قرن وحيد القرن: لماذا تريد جنوب أفريقيا إحياء التجارة الدولية، ولماذا يخشى النقاد العواقب

South Africa wants to expand exports of rhino hunting trophies and other wildlife products. The move relies on an exemption process within the international treaty that has largely restricted rhino horn trade since 1977.

It’s a shift that could reopen one of global conservation’s fiercest debates: does a legal trade protect endangered species – or hasten their decline?

International trade in rhino horn exports remains heavily restricted under Cites – the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. However, countries can obtain permits for certain exports if they provide scientific evidence that trade will not harm the species’ survival chances.

The South African government has released a new assessment, signed by environment minister Willie Aucamp, arguing that this condition has been met. It concludes that exports of protected species, including rhino, elephant and lion would not threaten their survival in South Africa. The assessment argues that the ban on rhino horn trade has been counterproductive, linking it to increased poaching, organised wildlife crime and higher black-market prices for rhino horn.

The policy shift follows a change in ministerial leadership. Aucamp replaced Dion George, who had spoken out against captive wildlife breeding and the commercialisation of endangered species. Critics cite concerns over Aucamp’s background as a wildlife farmer and argue the change signals a broader shift towards policies favoured by South Africa’s wildlife and hunting industries and their well-organised lobby. Aucamp’s government profile states he has been actively involved in the conservation sector.

The dramatic policy change brings into focus the conflict between traditional conservationists and the wildlife ranching and trophy hunting industry in South Africa, an industry that is reputedly worth more than US$1.5 billion (£1 billion) per year

The case for trading rhino horn

Poaching of rhino for their horn is thought to be the single greatest threat to the future of African rhino (the black rhino and white rhino species) . Rhino are poached because rhino horn is worth so much on the illegal market.

Anti-poaching patrols, infrastructure and surveillance are expensive. Supporters argue that the income generated through exports will act as an incentive to private land owners to better protect rhino.

Enabling international export of rhino will additionally bring economic benefits to wildlife ranchers, breeders, and companies that profit from trophy hunting.

The rhino horn trade could lead to more poaching

However, if the rhino horn trade is legitimised and even facilitated, market demand could increase. A previous one-off legal sale of elephant ivory in 2008 was associated with a elephant poaching spike and a dramatic increase in the illegal ivory trade. A legal supply of rhino horn may support a continuation or increase in poaching, endangering the survival of rhino species in South Africa and beyond.

There are fewer than 50 individuals left in two of the three Asiatic rhino species: the Javan and Sumatran rhino. The effects of international trade in African rhino on Asian rhino species should not be overlooked.

Wildlife charities have been calling for “demand reduction” campaigns for years. Re-opening and legalising the international trade in rhino could fatally undermine these attempts to make horn consumption and ownership socially unacceptable.

In my opinion the optimal route to conserving rhino is to reduce the market demand for rhino horn, to discourage people from wanting rhino horn, not to fuel desire for rhino products by legalising trade.

What this means for rhinos themselves

Rhinos are an intrinsic part of their native ecosystems. But when owners and breeders can benefit economically from exports, there is a risk rhinos become valued primarily for what they can be sold for. This could mean these wild beasts are bred and managed akin to domesticated cattle. “Wild” rhino could become an afterthought or sideshow to the global trade.

South African rhino baron John Hume was the owner of the world’s largest private herd. He built up a population of over 2,000 rhino that were farmed as livestock with their horns harvested. Hume lobbied intensively for a re-opening of the trade in rhino horn, arguing that it would be for the good of the rhino. Ultimately, Hume went bankrupt, and the herd had to be rescued by rewilding charity African Parks.

Hume is now under investigation for allegedly exporting 964 rhino horns to Southeast Asia. Hume denies the allegations and insists he has “nothing to hide”.

Now another South African rhino rancher has asked the court for permission to legally sell 479 stockpiled rhino horns overseas.

Killing to conserve

Additionally, there is the moral and ethical question of whether endangered species including rhino can or should be saved by killing individuals for trophy or sport. Can we kill to conserve? That question is not unique to rhino but applies to wildlife conservation generally, across multiple species, and internationally.

Trophy hunting is not universally accepted as a morally or ethically defensible conservation tool. In November 2025, Namibia asked Cites to scrap the global ban on rhino horn trade, but was defeated by 120 votes to 30. The move by South Africa to increase rhino trophy export permits could damage the nation’s reputation on the international stage.

South Africa also planned to end captive lion breeding and “canned lion hunting”, which both contribute to the lion bone trade. Recent political changes mean this commitment is being questioned.

The about turn in wildlife policy, supporting commodification of rhino, lion and numerous other endangered species, means that South Africa may be backing itself into an uncomfortable corner on the world stage when it comes to valuing and caring for its biodiversity.

Jason Gilchrist does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.