Summary An ideological divide between commodification and wildlife protection continues to undermine efficient and effective conservation in Southern Africa. This Perspective challenges the ‘either–or’ debate, arguing that it creates a governance impasse that is detrimental to the region. Drawing on the Madikwe elephant crisis and the UK’s trophy ban proposal, this analysis traces the roots of this tension to colonial doctrines and current conflicts in international environmental law. Revenue-driven conservation becomes ecologically precarious when financial incentives misalign with biodiversity goals. Conversely, externally imposed protectionist mandates, often rooted in Western ethical sensibilities, systematically undermine community-based conservation by severing vital funding and disregarding local realities. The resolution lies in championing adaptive, hybrid governance models, as exemplified by Namibia’s communal conservancies. Multilateral frameworks, such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), must shift towards performance-based, differentiated regulation. Further recommendations include robust sustainable-use certification to bridge consumer and range-state interests, as well as strengthened community tenure and benefit-sharing. Ultimately, conservation success hinges on integrating economic viability, ecological integrity and social equity, reconciling global policy with local realities.
Andrew Blackmore (Wed,) studied this question.