In a decision that has reignited global debate over the future of rhino conservation, the European Union (EU) has rejected Namibia’s proposal to allow a tightly regulated trade in rhino horn ahead of the 20th Conference of the Parties (CoP20) to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
CoP20 will be held in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, from November 24 to December 5
Namibia had sought permission to implement a controlled system that would enable the sale of rhino horn from legally obtained sources — such as natural horn growths trimmed under veterinary supervision or horns recovered from deceased animals.
In its proposal, Namibia argued that such trade could generate sustainable funding for rhino protection while undercutting the black market that fuels poaching across southern Africa.
The EU, however, maintained its longstanding opposition, citing concerns that any reopening of legal trade could stimulate demand, complicate enforcement, and increase the risk of laundering illegal horn through legal channels.
The EU stated that international trade bans remain one of the few tools proven to curb poaching pressure, warning that relaxing them would “send the wrong signal” to consumers and traffickers alike.
Conservationists in Namibia have reacted with disappointment, accusing the EU of prioritizing ideology over practical realities on the ground.
Conservationist and Member of HORN (Help Our Rhinos Now, Namibia) Alex Oelefse, in a strongly worded statement, said that the EU’s decision strengthens illegal trade, protects the profits of criminal syndicates, and pushes Africa’s rhinos closer to extinction.
He said that rangers patrol daily, private landowners invest millions in fencing and security, and conservationists live with the constant threat of poachers.
“Meanwhile, the EU sits thousands of kilometres away, contributing almost
nothing to frontline protection, yet wielding the power to decide how Africans
are allowed to defend their wildlife.”
At the heart of Namibia’s argument lies a simple economic principle: when demand exists and legal supply is blocked, black markets thrive. Poached horn sells for tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram, sustaining organized criminal networks that stretch from southern Africa to Asia.
Proponents of regulated trade believe that by allowing legally sourced, traceable horn to enter the market, countries could both reduce the incentive for poaching and generate revenue for conservation. They cite the example of Namibia’s community-based conservation programmes, which have successfully linked wildlife management with economic benefit for local communities.
Critics, however, contend that reopening the trade would create loopholes and increase demand in Asia, where rhino horn remains highly valued in traditional medicine and as a status symbol. Conservation groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and WWF have long warned that distinguishing between legal and illegal horn in global markets would be nearly impossible.
The EU’s decision has also revived criticism of what some African leaders describe as “neo-colonial conservation”.
Oelofse said that the decision is a textbook example of neo-colonial conservation. European
bureaucrats, with no rhinos, no poaching crisis, and no skin in the game, impose
ideological policies on African nations that actually protect these animals.
“Namibia is not asking for charity. We are asking to be allowed to fight the illegal
trade effectively. The EU’s position leaves us with the worst of all worlds:
rampant poaching, no financial sustainability, and a shrinking rhino population,” said Oelofse.
Some conservationists suggest that compromise could be found in controlled domestic trade pilots or the creation of an international horn bank under CITES supervision. Others propose expanding support for sustainable funding alternatives, such as eco-tourism revenues, conservation levies, or carbon credit schemes linked to wildlife protection.
CoP20 will be held in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, from November 24 to December 5
Namibia had sought permission to implement a controlled system that would enable the sale of rhino horn from legally obtained sources — such as natural horn growths trimmed under veterinary supervision or horns recovered from deceased animals.
In its proposal, Namibia argued that such trade could generate sustainable funding for rhino protection while undercutting the black market that fuels poaching across southern Africa.
The EU, however, maintained its longstanding opposition, citing concerns that any reopening of legal trade could stimulate demand, complicate enforcement, and increase the risk of laundering illegal horn through legal channels.
The EU stated that international trade bans remain one of the few tools proven to curb poaching pressure, warning that relaxing them would “send the wrong signal” to consumers and traffickers alike.
Conservationists in Namibia have reacted with disappointment, accusing the EU of prioritizing ideology over practical realities on the ground.
Conservationist and Member of HORN (Help Our Rhinos Now, Namibia) Alex Oelefse, in a strongly worded statement, said that the EU’s decision strengthens illegal trade, protects the profits of criminal syndicates, and pushes Africa’s rhinos closer to extinction.
He said that rangers patrol daily, private landowners invest millions in fencing and security, and conservationists live with the constant threat of poachers.
“Meanwhile, the EU sits thousands of kilometres away, contributing almost
nothing to frontline protection, yet wielding the power to decide how Africans
are allowed to defend their wildlife.”
At the heart of Namibia’s argument lies a simple economic principle: when demand exists and legal supply is blocked, black markets thrive. Poached horn sells for tens of thousands of dollars per kilogram, sustaining organized criminal networks that stretch from southern Africa to Asia.
Proponents of regulated trade believe that by allowing legally sourced, traceable horn to enter the market, countries could both reduce the incentive for poaching and generate revenue for conservation. They cite the example of Namibia’s community-based conservation programmes, which have successfully linked wildlife management with economic benefit for local communities.
Critics, however, contend that reopening the trade would create loopholes and increase demand in Asia, where rhino horn remains highly valued in traditional medicine and as a status symbol. Conservation groups such as the International Fund for Animal Welfare and WWF have long warned that distinguishing between legal and illegal horn in global markets would be nearly impossible.
The EU’s decision has also revived criticism of what some African leaders describe as “neo-colonial conservation”.
Oelofse said that the decision is a textbook example of neo-colonial conservation. European
bureaucrats, with no rhinos, no poaching crisis, and no skin in the game, impose
ideological policies on African nations that actually protect these animals.
“Namibia is not asking for charity. We are asking to be allowed to fight the illegal
trade effectively. The EU’s position leaves us with the worst of all worlds:
rampant poaching, no financial sustainability, and a shrinking rhino population,” said Oelofse.
Some conservationists suggest that compromise could be found in controlled domestic trade pilots or the creation of an international horn bank under CITES supervision. Others propose expanding support for sustainable funding alternatives, such as eco-tourism revenues, conservation levies, or carbon credit schemes linked to wildlife protection.
