Background: the governance crossroads of African conservation
Wildlife governance in Southern Africa stands at a critical crossroads, defined by a fundamental and persistent tension that threatens to undo decades of conservation progress. Recent analysis identifies three distinct policy narratives shaping this debate, namely global control, decentralised conservation and animal protection, with the sharpest conflict centring on physical (extractive) commodification rather than non-consumptive uses such as photographic tourism (‘t Sas-Rolfes & Gooden Reference ‘t Sas-Rolfes and Gooden2024). On the one hand, nations within the Southern African Development Community (SADC) strongly advocate for the principle of sustainable use – a paradigm in which the regulated commodification of wildlife, inter alia, through regulated hunting and harvesting, tourism and trade, generates the revenue needed to fund protected area management and support rural livelihoods (Nattrass Reference Nattrass2021, ‘t Sas-Rolfes & Gooden Reference ‘t Sas-Rolfes and Gooden2024).
On the other hand, influential international protectionist frameworks, epitomized by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), often impose blanket restrictive trade bans based predominantly on ethical and emotional concerns, frequently disregarding the complex local socio-economic and ecological realities of range states (‘t Sas-Rolfes et al. Reference ‘t Sas-Rolfes, Challender and Hinsley2025). This conflict is not merely a contemporary ideological clash; it is deeply rooted in historical legal doctrines governing common-law wildlife ownership that continue to shape power dynamics and access to resources.
The historical lens reveals a troubling continuity. The Roman law principle of res nullius, which provided the juridical foundation for colonial-era exploitation by treating wildlife as an unowned resource open to appropriation, has evolved but not entirely disappeared (Blackmore Reference Blackmore2020a, Nattrass Reference Nattrass2021). Post-independence, many African states nationalized wildlife, replacing colonial dispossession with state-centric control that often continued to marginalize local communities (Muchapondwa & Ntuli Reference Muchapondwa and Ntuli2024). This historical legacy of disenfranchisement underpins a critical contemporary governance gap, in which the authority to manage wildlife is disconnected from the communities that bear the costs of living alongside it (Blackmore Reference Blackmore2020b), and in which international bodies feel empowered to override national sovereignty in line with external value systems (Randeria Reference Randeria2007).
The stakes of this impasse are high. Africa’s profound biodiversity crisis unfolds in a context in which rural economies and human well-being are inextricably linked to wildlife. Conservation funding in the region is financially dependent on various forms of regulated commodification. For instance, trophy hunting alone generates over USD 200 million annually for SADC nations, directly funding anti-poaching efforts and habitat restoration (Hiller & ‘t Sas-Rolfes Reference Hiller and ‘t Sas-Rolfes2025). Well-intentioned but poorly designed protectionist policies from the Global North, such as proposed trophy import bans, risk destabilizing decades of hard-won conservation success. Namibia’s communal conservancies stand as a testament to what is possible with the right model, having achieved a 70% increase in wildlife populations through devolved management that aligns local incentives with conservation outcomes (Jones Reference Jones1999). To undermine such models by cutting off a significant component of their funding is to privilege ethical sentiment over empirical, on-the-ground success.
The objective of this Perspective is therefore to move beyond the polarized, ultimately unproductive, commodification versus preservation debate. It seeks to synthesize evidence from legal history, policy analysis and detailed ecological case studies to argue for a pragmatic third way: the adoption of hybrid governance models that intelligently integrate regulated economic use with robust, enforceable ecological and community safeguards.
Discussion
The Madikwe paradox: the ecological limits of revenue-driven commodification
The Madikwe Game Reserve in South Africa serves as a cautionary case study of the ecological vulnerabilities inherent in revenue-driven conservation models when financial success becomes decoupled from ecological stewardship. Established in 1991 as a pioneering public–private partnership, Madikwe was designed to be financially self-sustaining, primarily through high-end photographic tourism. For many years, it was hailed as an economic triumph for conservation. However, this economic success masked systemic ecological failures that culminated in a crisis of increased elephant mortality, habitat degradation and genetic impoverishment (Clements & Cumming Reference Clements and Cumming2017, De Blocq Reference De Blocq2025, Thel et al. Reference Thel, Stols, Orth, Lagendijk, Slotow, Venter and Fritz2025).
A primary driver of the crisis was the Reserve’s management priorities, which inadvertently favoured tourist accessibility over ecological resilience. Significant infrastructure investments in lodges and roads fragmented critical wildlife migration corridors. This compression effect forced elephant populations into ranges 18% smaller than 2015 baselines, intensifying pressure on vegetation and increasing the rate of disease transmission (Clements & Cumming Reference Clements and Cumming2017). Compounded by drought-induced water scarcity, this habitat compression led to a significant increase in mortality, with elephant endotheliotropic herpesvirus accounting for 29% of juvenile deaths (Clements & Cumming Reference Clements and Cumming2017).
Furthermore, the Reserve’s focus on providing consistent, high-density wildlife viewing for tourists exerted an artificial selection pressure. By prioritizing the protection and promotion of breeding herds, management inadvertently skewed the elephant population’s sex ratio to 1 male per 4 females, below the 1:3 threshold considered necessary to maintain long-term genetic diversity (de Flamingh Reference de Flamingh2020). This management practice reduced the population’s heterozygosity by 12% over a decade, increasing its susceptibility to disease and environmental stressors and undermining its long-term viability.
Perhaps the most telling indicator of the governance flaw at Madikwe was the disproportionate allocation of revenue. While 62% of revenue was allocated to expanding and maintaining tourism infrastructure, only 8% was allocated to direct ecological interventions, such as waterhole maintenance, invasive species control or veterinary support (Clements & Cumming Reference Clements and Cumming2017). This disparity reflects a model in which revenue generation had effectively become an end in itself rather than a means to achieve the fundamental goal of conservation. Critical climate adaptation measures, which modelling suggested could contribute to 41% of the Reserve’s long-term ecological sustainability, were systematically deprioritized (Clements & Cumming Reference Clements and Cumming2017).
The contrast with less commercialized reserves elsewhere is instructive. Areas with lower tourism pressure but comparable elephant densities have maintained more stable vegetation and mortality patterns by prioritizing habitat connectivity and natural processes (Kiwango & Mabele Reference Kiwango and Mabele2022). However, such reserves often face chronic underfunding, highlighting a critical lesson: neither a single-sector tourism model nor underfunded preservation offers a complete or sustainable solution.
The Madikwe crisis ultimately demonstrates that commodification becomes ecologically counterproductive when divorced from a scientific understanding of ecological carrying capacities and a governance commitment to ecological investment. It underscores the need for hybrid models that explicitly balance economic and ecological priorities. For instance, a proposed 40–40–20 revenue allocation model, dividing funds between tourism infrastructure (40%), ecological management (40%) and community benefits (20%), could help realign incentives while maintaining financial viability (Suich Reference Suich2013). Furthermore, the adoption of a ‘Sustainable Tourism Scorecard’, which certifies reserves based on metrics such as genetic diversity indices, habitat quality and climate adaptation plans, could incentivize a much-needed alignment between revenue generation and conservation outcomes (Schiffer Reference Schiffer2004). As climate change intensifies, with projected temperature increases of 2–4°C by 2050 in the region (Kingsford et al. Reference Kingsford, Biggs and Pollard2011), transitioning from managing static postcard landscapes to fostering adaptive, functional ecosystems is not only preferable but also essential for survival.
External protectionist mandates undermine local conservation
If the Madikwe case illustrates the ecological risks of a tourism-centric model that sidelines other sustainable-use options, the UK’s proposed prohibition on importing hunting trophies exemplifies the equally damaging consequences of externally imposed protectionist ideologies. Framed in the UK Parliament as an ethical imperative to protect charismatic megafauna, the ban threatens significant revenue loss across Southern African conservation programmes (Challender et al. Reference Challender, ‘t Sas-Rolfes, Dickman, Hare, Hart and Hoffmann2024). This policy clash reveals a fundamental disparity in how wildlife value is conceptualized: as a ‘global commons’ to be protected from human use under the CITES paradigm versus a sovereign economic and ecological resource to be managed sustainably under SADC frameworks (Kennedy Reference Kennedy1997).
The ban creates profound regulatory incoherence. CITES explicitly permits the regulated trade of species listed under Appendix II, including lions and elephants, provided they are hunted in accordance with scientifically derived sustainable quotas (Abensperg-Traun Reference Abensperg-Traun2009, Naito et al. Reference Naito, Zhao and Chan2022). However, consumer-nation import bans, such as the UK’s, unilaterally override these multilateral agreements. For example, while CITES has approved annual lion bone export quotas for South Africa based on population viability analyses, the UK’s proposed ban would affect legitimate revenue streams without scientific justification. Such actions exemplify what scholars’ term ‘conservation imperialism’, the imposition of external values and policies on range states despite contrary ecological evidence and with a disregard for local perspectives (Jones Reference Jones1999).
The economic ripple effects on ground-level conservation are severe and predictable. Trophy hunting is not a marginal activity; it generates 62% of operational funding for wildlife management in Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE (Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources) areas and 45% in Namibia’s communal conservancies (Ullah & Kim Reference Ullah and Kim2020). The loss of an average of USD 3.2 million annually per conservancy would force these programmes to make untenable choices. Economic modelling suggests that without alternative revenue streams, conservancies would be compelled to convert a substantial portion of their wildlife land to agriculture or livestock farming to compensate for the lost income, inevitably triggering widespread habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss (Muchapondwa & Ntuli Reference Muchapondwa and Ntuli2024, Hiller & ‘t Sas-Rolfes Reference Hiller and ‘t Sas-Rolfes2025). This demonstrates that the threat of such unilateral policies extends beyond community programmes alone, jeopardizing critical conservation funding and rural livelihoods across a spectrum of state, private and community-led initiatives that are already operating under severe financial constraints.
The empirical evidence from Botswana’s 5-year hunting moratorium (2014–2019) offers a stark preview of these dynamics. The ban led to a 37% decline in overall conservation funding, which resulted in a rise in human–wildlife conflict and poaching incidents as communities lost the economic incentives to tolerate destructive wildlife (Muchapondwa & Ntuli Reference Muchapondwa and Ntuli2024). Following the reinstatement of regulated hunting in 2019, the sector generated USD 5.8 million of revenue in 2022 alone. This revenue enabled the recruitment of 156 additional game scouts, funded compensation for crop damage and supported interventions that reduced elephant poaching by 29% (Muchapondwa & Ntuli Reference Muchapondwa and Ntuli2024). This sequence of events demonstrates that blanket prohibitions often yield counterproductive outcomes compared to carefully regulated use models.
A critical governance gap lies in the very design of such ethical policies. The UK’s proposal reflects a broader pattern in which protectionist policies are crafted with a profound lack of consultation from range states and a failure to integrate local ecological knowledge (Duffy Reference Duffy2002, ‘t Sas-Rolfes & Gooden Reference ‘t Sas-Rolfes and Gooden2024). A content analysis of UK parliamentary debates revealed that 78% of arguments in favour of the ban cited animal welfare concerns, while only 12% referenced conservation science, and none incorporated the perspectives of African stakeholders whose lives and conservation successes depend on these revenue streams (Chaney et al. Reference Chaney, Rees Jones and Fevre2022). This epistemic marginalization perpetuates colonial-era dynamics in which decisions made in the Global North continue to dictate resource use and management in the Global South, despite vastly divergent socio-ecological contexts.
A viable hybrid alternative exists and is already being implemented. Namibia’s conservancy certification system offers a potential middle path, in which the privilege to hunt is contingent on adherence to ecological and governance standards. Under this model, conservancies must demonstrably ensure that: (1) hunting mortality remains below 2% of the viable population; (2) at least 60% of revenues fund conservation or community development; and (3) independent audits verify compliance (Du Toit Reference Du Toit2002, Schiffer Reference Schiffer2004). Such systems could directly inform intelligent reforms to international policy. For instance, instead of a blanket ban, consumer nations could require ‘sustainable use certificates’ for trophy imports, ensuring that any imported trophy comes from a programme that meets verified ecological and ethical standards (Naito et al. Reference Naito, Zhao and Chan2022). The Netherlands’ 2022 policy shift exemplifies this nuanced approach, allowing imports only from programmes that demonstrably meet International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) best-practice standards for conservation benefit-sharing.
The controversy underscores the urgent need for the SADC to strengthen its collective bargaining position in global environmental forums. The 2021 SADC Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement marked significant progress by establishing regionally harmonized standards for sustainable use, but it lacks robust enforcement mechanisms to counter external trade barriers (Mogomotsi & Mogomotsi Reference Mogomotsi and Mogomotsi2021). Proposed reforms to bolster the SADC’s position include: (1) establishing a SADC-wide certification scheme for hunting operators; (2) creating joint scientific panels to authoritatively assess the conservation impacts of proposed trade policies; and (3) considering retaliatory trade measures against nations that impose scientifically unjustified unilateral bans (Mogomotsi & Mogomotsi Reference Mogomotsi and Mogomotsi2021). These measures would help rebalance power dynamics while ensuring that commodification, when it occurs, is strictly aligned with ecological thresholds or that the maximum number of elephant is specified in the protected area’s management plan – a lesson starkly underscored by the Madikwe case.
Principles for hybrid governance in a contested landscape
The failures of both pure, ecologically blind commodification and top-down, context-blind preservation underscore the inescapable need for integrated, hybrid governance systems. The historical trajectory and contemporary evidence from the SADC suggest several foundational principles for designing such systems, which can reconcile economic necessity with ecological integrity and social justice.
The one-size-fits-all approach of many CITES listings is no longer fit for purpose. CITES must evolve to adopt a tiered, performance-based regulatory system that recognizes and rewards regional conservation success. As proposed in the SADC 2025 Policy Framework, populations of species such as elephants should be managed based on demonstrable conservation outcomes rather than uniform trade bans (‘t Sas-Rolfes et al. Reference ‘t Sas-Rolfes, Challender and Hinsley2025). This would allow countries such as Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe, which collectively host 61% of Africa’s elephants and have growing elephant populations under sustainable-use policies (Stiles Reference Stiles2004), to benefit from their stewardship through regulated trade while maintaining strict controls on populations in decline.
The bedrock of Namibia’s success was the statutory devolution of rights over wildlife and other natural resources to communal conservancies. Legal frameworks that grant communities secure, defensible tenure and exclusive rights to manage and benefit from wildlife represent a prerequisite for aligning local incentives with long-term conservation goals (Muir-Leresche & Nelson Reference Muir-Leresche and Nelson2000). This principle must be expanded and strengthened across the SADC through mechanisms such as Tanzania’s Wildlife Management Areas and legally binding Community Resource Contracts, which ensure equitable and transparent sharing of benefits (Mavah et al. Reference Mavah, Child and Swisher2022).
Hybrid governance cannot be static. It must be underpinned by mandatory, independent scientific monitoring that informs adaptive management. Quotas for hunting, trade or tourism densities must be based on regular population surveys and habitat assessments, allowing for adjustments in response to environmental changes, such as drought or climate shifts. The Namibian model of limiting offtake to less than 2% of a viable population is a proven example of embedding this precautionary yet flexible approach (Du Toit Reference Du Toit2002).
To maintain social licence and community support, the financial benefits of commodification must be transparent and tangible. Governance models must legally mandate that a significant portion of revenue (e.g., 50% or more) be reinvested in conservation actions (e.g., anti-poaching efforts and habitat management) and community development initiatives (e.g., schools, clinics and job creation), with compliance verified through independent audits (Lekaldero Reference Lekaldero2022). This counters the risk of elite capture that has sometimes undermined programmes such as Zimbabwe’s CAMPFIRE (Nelson et al. Reference Nelson, Foley, Foley, Leposo, Loure and Peterson2010).
The conservation sector must transition from evaluating success primarily through financial metrics (e.g., visitor numbers and revenue) to a more holistic set of indicators that reflect long-term wildlife and ecological health. Success should be measured by trends in genetic diversity, habitat connectivity, population demographics and ecosystem functionality, integrated into a climate-resilient management framework (Kingsford et al. Reference Kingsford, Biggs and Pollard2011). This redefinition would help prevent the kind of ecological degradation witnessed at Madikwe.
Finally, institutional capacity must be enhanced. This includes empowering regional scientific bodies, such as the SADC Regional Scientific Authority, to provide consolidated, authoritative assessments that can inform international regulations with regional data (Mogomotsi & Mogomotsi Reference Mogomotsi and Mogomotsi2021). It also involves creating specialized judicial mechanisms, such as Kenya’s Wildlife Crimes Tribunal, to effectively adjudicate on wildlife-related conflicts and enforce regulations (Wamukoya Reference Wamukoya2013). The exploration of innovative financing mechanisms, such as tradable conservation credits for ecosystem services, could further diversify the revenue base for conservation, although such market-based instruments face significant methodological challenges in measuring and verifying biodiversity outcomes and in reducing over-reliance on any single stream, such as trophy hunting (Alvarado-Quesada et al. Reference Alvarado-Quesada, Hein and Weikard2014).
Conclusion
Conservation in Southern Africa, and in other similarly contested contexts, will only progress by moving beyond the false choice between exploitation and protection. The Madikwe case reveals, with painful clarity, the ecological perils of revenue-generation models untethered from ecological carrying capacities and a holistic definition of conservation success. Conversely, the UK’s proposed trophy import ban exemplifies the socio-economic and conservation damage wrought by externally imposed protectionist dogma that is blind to local context, evidence and sovereignty. Neither extreme offers a viable or sustainable pathway for conserving Africa’s magnificent biodiversity in the twenty-first century.
The evidence from the SADC region, particularly from Namibia’s communal conservancies, points decisively towards a more nuanced, pragmatic and effective middle path. Hybrid governance models that deliberately embed regulated, revenue-generating use within frameworks of enforceable ecological safeguards and equitable community benefit-sharing provide a proven blueprint for success. These models recognize that conservation is not free, that local people must be primary stakeholders and beneficiaries and that wildlife must pay its way to survive in a landscape of competing land uses.
The imperative for the international community, including multilateral environmental agreements, donor nations and global non-governmental organizations, is to support and refine, not inadvertently undermine, this emergent path. This requires fundamental adaptive reforms to frameworks such as CITES, moving from precautionary paralysis to performance-based regulation that rewards good stewardship. It necessitates the promotion of robust, independent certification mechanisms, such as sustainable use certificates, that build consumer-nation trust while respecting range-state sovereignty and scientific management. Most importantly, it demands a fundamental shift in global conservation discourse to respect the sovereignty, agency and proven successes of African nations and communities.
By embracing this nuanced, interdisciplinary and hybrid perspective, policymakers, conservation practitioners and the global community can collectively forge a new conservation paradigm. This paradigm would be one that finally and effectively secures both Africa’s iconic biological heritage and the livelihoods, well-being and aspirations of the people who are, and must remain, its most crucial and empowered stewards.
Finally, the critical debate must shift from ‘whether to commercialize’ wildlife to ‘how to govern its use responsibly, transparently and sustainably’. Since conservation funding in the SADC is financially dependent on various forms of regulated commodification, the central task is to adopt and refine hybrid governance, thereby ensuring the survival of species and the integrity of ecosystems for generations to come.
Acknowledgements
The supportive environments of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife and the University of KwaZulu-Natal are acknowledged with thanks. During the preparation of this work, the author used an AI tool to summarize and reformat an original research manuscript to meet the specific word count and structural requirements of a Perspective article. After using this tool, the author reviewed and edited the content.
Financial support
None.
Competing interests
The author declares none.
Ethical standards
Not applicable.
Disclaimer
The ideas, arguments and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife or the University of KwaZulu-Natal.
