South Africa’s New Hunting Trophy Export Quotas
The 2026–2027 export quotas cover hunting trophies from elephants, black rhinos and leopards. We explain what was announced, why regulated trophy hunting is permitted and the questions behind its conservation claims.
KANDOLA WILDLIFE
On 31 August 2026, South Africa’s new Minister for Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment, David Maynier, published hunting trophy export quotas for elephants, black rhinos and leopards. The announcement sets limits on the trophies that may leave the country in 2026 and 2027.
The decision sits within a much larger trophy-hunting industry. According to Born Free, South Africa reported exporting more than 10,000 hunting trophy items in 2024, representing over 50 species covered by international wildlife trade regulations. These included species classified as Endangered or Critically Endangered. The figures count trophy items, rather than individual animals, and do not capture the full extent of hunting involving species outside those regulations.
For readers, the decision raises an understandable question: why would a conservation authority permit animals to be killed for trophies?
The answer involves a funding model that treats regulated hunting as a potential tool for protecting wildlife. Whether that model delivers its promised benefits, and whether killing an animal for a trophy is ethically acceptable, require separate consideration.
What has been approved?
The annual export limits are:
Hunting trophy | 2026 | 2027 |
Elephant tusks | 300 tusks from no more than 150 elephants | 300 tusks from no more than 150 elephants |
Black rhino trophies | 11 | 11 |
Leopard trophies | 11 | 10 |
Black rhino trophies are restricted to adult males. Leopard trophies must come from males aged seven or older, with a maximum of one trophy per eligible hunting zone.
These are export limits, not a count of animals already killed or a requirement to use the entire quota. The figures and restrictions appear in Government Gazette No. 55285, Notice No. 7867.
Why is this allowed?
International wildlife protection does not automatically prohibit every hunt or trophy export.
CITES—the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora—regulates international trade in listed wildlife through permits and other controls. Relevant export requirements include legal acquisition and a scientific finding that the trade will not be detrimental to the species’ survival. This assessment is known as a non-detriment finding.
An export quota does not replace permission to hunt or the applicable export and import approvals. The destination country’s rules also matter. Canada’s guidance, for example, explains that hunting trophy permits depend on the species’ CITES listing and that export permits must come from the country where the animal was legally hunted.
The conservation funding argument
South Africa’s stated approach is that regulated hunting can generate income for wildlife protection, encourage landowners to retain wildlife habitat, and provide economic benefits to rural communities.
In its 2022 explanation of hunting and export quotas, the government also described selected adult male black rhino hunts as a population-management measure, subject to conservation criteria. This earlier statement explains the established policy rationale; it does not demonstrate the results of the new quotas.
Put simply, the argument is that revenue from a limited number of hunts can help pay to protect a larger population and its habitat. Understanding that argument matters even for people who oppose hunting. It identifies the benefits that a program needs to demonstrate.
What would show whether it works?
Assessing trophy hunting’s conservation value requires evidence about wildlife populations, management and the benefits delivered to people.
SANBI, the South African National Biodiversity Institute, explains that South Africa’s Scientific Authority considers population trends, threats, harvest controls, monitoring and incentives linked to wildlife use when preparing non-detriment assessments. SANBI’s website lists assessments published in March 2026 for black rhinos and African savanna elephants, summarizing both as low risk, with the assessed trade considered non-detrimental.
These findings are relevant to biological sustainability. Assessing the broader funding argument also requires evidence about how hunting income supports conservation and what benefits local communities receive. IUCN’s Species Survival Commission guiding principles, summarized in an IUCN SULi parliamentary submission, include conservation benefits, community benefits, monitoring and accountable governance.
The final August quota notice sets limits and restrictions. It should be read alongside the relevant scientific assessments and evidence of financial and community outcomes, rather than treated as a complete evaluation of conservation results.
The question is whether the evidence demonstrates that the particular hunting program protects wildlife populations and delivers the benefits claimed.
Why the objections remain
Born Free opposed the announcement on both ethical and conservation grounds. In its September response, the organization reiterated its opposition to killing wild animals for sport or pleasure and raised concerns about how removing individual animals could affect the wider population and its role in the ecosystem. Born Free had also submitted objections in February, during South Africa’s public consultation on the proposed 2026–2027 hunting trophy export quotas.
These objections address more than one question. Evidence can help establish whether a program benefits conservation. It cannot, on its own, resolve whether killing an animal for a trophy is morally acceptable.
A person can understand the funding argument and still reject the practice on ethical grounds. Equally, an ethical objection should be expressed honestly, without presenting every conservation claim as disproven.
A note from Kandola Wildlife
We believe an animal’s value should extend beyond what someone will pay to kill it.
We support a future built around protecting living wildlife and providing lasting benefits for the communities who share its habitat. That ambition requires practical commitments: reliable funding, local participation and evidence that protection is working.
Our position also carries a responsibility to explain the policy accurately. Readers deserve to understand what has been approved, why it is defended and what remains to be demonstrated.
An animal’s life has value beyond a trophy.
For the wild.
Support Born Free’s call to end hunting trophy imports into the UK.
Share this article to help others understand the quotas and the questions behind trophy hunting’s conservation claims.
Sources and further reading: Official government notice South African government’s policy explanation Born Free’s response SANBI’s non-detriment assessments IUCN SULi’s parliamentary submission
