The Namibia Professional Hunting Association (NAPHA) has sharply criticised decisions taken at the 20th Conference of the Parties to CITES (CoP20), saying the global wildlife trade body has chosen ideology over science and placed African conservation efforts at risk.
NAPHA president Hannes du Plessis said Namibia will continue protecting its wildlife “with the resources we have,” but warned that the international community must understand the consequences of blocking well-regulated, sustainable use proposals. “Every rhino killed by poachers from this day forward is a choice CITES made—to maintain an unworkable ban while offering no alternative funding,” du Plessis said in a statement issued by NAPHA.
At CoP20, Namibia’s two key proposals on rhino conservation were rejected, despite stable and growing populations under Namibia’s sustainable use model.
These included the proposal to downlist its white rhino population and a separate proposal allowing limited trade in black rhino hunting trophies and horn.
Black rhino numbers have increased from about 2 400 to more than 2 500 individuals—growth that NAPHA attributes directly to community-based conservation, regulated hunting revenue, and intensive monitoring.
Du Plessis said that other African proposals from Botswana, South Africa, and Zimbabwe concerning ivory trade and community benefits were also rejected, a development NAPHA said illustrates a disturbing shift: political pressure from Northern Hemisphere animal rights organisations overriding the science and experience of range states.
According to du Plessis, Namibia’s model—integrating sustainable hunting, tourism and communal conservancies—has delivered one of Africa’s greatest conservation success stories.
The country’s black rhino population is growing at over 4% annually, and revenue earned from controlled trophy hunting supports anti-poaching operations, habitat management, and community livelihoods.
NAPHA argues that ethical horn harvesting—done under veterinary supervision and leaving the animal unharmed—offers a renewable, traceable conservation funding mechanism. Namibia’s proposals included strict systems already in use for Appendix I trophies: DNA registration, microchipping, QR-coded identification, and full veterinary oversight.
Yet, despite holding legal, secure stockpiles of “blood-free” horn, Namibia is prohibited from selling it, while poachers enrich criminal networks supplying the same product through killing, it said.
“More than 10 000 rhinos have been lost across Africa since 2008, not because sustainable use failed, but because it was never allowed to succeed,” NAPHA states.
The association also criticised CITES for what it calls “mission creep” into domestic wildlife management.
Documents discussed at CoP20 sought to expand CITES oversight of internal ivory markets, despite the Convention’s mandate being limited to regulating international trade.
Namibia argued that domestic regulation is the sovereign responsibility of individual nations and that external interference undermines both conservation and the Convention itself.
Du Plessis emphasised that Namibia maintains some of the strictest trophy hunting regulations in Africa, with every rhino hunt monitored by government officials.
Conservancies covering millions of hectares rely on this revenue for community protection and wildlife management.
“The greatest danger to Namibia’s rhinos is not regulated hunting or ethical horn harvesting,” he said, “but organised crime, habitat loss, human-wildlife conflict and insufficient funding.”
NAPHA is calling on the Namibian government to defend its science-based conservation model, on CITES parties to respect the Convention’s mandate, and on international animal rights groups to either contribute financially to conservation or stop obstructing the sustainable use models that fund it.
“CITES has chosen a system where criminals profit, and conservationists carry the bodies,” du Plessis said. “Namibia’s conservation model works. Our rhino populations prove it. Our elephant populations prove it. Our communal conservancies prove it.”
NAPHA president Hannes du Plessis said Namibia will continue protecting its wildlife “with the resources we have,” but warned that the international community must understand the consequences of blocking well-regulated, sustainable use proposals. “Every rhino killed by poachers from this day forward is a choice CITES made—to maintain an unworkable ban while offering no alternative funding,” du Plessis said in a statement issued by NAPHA.
At CoP20, Namibia’s two key proposals on rhino conservation were rejected, despite stable and growing populations under Namibia’s sustainable use model.
These included the proposal to downlist its white rhino population and a separate proposal allowing limited trade in black rhino hunting trophies and horn.
Black rhino numbers have increased from about 2 400 to more than 2 500 individuals—growth that NAPHA attributes directly to community-based conservation, regulated hunting revenue, and intensive monitoring.
Du Plessis said that other African proposals from Botswana, South Africa, and Zimbabwe concerning ivory trade and community benefits were also rejected, a development NAPHA said illustrates a disturbing shift: political pressure from Northern Hemisphere animal rights organisations overriding the science and experience of range states.
According to du Plessis, Namibia’s model—integrating sustainable hunting, tourism and communal conservancies—has delivered one of Africa’s greatest conservation success stories.
The country’s black rhino population is growing at over 4% annually, and revenue earned from controlled trophy hunting supports anti-poaching operations, habitat management, and community livelihoods.
NAPHA argues that ethical horn harvesting—done under veterinary supervision and leaving the animal unharmed—offers a renewable, traceable conservation funding mechanism. Namibia’s proposals included strict systems already in use for Appendix I trophies: DNA registration, microchipping, QR-coded identification, and full veterinary oversight.
Yet, despite holding legal, secure stockpiles of “blood-free” horn, Namibia is prohibited from selling it, while poachers enrich criminal networks supplying the same product through killing, it said.
“More than 10 000 rhinos have been lost across Africa since 2008, not because sustainable use failed, but because it was never allowed to succeed,” NAPHA states.
The association also criticised CITES for what it calls “mission creep” into domestic wildlife management.
Documents discussed at CoP20 sought to expand CITES oversight of internal ivory markets, despite the Convention’s mandate being limited to regulating international trade.
Namibia argued that domestic regulation is the sovereign responsibility of individual nations and that external interference undermines both conservation and the Convention itself.
Du Plessis emphasised that Namibia maintains some of the strictest trophy hunting regulations in Africa, with every rhino hunt monitored by government officials.
Conservancies covering millions of hectares rely on this revenue for community protection and wildlife management.
“The greatest danger to Namibia’s rhinos is not regulated hunting or ethical horn harvesting,” he said, “but organised crime, habitat loss, human-wildlife conflict and insufficient funding.”
NAPHA is calling on the Namibian government to defend its science-based conservation model, on CITES parties to respect the Convention’s mandate, and on international animal rights groups to either contribute financially to conservation or stop obstructing the sustainable use models that fund it.
“CITES has chosen a system where criminals profit, and conservationists carry the bodies,” du Plessis said. “Namibia’s conservation model works. Our rhino populations prove it. Our elephant populations prove it. Our communal conservancies prove it.”
