South Africans Reject Live Animal Export by Sea

By Soapbox Communications

The results of the government’s formal public participation process are in – and South Africans have spoken with overwhelming clarity. A total of 17,536 individuals and organisations submitted comments on the Department of Agriculture’s draft regulations on the live export of animals by sea between 23 July and 25 August 2025. An extraordinary 95% called for a complete ban, rejecting attempts to regulate a trade widely described by animal welfare experts as “inherently cruel and impossible to fix.”

The public participation campaign, led by Stop Live Export South Africa (SLESA) in partnership with allied animal welfare organisations, represents one of the largest collective responses ever recorded on an animal welfare issue in South Africa.

“The message from the public could not be clearer,” said SLESA spokesperson Michelle Taberer. “South Africans do not want animals exported into suffering. The government must act in accordance with the will of its citizens and with the scientific and ethical evidence - and ban live exports by sea.”

Results at a Glance

• 17,536 total submissions received across all channels

• 16,698 respondents (95%) called for a complete ban

• 126 of 127 emailed submissions explicitly supported a ban

• In two independent surveys hosted by DearSA, 95–97% of respondents said:

  • Animal cruelty is inherent in the live animal export process

  • The draft regulations cannot ensure animal welfare.

Public Consensus: No Humane Way to Export Animals by Sea

Respondents echoed expert concerns that live export by sea subjects animals to:

• Prolonged confinement for up to three weeks

• Unnatural and unsafe conditions at sea — noise, heat, ammonia fumes, injury, and disease

• No rescue capability in case of fires, capsizing, or system failure

• Poor oversight and weak laws at destination countries

Several expert and organisational submissions reinforced these concerns. World Animal Protection Africa warned that the draft regulations merely “regulate cruelty” rather than eliminate it, calling live export by sea morally, legally, economically and environmentally indefensible. Compassion in World Farming highlighted serious scientific and legal gaps, including the failure to recognise animal sentience or apply internationally accepted welfare standards. A practising South African veterinarian argued that true welfare is impossible under current sea export conditions and proposed local slaughter with religious oversight and improved cold-chain infrastructure as a humane and economically viable alternative.

The consensus of the public commentary is “there is no way to justify live export when there are alternatives. We would create more jobs and do more for our local economy if we slaughtered and packaged meat to export. Live export of animals is horrific cruelty”.

South Africa’s Animals Protection Act (APA) prohibits confining or transporting animals in ways that cause unnecessary suffering. SLESA argues that by promoting live exports, the Department of Agriculture is acting contrary to its legal duty under the APA to protect animals from cruelty.

Global and Regional Momentum

The public’s position aligns with a growing international movement to end live exports:

• New Zealand banned live export in 2023

• Australia legislated an end to live sheep export (effective 2028)

• India, Germany, Luxembourg, Brazil, and the UK have either ended or severely restricted the trade

SLESA, Humane World for Animals and the Coalition of African Animal Welfare Organisations (CAAWO), representing dozens of welfare organisations across the continent, were among those to make formal submissions calling for a continent-wide phase-out of live exports. Their position was reinforced by other leading animal protection organisations – including the NSPCA, Stop Live Export Australia, Compassion in World Farming SA and UK, Humane Education Trust, World Animal Protection Africa, Animal Law Reform SA, the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute, Vets Against Live Export Australia and Animals Australia – which submitted detailed objections highlighting the shortcomings of the draft regulations and urging South Africa to adopt a humane, African-centred approach rooted in Ubuntu (the philosophy that affirms our shared humanity and interdependence with all living beings, including the animals who share our world).

Economic Reality

SLESA notes there is no credible evidence that live export benefits South Africa’s economy or small-scale farmers. Instead:

• Producers have reported price distortions and job losses

• The trade offshores processing value that could support local employment

• Live export worsens biosecurity risks and imposes environmental costs

“This practice is not just unethical, it’s economically short-sighted,” said Taberer. “Investing in local processing and humane, sustainable agriculture would deliver far greater benefit to South Africans.”

Next Steps

The Department of Agriculture is in the process of reviewing all submissions and must prepare a Comments and Responses report, followed by potential revisions to the regulations.

SLESA expects this process to take several months and has pledged to maintain public pressure to ensure the Minister and Department of Agriculture take the consultation process seriously.

“The vast majority of South Africans have spoken clearly: Live animal export by sea must be banned, and government must listen to its people,” concluded Taberer.

SLESA’s Call to Action

Stop Live Export South Africa calls on the Minister of Agriculture to:

1. Withdraw the Draft Regulations on live animal exports by sea

2. Legislate a full prohibition on live animal exports by sea under Section 10 of the Animals Protection Act