EMS FOUNDATION SUBMISSION ON SOUTH AFRICA’S INTENTION TO SET AND ALLOCATE THE 2026 AND 2027 CITES EXPORT QUOTAS FOR ELEPHANT, BLACK RHINOCEROS AND LEOPARD HUNTING TROPHIES

DOWNLOAD THE FULL SUBMISSION:

READ EXCERPTS FROM THE SUBMISSION:

EMS Foundation’s view is that the published Quota Notice: GN7106 IN GOVERNMENT GAZETTE NO. 54098 OF 6 FEBRUARY 2026  provides no scientific rationale for the setting of the trophy quotas for each species in the Notice, especially bearing in mind that two of the species concerned are listed on Appendix I of CITES and all of the species have been listed as Threatened or Protected Species (TOPS) in terms of the TOPS Regulations, 2007 which remain in force. Leopard are classed as “vulnerable” on the IUCN Red List, black rhino are “critically endangered” and elephant are regarded as “endangered”.

Two short paragraphs contain the DFFE’s reasons for proposing that 300 elephants may be hunted for trophies. Essentially, the Notice describes the population of elephants as effectively doubling every 13 years and that South Africa is attempting to reduce its population. No scientific studies are cited to support the view that the population of elephants is too large, or that trophy hunting 300 elephants will alleviate any particular overpopulation rate or indeed what the effects of very selective trophy hunting of specimens (reference is made to ensuring large trophies) will be on specific elephant populations.

With respect to Black Rhinoceros, the fact that CITES has established an export quota for black rhinoceros does not mean that South Africa is obliged to fulfil that quota. Article XIV of CITES clearly states that:

“The provisions of the present Convention shall in no way affect the right of Parties to adopt:

stricter domestic measures regarding the conditions for trade, taking, possession or transport of specimens of species included in Appendices I, II and III, or the complete prohibition thereof; or

domestic measures restricting or prohibiting trade, taking, possession or transport of species not included in Appendix I, II or III.”

The only reasons provided for setting a quota for the export of rhino trophies are firstly to expand the species range through incentivising the keeping and protection of viable populations and secondly, “increase/maintain productive population growth through the offtake of surplus males.” No source is cited for Table 1, being allegedly the current population size in years, or for the proposition that there are “surplus males” or for the propositionsthat their removal will increase or maintain productive population growth.

With regard to leopard, the Quota Notice does not provide any information on how the figure of 11 leopard per year has been arrived at, nor is the SANBI/Panthera Report for 2024 provided for stakeholders.

While it may not be unlawful for two years’ worth of quotas to be set in a single notice, the same quotas are set for both the 2026 and 2027 years giving rise to the inference that the figures for the 2027 year have not been independently considered and are therefore arbitrary. This also contravenes the CITES guideline and is not compliant with international trade obligations.

The limited time allowed for responses, coupled with the lack of access to the evidence on which the quotas have been determined, raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the public consultation process in relation to the proposed quotas. Genuine stakeholder engagement requires transparency, sufficient time and access to all supporting data. Moreover, for proper consideration and review the public requires full access to all underlying scientific assessments and non-detriment findings associated with the proposed quotas.

The proposed Quota Notice does not provide published, independently verifiable scientific evidence demonstrating that the proposed quotas will be non-detrimental to the populations in which the trophy hunted animals will be targeted, as required under the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of WildFauna and Flora (CITES) for the species in question. Without a publicly available, scientifically robust, population-level non-detriment finding for each of the species in question, which should include peer-reviewed demographic models, age-structured population assessments, and up-to-date monitoring data, the precautionary principle demands that export quotas should NOT be established.

To the best of our knowledge a final NDF for black rhino has never been published.

Noting that the 2017 NDF for leopards recommended that a zero quota be established and that it is the latest NDF for leopards, a zero quota on leopard trophy exports still needs to remain in place.

NDFs in relation to these three species have not been properly published in a Government Gazette and the necessary consultation has not taken place. What has been published in a Government Gazette in 2024 were not the NDFs for these 3 species but merely an unclickable link (i.e. not a hyperlink) to a website that contains some NDFs. It is not good practice to include links in Gazette Notices since there is no record of what information was published on what dates and in fact our instructions are that the linked information has changed during the comment period, leading to confusion.

Our understanding in relation to the necessary public consultation requirements is that, when NDFs are gazetted, each and every detailed NDF must be appended to the gazette as a schedule. At the very least, to ensure complete transparency, and accountability these detailed NDFs should have been included in the gazette in accordance with NEM:BA section 62.

It is of material concern that hunting/export quotas for elephant, leopard and rhinos have been set in the absence of a current gazetted non-detriment finding and informed scientific data in relation to these species in the current or preceding calendar year.

Biodiversity Management Plans for Black Rhinos and Leopards have not yet been developed.

In summary, recent, scientifically-sound NDFs do not exist for the three species. There is therefore no evidence that a precautionary approach as required by section 2 of NEMA has been taken in setting the quotas since there is no good evidence that the implementing the quotas will not be detrimental to the conservation of the species. Accordingly, in taking the decision to set the quotas. a relevant consideration has not been taken into account. The Quota Notice does not comply with the CITES guideline in this respect.

Picture Source: https://www.africahunting.com/media/african-savannah-elephant-hunt.97124/

©EMS Foundation 2026. All Rights Reserved.