Something to hide? Department of Environment takes the path of least disclosure
Don Pinnock
15th February 2021

Wildlife and weaponised disinformation: the path of least disclosure 

There can be no faith in government if our highest offices are excused from scrutiny – they should be setting the example of transparency.  

~ Edward Snowden  

If officials make public only what they want citizens to know, then publicity becomes a sham and accountability meaningless.   

Sissela Bok, Swedish philosopher 

If you want information from Barbara Creecy’s Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF) about its activities and policies which it undertakes in the name of we, the peopleit will stretch your patience and sanity to snapping point. You’ll be buried in deviations and legal minutiae which in the end say almost nothing and cost you for asking. That, it seems, is the point. The underlying message is increasingly clear: bugger off and stop bothering us. 

Secrecy, according to the 19th Century English philosopher Jeremy Bentham, is an instrument of conspiracy and ought never to be the system of regular government. However bureaucracy always seeks the path of least disclosure.  

That path is well tramped by the Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries (DEFF). Transparent they are not.  

Because it’s their legal duty to provide information requested of them, they’ve become masters of diversion and diffusion. It’s not that they’re uncommunicative, but that they lead you on a merry dance just to get the facts that you’d expect to be freely available to the public in a functioning democracy. 

Do DEFF officials have something to hide, are they terrified their inefficiency will be exposed or is it simply because it’s a damn nuisance to answer questions? That this is happening under Creecy’s watch is deeply worrying, given the initial elation by the wildlife fraternity at her appointment to Environment. Is she aware of the problem or part of it? 

Access to information is the lifeblood of any democracy and in this our law is unambiguous. Section 32(1)(a) of the Constitution provides that everyone has the right of access to any information held by the State, including provincial governments. This was confirmed in the Public Access to Information Act (PAIA) of 2000, which even requires that an officer assist you to frame good questions. 

Government departments are required to reply within 30 days. If they’re having trouble finding it, they are permitted another 30 days. And that’s all.  

So how are we doing? When I asked environmental NGOs and journalists if they were having information access problems, it turned out they are – in spadefuls. 

Let’s start with rhinos. For some years, journalist Tony Carnie has been requesting the census data for Kruger Park rhinos to no avail. Dr Salomon Joubert, a former Kruger Park warden, confirmed that his requests had also been fobbed off by DEFF.  

When I asked for the same data, I was told to contact the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN – of which, incidentally, I am a law commissioner) based in Switzerland. As deflections go, that got a gold star. 

In November last year, in answer to a Parliamentary question on the number of rhinos poached, Minister Creecy said: “The Department does not publish this information because it poses a risk in terms of our conservation efforts.” Last month DA Shadow Minister of Environment Dave Bryant asked for rhino numbers but DEFF officials refused to answer. Then, after these refusals, the stats suddenly appeared, buried in the 2020 SANParks annual report just released. So was Creecy mistaken about the risk to conservation or simply badly informed? 

The reason for prior refusals became clear – they were an embarrassment. Simon Espley of Africa Geographic wrote that “after years of silence about Kruger National Park rhino populations  … we can now confirm that populations in the Kruger National Park have plummeted to an estimated 3 529 white rhinos and 268 black rhinos.  This represents a population reduction of 67% for white rhinos – from 10,621 in 2011 – and 35% for black rhinos – from 415 in 2013.” 

The EMS Foundation, which supports environmental work, has found State Departments to be maddingly unhelpful. According to it director, Michele Pickover, in 2020 EMS spent almost half a million rand in lawyers fees on PAIA requests which resulted in microscopically little information. 

In 66 requests from May 2019 mainly to DEFF, its associated National Biological Institute (SANBI) and SANParks, the departments either failed to answer, gave partial answers that required further PAIA requests or referred requests to provincial authorities which almost never replied. 

According to Stefania Falcon of EMS, “SANBI and the zoos are better at responding but often don’t give you the proper info. Many hide behind a ‘third party non-disclosure’ which they claim exempts them from providing the information. LEDET (Limpopo Department of Economic Development, Environment and Tourism) won’t even reply to you, SAPS, the police, didn’t bother despite many mails. 

“Cape Nature or the City of Cape Town give you a reply but generally with useless info. Fisheries (part of DEFF) is absolutely embarrassing in the way they hide info, or they don’t have it and they don’t care. We made 15 PAIAs to them. Nothing.”  

There’s also something overly cosy about the relationship between DEFF and the wildlife industry. The Department publishes online all authorisations such as  waste management licences, atmospheric emission licences, Biodiversity Act permits and general permits for boat-based whale watching and shark cage diving. But not those of the wildlife industry.  

Its reasoning is that wildlife permits have ‘third-party information’ which they say could be detrimental to those they licence. But for all other licencees, that’s not seen as a problem, to the point where they put them online. What’s the difference? Or, to put it another way, what did hunters, captive breeders and game farmers do to get special protection in pursuit of private gain?  

The National Society for the Protection of Animals (NSPCA) and local SPCAs also have access problems. They’re state-sanctioned enforcement agencies but are required to PAIA for information related to their legal mandate. According to a Society official, when they do get the information it’s often heavily redacted to the point of being almost useless.  

Lion farming was given as an example of intransigence. A key task of the NSPCA is the inspection of lion breeding facilities, but this was continually denied. Only through extensive settlement negotiations were they able to get access to a list of all the facilities to do inspections. 

Dr Bool Smuts of the Landmark Foundation says  government departments hide behind the claim that providing information will expose someone’s right to privacy. “Mostly it’s fabricated and shields them from accountability,” he said. “That way they become unaccountable to the general public.  

“Departments have been granted rights to issue permits concerning wildlife and these get issued under a cloak of secrecy. What’s inexplicable is that government departments are giving private parties permits of use or ownership of our biodiversity assets, but hide behind third party confidentiality to avoid accountability for these allocations.  

“It’s hard to avoid suspicion of corruption. And you can’t get the information. Hundreds and hundreds of PAIA requests are being ignored. The claimed right to confidentiality is denying the public access to information that affect their right to a healthy environment.  

“It is being abused to hide governance actions of state players for the secret gain of private parties and concealment of accountability. I think it’s ripe for a Constitutional challenge. 

“Here’s an example. We work with leopards in the Eastern Cape. We asked the Eastern Cape Department of Economic Development and Environmental Affairs for access to the last three years of permits for leopards killed, handled or moved. We went through an internal PAIA appeal. But they refused – 18 months later.  

“And here’s a further problem. If your demands for accountability gets uncomfortable, officials turn on the ‘agitators’ by weaponizing the permitting system. They cancelled our leopard research and conflict mitigation permits.  

“We’re going to High Court over these issues and we’re quite happy to proceed to Appeals Court and Constitutional Court because I think it’s fundamentally a constitutional matter that must be settled. But it’s expensive. Who or what are they shielding and why? They feel they’re above accountability. 

“This lack of accountability and transparency is either concealment of incompetence or direct involvement with corrupt actions of looting our biodiversity.  

“Another thing, the Environment Department and SANBI elected to continue the request to CITES for 150 export permits a year to hunt leopards. Where do they get that number? There’s no science behind it. But they won’t tell you.”  

Louise de Waal confirmed that Blood Lions have similar problems. “Many of the provinces have no dedicated PAIA officer or don’t advertise such a person. Information on websites is often outdated and/or people within those positions are moved so often that a steady contact is difficult to identify. 

“Once the PAIA officer’s contact details have been found, the emails go unresponded to, or an automated non-delivery email is received. Follow up emails and phone calls end up in a big black hole or promises are made that are not kept. 

“If requests are answered and PAIA fees are paid, extensions are requested by the PAIA officer for a variety of reasons and again the request is not fulfilled within the extended period. 

“After eight months of sending emails, making follow up phone calls and receiving empty promises, we received satisfactory responses from only three out of the nine provinces approached – Western Cape, KZN and Free State.” 

According to Audrey Delsink, Wildlife Director of Humane Society International-Africa, “in the last two years we made 14 PAIA applications directly to the relevant entity except for two that were made on our behalf by our attorneys. Our requests included information regarding quotas, numbers of captive breeding facilities, permits (CITES and local), transfer of hunting rights, permission to hunt species including lion, elephant, Cape mountain zebra and giraffe.   

 “Of the 14 PAIA applications, we received one complete response with documents as requested, two rejections which we appealed but did not receive any further communications, had one response stating that information would not be supplied as we had not supplied a reason for the request.  

“Our legal counsel provided a counter response stating that you don’t have to provide a reason for the request. But despite several attempts, there has been no further response from the department concerned.  

“One province responded favourably, but when we tried to facilitate the standard payment fee into the designated account we were unsuccessful and we simply gave up. PAIA information is not forthcoming unless payment is made. 

“Though PAIA offers us the right of access to information from both public and private bodies, our experience has been dismal and largely unsuccessful.”  

Other information blockages abound. Journalist Elise Tempelhoff said she had been trying to get an interview with DEFF Minister Barbara Creecy since May 2018 but requests were not denied, but flatly ignored. “Whose environment is it anyway?” she asked. “Why do we have to put in PAIA’s to get answers on OUR environment? And besides, we pay these people’s salaries.” 

When Tony Carnie became concerned about DEFF’s short-circuiting of the statutory environmental approval process of the Turkish company Karpowership which supplies floating gas-to-electricity ships, he queried the process. 

When no response was forthcoming, he published an article about it on August 13, 2020. Even after publication and further repeated queries, it took DEFF until August 24 to respond. 

“DEFF attempted to avoid or deflect my repeated queries until there was no option but to come clean (sort of) and withdraw the clearly irregular approval to the Turkish company – but without an explanation of how the department allowed this to happen or what new measures, criminal prosecution or disciplinary action would betaken to guard against future abuse.” 

Councils are often no better. A request to the Cape Town Council for minutes of meetings of the Baboon Liaison Group by Jenni Trethowan of Baboon Matters Trust through a PAIA were simply denied with no reason given. 

Increasingly, NGOs and journalists have turned to Parliament to find answers. It’s laborious. You have to find an MP prepared to ask them in Portfolio Committee meetings then wait for the written replies. Even then the results are not always satisfactory.  

Analysing parliamentary questions, it’s apparent that even when government departments do provide input, they use semantics to avoid answering questions. Here’s an example. 

When DEFF was asked in Parliament about hunting in the APNR, the private reserves open to the Kruger National Park, they first answered that they did not “recommend” hunting offtake numbers, but only “comment and support” them (even though the annexure B to the co-operation agreement refers to both).   

When then asked in a follow-up question, what numbers they “supported”, they said they “were not at liberty to release the offtake requests”. Why not? In fact they’re legally not at liberty to refuse. This, despite the fact that in their own letter, they refer to having “supported” the animal off-takes. The implication: No, we’re simply not going to tell you, but because we’re obliged to answer Parliamentary questions, we’ll play word games.  

So it’s fair to ask: What’s going on with our public institutions? Why are they so cagey? Who are they protecting and why? To quote the Swedish philosopher Sisslea Bok: “If officials make public only what they want citizens to know, then publicity becomes a sham and accountability meaningless.” 

I sent this article to DEFF for comment and got a reply from its chief director of communications: “The Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries responds to all media inquiries received.  The DEFF tries to meet deadlines set by journalists. In instances where the Department is not able to meet a deadline, it is communicated to the journalist.” 

I think they may have forgotten to read the article. Or maybe they just don’t want to acknowledge (or, worse, realise) they have a serious communication problem. People trying year after year to source legitimate information from DEFF are in no doubt that they do. What are they trying to hide? To echo Elise Tempelhof: Whose environment is it anyway?”