MEDIA
STATEMENT - ISSUED ON 09 OCTOBER 2008 -
South Africa today announced their satisfaction
with the integrity of the CITES accredited
buyers systems of China and Japan for the
once off sale of stockpiled ivory.
The announcement follows
the conclusion of a trip to both countries
by officials from the Department of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism (DEAT) and South African
National Parks (SANParks). The Standing
Committee of CITES had designated Japan
and China as importing countries for the
sale of the stockpiled ivory in July 2008.
This accreditation follows the CITES Standing
Committee decision that both countries have
sufficient measures in place to prevent
re-exporting of the ivory as agreed by the
CITES Conference of Parties at its 14th
Meeting held in the Netherlands in July
2007.
It was decided by South
Africa, in July 2008, to send a delegation
to both countries to assess enforcement
capacity, the ivory registration processes
and general CITES compliance, in order to
satisfy the South African government.
Officials embarked on
the trip between 22 September 2008 and 02
October 2008.
South Africa has been
authorized by CITES to make a once off sale
of approximately 51 metric tons of raw ivory.
In China ivory is used
primarily in the ivory carving industry
for cultural art works while in Japan the
ivory is used largely for the production
of musical instruments and hanko’s used
as seals (signatures) for official documents.
Both countries produce figurines, jewellery,
and ornaments from ivory.
Both China and Japan
have computerised registration systems in
place which entails the registration of
tusks and ivory products. In China all products
have identifying certificates which provide
a description of the item and indicates
that it cannot be exported. Similarly in
Japan an identifying CITES sticker accompanies
all worked ivory pieces and a registration
certificate is issued for whole tusks.
Information is readily
available to inform the public and tourists
that ivory cannot be re-exported. Such information
is available at airports and stores selling
ivory products.
The delegation was informed
that China and Japan have strict enforcement
and control at ports of entry and exit.
This includes advanced ivory detection equipment.
Both countries have
been included under category I of the CITES
legislative process. This means that CITES
has approved their national legislation
on the implementation of CITES as fulfilling
the requirements of CITES. In addition,
the CITES Secretariat reported that “China’s
legislation contains some of the most severe
criminal sanctions for CITES-related violations
of all Parties and the courts have not hesitated
to impose very substantial penalties (including
capital punishment and life imprisonment)
upon those who attempt to smuggle ivory
into mainland China”.
In addition both China
and Japan met one of the conditions of sale
which stipulates that potential buyers must
be registered with a national association
which has been registered with the CITES
authorities in that country.
“South Africa has familiarized
itself with the enforcement capacity and
compliance with CITES regulations in both
China and Japan. We are satisfied on the
integrity of the accredited buyers systems
as it relates to the transaction and will
now begin preparations for the sale,“ said
Mr Fundisile Mketeni, Deputy Director-General
for Biodiversity and Conservation at the
Department of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism.
For media queries contact Roopa Singh (DEAT)
+ More
Issued by the Department
of Environmental Affairs and Tourism
Ministry of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism - For immediate release
STATEMENT BY THE OFFICE
OF MARTHINUS VAN SCHALKWYK, MINISTER OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM, TUESDAY
7 OCTOBER 2008
CAPE HIGH COURT FINDS
IN FAVOUR OF MINISTER VAN SCHALKWYK AND
SMALL-SCALE FISHERS AND AGAINST THE WEST
COAST ROCK LOBSTER INDUSTRY RESPRESENTING
BIG COMPANIES
Marthinus van Schalkwyk,
Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism,
today welcomed the decision of the Cape
Town High Court in its finding against big
companies that instituted legal proceedings
through the West Coast Rock Lobster Association.
The Judge dismissed the application with
costs. The Minister, the Department together
with Masifundise Development Trust, the
Artisinal Fishers Association and Coastal
Links opposed the court application brought
by several commercial rights holders who
were attempting to thwart government’s efforts
to provide interim relief to approximately
1000 subsistence and small-scale fishers
pending the finalisation of the Subsistence
and Small- Scale Fishing Policy which will
result in the allocation of rights to subsistence
and small-scale fishers.
From the onset we were
of the opinion that it was regretful that
these big companies decided to institute
a lawsuit against the Minister, the department
and the small scale and subsistence fishers.
We believe that this decision was ill-considered
and shortsighted. In a country like South
Africa where we have limited resources it
is important for the relevant Minister and
department to deal responsibly with this
resource and to furthermore ensure that
small-scale and subsistence fishers also
have a rightful share of the resource.
Big companies had been
treated very fairly during the long-term
rights allocation process. The Minister
believes that for the past 10 years or more
it has been small-scale and subsistence
fishers on our coast line that were not
adequately catered for. The Department is
currently finalizing South Africa's first
small-scale and subsistence fishing policy.
Key findings in the
judgement:
Please note that where
Judge Davis speaks of the First Respondent
he refers to Minister van Schalkwyk.
Exemption
• “…I am satisfied that
the first respondent acted intra vires in
his application of section 81”
Delegation
• “…first respondent
was entitled to delegate the decision of
the exact persons who would benefit from
that category to another person within his
department”
A rational basis for
the Ministers decision
• “It is for the court
to respect the decision which has been entrusted
by the legislation in wide terms to the
first respondent.”
• “… this is insufficient
to conclude that the approach adopted by
first respondent was not undertaken in a
rational and careful fashion based on the
need for the balancing of competing interests
within the context of a limited resource.”
• “It should not be
forgotten that the act sets out in clear
terms as one of its objectives: ‘the need
to restructure the fishing industry to address
historical imbalances and to achieve equity
within all branches of the fishing industry’
(section2(j)). The 134th respondent is a
traditional artisinal fisher, that is a
small scale fisher who is historically linked
to the sea. He and other members of traditional
fishing communities for generations have
depended on the resources provided by the
sea. They have employed traditional methods
to catch fish not on a grand commercial
scale but in a modest fashion in order to
make a living for themselves and to feed
their families. They a members of poor,
predominantly black communities on the South
and West Coast”
• “First respondent
was obliged to take their interests into
account in the crafting of his decision.
That he did so in the fashion set out in
the evidence is indicative of a decision
maker having to make a difficult decision
in the allocation of limited resources but
doing so in a fashion in which he was cognisant
of the competing interests which, in any
event, may be intrinsic to Section 2 of
the MLRA.”
• “In my view, there
is no basis by which this court should interfere
with this decision. For these reasons, the
application is dismissed with costs, including
the costs of two council.”
Enquiries: Carol Moses
