https://www.dailymaverick.co.z...ds&dm_content=op-eds



SA’s trophy hunting quotas spark legal battles and civil society backlash


By Adam Cruise 07 Aug 2025

A fierce battle over South Africa’s hunting quotas has erupted, drawing sharp lines between three opposing camps.
Animal protection NGOs and conservation groups have sent submissions to the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment’s (DFFE) Government Gazette for what they call the illegal, unethical and unscientific issuance of hunting quotas. At the same time, pro-hunting groups, led by Wildlife Ranching South Africa (WRSA), have taken legal action against the DFFE for failing to issue quotas for three CITES-listed species – African elephant, black rhinoceros and leopard – for the 2024 and 2025 seasons.

The dispute issue has reignited the national debate about conservation, ethics and the future of South Africa’s biodiversity economy.

Court order
On 21 July 2025, the Gauteng High Court ordered Environment Minister Dion George to produce all decision-making records related to the quota process within 10 days. The court also awarded costs against the minister, a move seen as a judicial rebuke of executive inaction.

WRSA’s press brief accuses the minister of engaging in “a gross dereliction of duty”, warning that the absence of quotas has “crippled the regulated hunting industry, undermined rural livelihoods, and thrown South Africa’s conservation credibility into question”.

George responded in a press statement, calling WRSA’s “rhetoric inflammatory and misleading” and saying “the court has not ruled on the substance of WRSA’s application”.

NGOs: quotas without science are illegal
WRSA’s legal offensive and the DFFE have both drawn sharp criticism from animal protection and conservation NGOs, including Humane World for Animals, the EMS Foundation and the Wildlife Animal Protection Forum of South Africa (WAPFSA).


These organisations argue that DFFE’s failure to publish quotas is not the real problem but a symptom of a deeper breakdown in scientific integrity and public accountability.

Humane World for Animals (formerly HSI Africa), which temporarily interdicted the 2022 export of trophies, says the department’s prior decisions were “unlawful” because they were issued without valid non-detriment findings (NDFs) and without proper public consultation, which are requirements under the National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (NEM:BA) and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

For 2022, the DFFE set quotas for 150 elephant, 10 leopard and 10 black rhinoceros trophies. These quotas do not represent actual export volumes since the South African government releases typically report quota allocations, not actual export counts. While exports were temporarily halted in 2022, the hunting of trophies continued unabated.

There is no reliable current data on exports, but historically, according to a Humane World for Animals report, from 2014 to 2018 South Africa exported an average of 4,204 trophies per year, representing 16% of global exports. This included 1,337 elephant trophies (about 268 a year), 574 leopard trophies (about 115 a year) and 21 black rhino trophies (about five a year).

The EMS Foundation echoed Humane World for Animals’ view in its own 51-page objection to previous quota processes, calling them “arbitrary, opaque, and devoid of transparent ecological reasoning”. The EMSF, supported by WAPFSA (a coalition of more than 30 organisations focused on animal welfare, biodiversity, ethics and public participation), filed formal objections to DFFE’s 2024 and 2025 public notices on non-detriment findings (NDFs) for CITES-listed species and for input on the Draft National Biodiversity Economy Strategy (NBES), which presents the government’s desire to ramp up trophy hunting to industrial levels.

They argued that the public consultation processes and the scientific methodologies were procedurally and substantively flawed, undermining CITES compliance and NEM:BA obligations.

The NGO perspectives counterbalance industry-led claims, stressing ecosystem and welfare-centred conservation, and demand timely, transparent governmental response. Their involvement signals potential avenues for amicus support, broader civil society litigation or independent scientific intervention should the case escalate further.

Legal framing: action vs inaction
Despite their common focus on the DFFE’s governance failures, WRSA and the NGOs present diametrically opposed legal arguments:

WRSA
Legal position: The DFFE’s failure to issue quotas is unlawful;
Objective: Compel the minister to act.
NGOs
Legal position: The DFFE’s prior issuance of quotas without legal basis is unlawful;
Objective: Block quota decisions lacking science and consultation.
In short, WRSA’s litigation attacks ministerial inaction, while the NGOs challenge unlawful action.

Challenge in the Constitutional Court
In another major legal development, the South African Hunters and Game Conservation Association has launched a Constitutional Court challenge against provisions in the National Environmental Management Laws Amendment Act 2 of 2022. These contested provisions introduced a definition of “animal wellbeing” into South Africa’s biodiversity legislation, a move the association claims is problematic. It is asking the court to declare these provisions either invalid or temporarily suspended.


The DFFE, listed as one of the respondents, has stated that the legislative process was complied with constitutional and administrative requirements, and asserts that public participation was facilitated adequately, and thus there was no procedural irregularity worthy of invalidation.

Animal protection groups have again responded with fierce opposition. The National Council of SPCAs (NSPCA), also a respondent in the case, firmly opposes the challenge, describing the wellbeing definition as essential, constitutionally sound and reflective of both animal sentience and international obligations. In late 2024, the NSPCA secured a high court interdict after learning SA Hunters had allegedly tried to reach a private settlement without involving key stakeholders. The NSPCA has since formally joined the Constitutional Court proceedings and filed its opposition, labelling the challenge as legally flawed and procedurally opportunistic.

Similarly, the EMSF (also a respondent) has called on all state respondents, including the minister, to reject the challenge. EMSF argues that the wellbeing provisions are justified, scientifically grounded and necessary for effective wildlife protection – warning that their removal would undermine both conservation and legal integrity.

What’s at stake?
The outcome of these challenges could redefine the legal responsibilities of the state in managing South Africa’s wildlife.

The wellbeing definition before the Constitutional Court plays a key role in shaping these legal reforms and views the provisions as vital for protecting wildlife from cruelty and neglect. The NGOs maintain that the new laws empower the minister to act on evidence of harm and apply a precautionary approach – critical for ethical wildlife governance.

In the other case, a ruling compelling the department to publish quotas may force transparency, but could also deepen the rift between industry and civil society over what kind of wildlife economy the country should pursue. The NGOs warn that without robust processes, the DFFE risks turning quotas into rubber stamps for an unsustainable and exploitative system.

With the minister now legally required to disclose internal records behind the quota delays, the next phase of litigation could expose how quota decisions – or indecisions – were made. WRSA has already hinted at further action, including potential contempt applications, if the department fails to comply.

As South Africa balances conservation, economic development, ethical consideration and public accountability, these legal battles offer more than just a clash over hunting – they are a litmus test for the future of biodiversity governance in the country. DM

Dr Adam Cruise is an investigative environmental journalist, travel writer and academic. He has contributed to a number of international publications, including National Geographic and The Guardian, covering diverse topics from the plight of elephants, rhinos and lions in Africa, to coral reef rejuvenation in Indonesia. Cruise is a doctor of philosophy, specialising in animal and environmental ethics, and is the editor of the online Journal of African Elephants.