CITES CoP20: A turning point for African conservation?

Introduction 

CITES CoP20 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, was a reminder that global conservation issues are rarely straightforward. The rejection of Southern African proposals on ivory, rhino horn, and giraffe, many of them tabled by countries with comparatively strong wildlife populations and long-standing conservation systems, was not a scientific judgment on the region’s conservation record. Instead, it revealed how differently African states experience wildlife, risk, and governance, and how those differences shape their positions on trade and sustainable use. So with all these differences and historical contexts, how do we make CITES CoP20 a turning point for African conservation? 

In the wake of CoP20, some commentators have framed Southern Africa’s sustainable use model as “outdated” or “discredited”. This reflection does not respond to any single author. Rather, it grounds the discussion in ecological evidence, political context, and the diversity of African realities.

What the CoP20 outcomes actually tell us 

The voting patterns at CoP20 reflected political caution, historical trauma from past poaching waves, and uneven governance capacities across regions (Underwood et al., 2013; Wasser et al., 2015). For many West and Central African states, the legacy of the 2008 one-off ivory sale, which was followed by a surge in illegal trade (Hsiang & Sekar, 2016), still shapes their deeply risk-averse stance. These countries view any form of legal trade as a slippery slope, especially where enforcement systems remain weak.

By contrast, Southern African range states operate within vastly different ecological and institutional conditions, including stronger enforcement frameworks, diversified wildlife economies, and long histories of devolved rights (Naidoo et al., 2016; Skonhoft, 2006; ’t Sas-Rolfes & Gooden, 2024). These positions arise not only from ideology but also from fundamentally different experiences of living with and managing wildlife. CoP20 did not invalidate one model or vindicate another. It revealed the divergence in how African states understand risk and sustainability.

Southern Africa’s conservation model: What the evidence shows 

Critics may claim Southern Africa’s conservation success is overstated, but the data tells a different story.

• Elephants: Research from Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe confirms that over-concentration of elephants in certain landscapes is an ecological reality, not an invented surplus (Owen-Smith, 1988; Chamaillé-Jammes et al., 2008; Matsika, R., et al, 2015; Ferry, N. et al., 2021). Fencing, artificial water provisioning, and landscape fragmentation concentrate elephants in specific areas, contributing to localised degradation of vegetation and woody cover.
• Rhinos: The strongest rhino population recoveries have occurred in countries with institutional diversity, devolved rights, and incentive-based management (Di Minin et al., 2016; Roe, D. et al, 2021) Among the most robust evidence for this trend comes from the IUCN African Rhino Specialist Group database, as analysed by ’t Sas-Rolfes & Emslie (2024), which shows sustained growth in rhino numbers where incentives align with protection. Namibia now holds the largest free-roaming black rhino population, thanks to community conservancies, private game reserves and protection incentives that make rhinos assets rather than liabilities (’t Sas-Rolfes et al., 2022).
• Communal land conservation: Namibia’s conservancy system is one of Africa’s most successful models of community-based wildlife governance. Conservancies covering over 20% of the country have contributed to wildlife recoveries and community income growth, especially where governance is strong (Naidoo et al., 2016). These outcomes are grounded in long-term data and ecological monitoring, not rhetoric.

Taken together, these examples show that Southern Africa’s model has produced measurable conservation gains under specific institutional conditions, even if it is not universally replicable.

What sustainable use looks like when examined scientifically

Scientific analyses continue to show that regulated, incentive-driven use contributes positively to conservation, where governance is effective.

Trophy hunting is not a major global threat to CITES-listed species. A 2024 multi-country review found that most species traded as hunting trophies have stable or increasing populations and are primarily sourced from countries with strong management systems (Challender et al., 2024). This includes elephant, rhino, lion, and leopard populations in Southern Africa.

Where enforcement and governance are strong, regulated hunting helps finance habitat protection, expand species range, and bolster anti-poaching capacity (Naidoo et al., 2016; Lindsey et al., 2007). Conversely, removing legal use without viable economic alternatives can accelerate habitat loss, as wildlife-based land uses become economically uncompetitive and landholders shift to agriculture or other land uses (Di Minin et al., 2016).

Sustainable use is not a one-size-fits-all solution. It thrives in well-managed systems and fails where institutions are weak. The science does not support dismissing the model entirely; it supports matching tools to governance realities.

Politics, trust, and the memory of 2008

The 2008 one-off ivory sale remains a flashpoint. While causality is debated, a subsequent study (Hsiang & Sekar, 2016) claimed that the sale likely triggered a significant increase in poaching by creating market confusion; however, peer-reviewed studies have not reached consensus on any causal link. For many states, this history explains a deep distrust of any renewed trade proposals.

This is a political reality as much as an ecological one. Southern African states face the challenge of aligning with countries whose enforcement systems, political pressures, and conservation histories differ sharply. CoP20 made clear that scientific data alone cannot override geopolitical memory and distrust. Any future proposal that touches ivory or rhino horn will have to address these trust deficits directly, not just population numbers.

What CoP20 reveals about continental differences 

CoP20 did not expose a failure of Southern African conservation models. It exposed two coexisting truths:

• In parts of Southern Africa, incentive-driven conservation systems involving private landholders, community conservancies, and state agencies have maintained or increased populations of certain megafauna.
• In many other regions, fragile wildlife populations, limited enforcement capacity, and histories of vulnerability to poaching have led governments to prioritise strict prohibition and precaution.

These differences reflect local realities, not ideological extremes. Treating African conservation as a homogenous enterprise ignores its diversity and risks imposing one-size-fits-all prescriptions where nuance is needed (’t Sas-Rolfes & Gooden, 2024; Challender et al., 2025).

The real error is not that African states disagree, but that global debates often refuse to recognise why those disagreements exist.

Making CITES CoP20 a turning point for African conservation

Moving forward: Toward evidence-based, context-specific conservation

The path forward is not a binary between trade and no trade or use versus protection. It requires moving beyond rhetorical binaries and toward pragmatic, African-led solutions that reflect ecological and social realities. These include: 

• Science-based assessments, not ideological assumptions, for example, strengthening the use and transparency of Non-Detriment Findings (NDFs) in CITES decisions.
• Inclusive, community-centred governance that empowers those living with wildlife, ensuring that benefits and decision-making are genuinely shared.
• Policies grounded in local ecological and institutional realities, rather than importing models that work in one region into contexts where they are likely to fail.
• African-led dialogue that recognises internal diversity while advancing shared interests in conservation, development, and justice.

CoP20 can serve as a turning point if African states use this moment to articulate a more nuanced, evidence-informed, and united vision for conservation. That vision must embrace diversity, not deny it.

References 

Challender, D. W. S., ’t Sas-Rolfes, M., Broad, S., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2025). A theory of change to improve conservation outcomes through CITES. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 13. 

Challender, D.W., ‘t Sas-Rolfes, M., Dickman, A. et al. (2024). Evaluating key evidence and formulating regulatory alternatives regarding the UK’s Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill. Conservation Science and Practice, 6(10), e13220.

Chamaillé-Jammes, S., Fritz, H. & Madzikanda, H. (2008). Spatial distribution patterns of elephants in relation to waterholes in Hwange National Park. Journal of Applied Ecology, 46(3), 631–640.

Di Minin, E., Leader-Williams, N. & Bradshaw, C.J.A. (2016). Banning trophy hunting will exacerbate biodiversity loss. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 31(2), 99–102.

Ferry, N. et al. (2021). Long-term high densities of African elephants clear the understorey of a miombo woodland. Journal of Vegetation Science, 32(6), e13101

Hsiang, S. & Sekar, N. (2016). Does legal ivory trade undermine bans? Evidence from a 2008 policy experiment. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 22314.

Lindsey, P.A., Roulet, P.A. & Romanach, S.S. (2007). Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation, 134(4), 455–469.

Matsika, R., Masocha, M. & Chirwa, P.W. (2015). An assessment of impacts of African elephants (Loxodonta africana) on Colophospermum mopane in Gonarezhou National Park, Zimbabwe. Journal of Biodiversity & Endangered Species, 3(2).

Naidoo, R. et al. (2016). Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal conservancies in Namibia. Conservation Biology, 30(3), 628–638.

Owen-Smith, N. (1988). Megaherbivores: The Influence of Very Large Body Size on Ecology. Cambridge University Press.

Skonhoft, A. (2006). The costs and benefits of wildlife management in Africa. Ecological Economics, 58(2), 526–535.

Roe D, et al. (2021).IUCN SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group. IUCN SULi Report.

Underwood, F.M., Burn, R.W. & Milliken, T. (2013). Dissecting the illegal ivory trade: trends and patterns. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e76539.

Wasser, S.K. et al. (2015). Combating the illegal trade in African elephant ivory with DNA forensics. Science, 349(6243), 84–87.

’t Sas-Rolfes, M., & Emslie, R. (2024). African Rhino Conservation and the Interacting Influences of Property, Prices, and Policy. Ecological Economics, 220, 108123. 

‘t Sas-Rolfes, M., Emslie, R.H., Adcock, K., & Knight, M.H. (2022). Legal hunting for conservation of highly threatened species: the case of African rhinos. Conservation Letters, 15(3), e12877.

‘t Sas-Rolfes, M. & Gooden, J. (2024). A conflict of visions: Ideas shaping wildlife trade policy toward African megafauna. People and Nature, 6(5), 2029–2045.