition that managing human-baboon interactions requires a long-term, locally relevant, and adaptive strategy that reflects the unique environmental, social and operational realities of our region,” the Municipal Manager, Dr Dean O’Neill, said.
“While the Municipality will consider lessons and management approaches from elsewhere in the Western Cape, the intention is not to duplicate other models or apply a uniform approach across the entire Overstrand.”
According to him the review process will aim to balance a number of important and often competing considerations, including: biodiversity conservation; ecological sustainability; public safety; animal welfare; municipal operational realities; waste management challenges; tourism and recreational pressures; and the wellbeing of affected communities.
As part of this ongoing process, the revised draft SBMP is expected to be submitted to an independent panel of wildlife and conservation experts for a specialist review by August. They also want to emphasise that they remain committed to engaging constructively with affected communities and stakeholders through lawful, transparent, and structured processes.
