Southern Africa’s unique model for conserving wildlife

Since the 1970s, monitored wildlife populations globally have declined by more than 70%. Across much of Africa, habitat loss, unsustainable harvesting and land conversion have driven similarly troubling trends. But southern Africa stands out. In South Africa, large herbivore numbers have increased roughly fivefold over the same period. In Namibia, they have tripled.

The reason that these countries buck the trend lies in their unusual approach to conservation.

Beyond protected areas

Globally, the dominant strategy for curbing wildlife losses is to establish protected areas – national parks and reserves that shield wildlife from human pressures. These safe havens are essential. But they cannot be the only tool in the conservation toolkit.

Wildlife does not exist solely within park boundaries. Protected areas cover roughly 15% of Africa’s land area. Beyond these, wildlife moves across mosaics of state, private and community land where people live, grow crops and herd livestock.

Our recent research finds that more than 80% of remaining wild plant and animal populations in sub-Saharan Africa occur outside formally protected areas. In these vast working landscapes, conservation success depends on whether people who live with wildlife see it as an asset or a liability.

On World Wildlife Day (3 March), it is worth noting that several southern African countries – including Botswana, Namibia, South Africa and Zimbabwe – have adopted what is often called a sustainable use approach to conservation. Over the past several decades, governments have devolved certain rights over wildlife to private landholders and local communities. This allows them to benefit legally from wildlife through wildlife economies that include ecotourism, game meat harvesting and regulated hunting.

This devolution of wildlife rights is unusual globally. In many countries, wildlife is res nullius (owned by no one), with the state assuming responsibility for protecting it. This means local people often bear the costs of living with wild animals – crop damage, livestock losses, threats to human safety – without sharing meaningfully in the benefits. In contrast, parts of southern Africa have sought to align rights, responsibilities and rewards.

It may seem paradoxical to conserve wildlife by allowing people to use it. But the evidence suggests that, under the right conditions, this model can create powerful incentives to maintain habitat and grow wildlife populations. When wildlife generates income and empowers local responsibility, landholders may choose to restore habitat, sustain wildlife populations and invest in anti-poaching protection.

Private and community land: The rhino story

The story of the southern white rhino illustrates this shift.

In the early 20th century, fewer than 100 southern white rhinos remained, confined to a single population in what is now Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park in South Africa. Through decades of protection and translocations, their numbers recovered dramatically, reaching around 20,000 by 2012 – one of conservation’s most celebrated recoveries.

A key turning point came in the 1960s, when rhinos were moved from Hluhluwe on to other state parks and private land. In 1991, South Africa’s Game Theft Act formalised conditions under which private landholders could own and benefit from wildlife on their property. At the time, rhino poaching pressure was relatively low, and demand from ecotourism and trophy hunting created incentives for private custodians to invest in rhino conservation.

Our research shows that private landholders now conserve more than half of South Africa’s remaining white rhinos. In Zimbabwe and Namibia, more than 75% of white rhinos occur on private land. Collectively, this means roughly 56% of the world’s remaining white rhinos are found on private property. Around a third of black rhinos are also on private land, and at least a fifth occur on community land.

These figures challenge the common perception that wildlife conservation happens primarily in national parks. In southern Africa, a significant share of responsibility – and cost – is carried by private landholders and communities.

That responsibility is growing heavier. Poaching continues to threaten rhinos across the region. Private custodians often invest considerably more per animal in security than the state, and some are reconsidering whether they can afford to continue. The sustainability of this model depends on maintaining incentives that outweigh the risks and costs.

Rethinking conservation models

Southern Africa’s experience raises important questions. Who should decide how Africa’s megafauna is managed? Who benefits from conservation? Who bears the costs? And can governance systems be designed so that conservation is both effective and equitable?

These debates are increasingly relevant globally. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, adopted in 2022, calls on countries to conserve 30% of land and sea by 2030.

Crucially, it recognises not only protected areas, but also “other effective area-based conservation measures” – a category that can include community conservancies (community-run areas where locals manage land and wildlife for conservation and income), private reserves and other locally governed landscapes. It also targets “respecting and protecting customary sustainable use by indigenous peoples and local communities”.

Closer to home, South African National Parks’ Vision 2040 reimagines protected areas as part of larger “mega living landscapes” that integrate biodiversity conservation with climate resilience and human wellbeing.

Namibia is piloting wildlife credits to strengthen the financial sustainability of its community conservancies. Zimbabwe has just amended its Parks and Wildlife Act in a way that promises to more effectively devolve wildlife rights to communities.

These initiatives reflect a broader shift from a narrow focus on fenced reserves toward more diverse conservation approaches embedded in working landscapes.

Towards a grounded conservation ethic

Africa’s charismatic wildlife often captures global attention and appreciation. But wildlife does not persist in isolation. It depends on people, institutions and economic systems that shape land-use decisions.

Southern Africa’s model is not without controversy or challenges. It requires strong governance, secure land tenure, transparent benefit-sharing and careful regulation. It must adapt to rising poaching pressures and changing markets. And it will not look identical everywhere.

Yet its core lesson is clear: conservation is more likely to succeed when local people hold meaningful rights and share in the benefits of wildlife. When communities and landholders see wildlife as a viable land use – rather than a burden imposed from outside – landscapes can remain open, habitats can recover and animal populations can grow.

As the world races to meet ambitious biodiversity targets, southern Africa reminds us that conservation need not be confined behind fences. If wildlife is to survive across the continent’s vast working landscapes, it must be valued by the people who live alongside it.

Aligning conservation objectives with local agency and values may be one of the most pragmatic – and hopeful – pathways for conserving wildlife in the 21st century. DM

Dr Hayley Clements is a senior researcher at the Centre for Sustainability Transitions and the Oppenheimer-Jamma Research Chair in African Wildlife Economies at Stellenbosch University.