South Africa’s environment department has published draft trophy export quotas for hunting trophies of elephant, black rhinoceros and leopard for 2026, with an indication that the same quotas could be repeated in 2027. The proposals are not yet in force and must still go through a public participation process before any final decision is taken.
The draft quotas come after several years of dispute and delays over whether South Africa should set annual export limits for these species, which are subject to tight controls under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). The debate matters for conservation governance, international trade compliance and a wildlife economy that supports rural jobs and tourism earnings.
What the draft quotas propose
According to the notice published via official government channels and reporting by local business media, the draft export quotas for 2026 are set out as follows:
- Elephant: up to 300 tusks, derived from no more than 150 individual animals
- Black rhinoceros: 12 hunting trophies
- Leopard: 11 hunting trophies, to be sourced from 11 designated hunting zones (one animal per zone)
The proposals are framed as quotas for export of hunting trophies rather than automatic permission to hunt. In practice, exports typically require a chain of permits and compliance checks, including CITES documentation and applicable provincial permits.
Why government is revisiting quotas now
No new export quotas for these species had been published since late 2021, prompting sustained pressure from parts of the hunting and wildlife ranching sector. Industry representatives have argued that the absence of updated quotas has disrupted bookings and reduced foreign hunter demand, particularly for high-value species that rely on predictable export permission frameworks.
The new draft quotas are linked to a change in political leadership at the national environment portfolio. Media reports describe the draft notice as one of the first major quota-related interventions under Environment Minister Willie Aucamp, following a period of contention under the prior minister. The previous quota process was also connected to litigation involving wildlife industry bodies seeking to compel action on quota setting.
Elephant numbers and sustainability claims in the notice
The draft notice motivates the elephant quota with population growth estimates and offtake ranges. It states that South Africa’s wild elephant population is estimated at more than 43,500 animals, and that the population has increased by about 41% since 2006.
The notice also links sustainability to relatively low proportional offtakes, citing a range of roughly 0.35% to 0.7% of the population, and asserting that current levels do not raise concerns about elephant hunting in South Africa when managed within those bounds. These claims are central to how government is justifying the proposed tusk quota, and they are likely to be tested during the public comment period.
Black rhino quota raises a compliance question
Black rhinoceros are widely classified as Critically Endangered, and South Africa holds a significant share of the remaining population. The proposed export quota of 12 hunting trophies is expected to be one of the most scrutinised elements of the draft.
CITES guidance allows limited exports of adult male black rhino hunting trophies, subject to strict conditions and a cap expressed as a percentage of population size. Reporting on the draft notice notes that the current CITES rule is interpreted as permitting up to 0.5% of the relevant population to be exported as hunting trophies in a given year, and that this has been framed as equating to 10 animals under current population estimates. The draft notice, as reported, does not publicly explain why the proposed quota is 12 rather than 10.
This gap is likely to become a focal point for submissions from conservation scientists, animal welfare organisations, hunting associations, and governance watchdogs, particularly on transparency and the use of scientific non-detriment findings.
Leopard quota tied to zones and monitoring
The draft leopard export quota is set at 11 trophies, aligned to 11 designated hunting zones. The logic described in reporting on the notice is that leopard hunting and trophy export should be permitted only in areas where populations are assessed as stable or increasing, and that a long-running monitoring project is used to identify eligible zones with confidence.
This approach mirrors how quota frameworks for wide-ranging carnivores are often defended: limiting offtake to specific areas, focusing on population trend evidence, and attempting to reduce risk of over-harvest in poorly monitored landscapes.
Economic impact: the R44bn hunting tourism figure
The quotas land in a politically sensitive space because South Africa’s hunting economy is repeatedly framed as a rural development contributor. A North-West University (NWU) study published in 2025 estimated hunting tourism’s contribution at about US$2.5 billion (around R44.03 billion) annually, with roughly 95,000 jobs linked to the sector’s activity.
The same research described distinct spending profiles between local and international hunters: local hunters contributing large aggregate spend across many participants, while international hunters typically spend much more per trip on daily rates, accommodation and trophy-related services. These figures are often cited by industry groups as justification for stable and predictable export frameworks.
However, opponents argue that economic value does not settle the conservation and ethics questions, and that reputational risks can also have economic consequences—especially for a tourism brand that depends on wildlife protection credentials.
What the public participation process means
The draft quotas are not final. The notice sets a 30-day period for public comment, during which stakeholders can make submissions supporting, opposing or proposing changes to the quota framework and its supporting rationale.
In practice, public participation processes often turn on several technical issues:
- whether the scientific basis for quotas is adequately disclosed and independently reviewable
- how population estimates are derived and updated
- how quotas are allocated between provinces, state land and private land (if allocation is contemplated)
- whether enforcement capacity can match the regulatory design
- how the department will demonstrate compliance with CITES non-detriment requirements
Depending on the nature of submissions and internal review, government may revise the quotas, publish final quotas, or adjust the way quotas are set and allocated.
Compliance implications for the wildlife and hunting value chain
If final quotas are issued, several parts of the value chain are affected:
- Professional hunting operators and outfitters: bookings, hunt scheduling and client certainty depend on whether trophy export is feasible within the calendar year.
- Wildlife ranchers and game breeders: pricing and demand for hunts often track export certainty for high-value species.
- Taxidermy and shipping services: export documentation and timelines influence workflow, storage and logistics costs.
- Provincial permitting offices and enforcement: quota operation can increase administrative load and requires alignment between national and provincial processes.
Even with quotas in place, exports remain subject to permit refusals where documentation is incomplete or where the legal and scientific criteria are not met.
What happens next
After the comment period closes, the department can consider submissions and decide whether to finalise and publish quotas for 2026 (and potentially indicate quotas for 2027). If finalised, quotas would then be implemented through the permitting system tied to CITES and domestic biodiversity regulation.
The next phase is likely to be closely watched by both industry and conservation stakeholders, because it will signal how South Africa intends to balance rural economic claims, international trade compliance and biodiversity protection in one of the country’s most contested regulatory spaces.
