The Namibia Professional Hunting Association (NAPHA) has warned that proposed restrictions in France on importing legally acquired hunting trophies could put rural livelihoods, wildlife management, and millions of dollars in conservation-linked economic activity at risk.
NAPHA president Hannes du Plessis said the proposed French measures go beyond a debate about trophy hunting and raise a far more fundamental question: "who gets to decide how Africa’s wildlife is managed – the countries and communities living with that wildlife, or governments thousands of kilometres away?"
The association is calling on the French Government and legislators to reconsider measures that could restrict the import of legally obtained hunting trophies, arguing that such decisions must be grounded in scientific evidence, measurable conservation outcomes and meaningful consultation with African range states.
“France is sovereign in determining what may enter France. Namibia is equally sovereign in determining how Namibian wildlife should be sustainably managed,” du Plessis said.
France is an important market for Namibia’s conservation hunting industry. Available Namibian data showed that 230 French trophy hunters visited Namibia in 2024, followed by 216 in 2025. Between 2015 and 2025, records show 1 823 French hunters visited the country.
While the number of Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES)- listed trophies exported by French nationals is relatively small, du Plessis said concentrating on these species paints an incomplete picture of the industry’s economic contribution.
He said that between 2015 and 2025, the supplied records show 115 CITES-listed high-value trophies were exported by French nationals, comprising 60 cheetah, 47 leopard and eight elephant trophies. No rhinoceros or crocodile trophies were recorded in the figures provided.
But the loss of a hunter targeting one of these high-value species could mean far more than the loss of a single trophy fee.
According to du Plessis, international hunters frequently hunt several species during the same safari. A client attracted to Namibia for leopard, cheetah or elephant may also hunt oryx, kudu, springbok, wildebeest, warthog and other game, while spending money on accommodation, transport, professional guides, trackers and other services.
He said French hunters predominantly hunt common game species, highlighting the broader economic footprint of the market.
In 2025 alone, French clients hunted 126 oryx, 74 springbok, 67 warthog, 63 blue wildebeest, 47 kudu and 44 red hartebeest.
The figures, du Plessis said, expose a major weakness in a debate often dominated by a handful of high-profile species.
He said that restrictions aimed at politically sensitive species can have consequences across the entire hunting economy – including for abundant and non-CITES-listed wildlife.
NAPHA has also pushed back against suggestions that photographic tourism can simply replace hunting wherever restrictions are imposed.
While acknowledging photographic tourism as a vital part of Namibia’s tourism and conservation economy, du Plessis said it cannot provide a universal replacement.
He said large parts of Namibia’s wildlife habitat are remote, arid and difficult to access. In some of these areas, tourism numbers are simply insufficient to support the infrastructure and operating costs associated with conventional photographic tourism.
Conservation hunting, by contrast, can generate significant revenue from relatively few visitors.
According to du Plessis, approximately 60 communal conservancies currently benefit from conservation hunting, including communities in areas where photographic tourism cannot realistically provide an equivalent income stream.
He warned that removing the economic value of wildlife without providing viable alternatives could weaken the incentive for communities to tolerate wildlife, protect habitat and participate in conservation.
Revenue from wildlife utilisation contributes towards employment, wildlife monitoring, anti-poaching operations and human-wildlife conflict mitigation.
For NAPHA, the issue therefore extends beyond hunting. It is about whether wildlife remains economically valuable to the people who live alongside it.
“If wildlife ceases to provide sufficient benefits to the people who live alongside it, the incentive to conserve wildlife and maintain its habitat is weakened,” said du Plessis
NAPHA urged France to engage directly with the Namibian Government, conservation authorities, communal conservancies, professional hunting organisations and other stakeholders before implementing measures that could affect Namibia’s wildlife economy.
It also wants the full socio-economic consequences of the proposed restrictions assessed, including impacts on rural employment, community income, food security, anti-poaching efforts, wildlife monitoring, human-wildlife conflict management and the economic viability of maintaining land for wildlife.
“African countries should be partners in decisions concerning African conservation, not merely recipients of decisions made elsewhere,” said du Plessis
The association maintains that Namibia’s conservation model should be judged by its results and strengthened through science, cooperation and responsible management – rather than weakened by policies developed without adequately considering their consequences on the ground.
