South Africa's conservation funding crisis: why private donors are now a structural necessity

‍Private funding isn't just plugging a gap for South Africa's parks. It's holding up the roof. South Africa's conservation funding gap is structural, not temporary. Even with full government allocation and no mismanagement, available funding for protected area management across Africa meets only 10 to 20% of actual management needs, according to IUCN research.

Every few months, another headline declares that South Africa's parks are starving for funding. Government is failing, private donors are filling the void, and conservation depends increasingly on the private sector. The story is told as if private funding is a temporary patch, a stopgap until the state catches up. It is not. Even with perfect government allocation, full tourism recovery, and zero mismanagement, the funding gap would still exist. Private funding is not propping up a broken system while we wait for it to be fixed. It is a permanent structural component of any viable conservation model in 21st-century Africa.

The numbers: how South Africa's parks are actually funded

Let’s start with the numbers, because they are not what most readers expect. SANParks generated R4.1 billion in revenue in 2024/25, with 75% from tourism. Pre-Covid, government funding made up less than 20% of SANParks operational budget. The agency that runs Kruger and Table Mountain is not a charity case. It is one of the most commercially successful conservation bodies in the world. 

The provincial parks picture is a little different, where the gap becomes a chasm. Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife manages more than 9 million hectares, including two World Heritage sites and Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, on a R1 billion annual budget. But only around 40% of that comes from tourism, with the rest from a provincial government grant. So, when the Treasury cuts the grant, as it did by R108 million in 2017/18 alone, there is no commercial (tourism) buffer to absorb the shock.

Speaking to staff on the ground, the situation is clear: "The main problem is that the fiscus funding is not enough. The costs of everything have doubled, which means there is not enough money  to fund the rest of our conservation mandates." The other revenue streams that used to fill the gap have collapsed too. "Rhino translocations to other game reserves, which used to bring a lot of money, have collapsed due to rhino poaching. Wildlife diseases like Foot and Mouth have also massively affected game sales and therefore conservation funding.”

‍

Why conservation costs have outpaced budgets

Whilst a healthy tourism model helps diversify the budget, it is the budget itself – or lack thereof, that is strangling parks.  SANParks manages 4 million hectares on roughly $220 million. By comparison, the US National Park Service manages 34 million hectares on a $3.32 billion federal budget. Per hectare, the Americans spend $97. SANParks spends $55. And the US parks are dealing with hiking trails and bears. SANParks is fighting a militarised, transnational poaching war while managing some of the world's most biodiverse landscapes and running a large-scale tourism business.

Twenty years ago, park budgets covered a fence, a few rangers and a gate which counted as adequate. Today, effective conservation requires helicopter time, K9 units, GPS collaring, drone surveillance, intelligence operations, DNA forensics, vet response, and community engagement programmes. Tourism revenue might have grown, but conservation costs have grown faster. And while tourism revenue is impactful, it is also volatile. The Covid19 pandemic showed exactly how fragile it is. When the gates close, the revenue stops, but rhinos still get poached and rangers still need to be paid. A funding model dependent on tourism alone is permanently exposed to currency, security, pandemic and economic shocks.

The issue today is that new threats keep arriving with no new money to meet them: "The need to do more to protect rhinos has affected conservation budgets. Huge, unexpected expenses for security and dehorning. The little operational budget left has to be spread to a whole new array of operational necessities that have developed as a result of rhino poaching and other wildlife crimes. Geopolitical challenges have pushed conservation into further crisis, with increased fuel prices pushing diesel per litre over R30, which means less kilometers for conservation activities.

‍

Mismanagement is real, but it isn't the whole story

According to IUCN research, available funding for protected area management across Africa satisfies only 10 to 20% of management needs. Even if government and donor funding is doubled, the financing gap will not be met. UNDP's own analysis of South Africa concludes that the government can no longer finance conservation through traditional methods, and that long-term sustainability requires partnerships with private investors and innovative finance structures.

However, underfunding alone is not the whole picture – mismanagement is real. Both SANParks and Provincial agencies have documented governance problems. Ezemvelo's entire board was suspended in 2020 amid forensic probes into "maladministration". SANParks has fared no better, with R202 million in irregular expenditure flagged in 2019/20 and no evidence that disciplinary steps were taken.

Mismanagement is (sadly) well-documented. But it is not the whole story. Even with perfect governance, provincial conservation agencies would still face a funding gap, for three structural reasons:

• The work has changed faster than the funding model. 
• The infrastructure backlog is structural. Even the world's wealthiest park agency cannot keep up. In 2024, the US National Park Service had an estimated $23 billion deferred maintenance backlog. If the NPS cannot close that gap on a $3 billion annual budget, how is Ezemvelo expected to do it?
• The Public Finance Management Act traps provincial entities in rigid rules about balanced budgets, surplus reinvestment, and procurement. This means provincial parks can’t run a deficit to fund their needs, procurement processes are inefficient, expensive and slow and tourism revenue cannot simply be redirected to anti-poaching the way a private reserve can shift its budget overnight.

‍

‍

The hybrid is already here. The framework is not.

The question at this stage is not whether private funding exists, it already does and always will. The question is whether we build the architecture to make all of it count, and to hold all of it to account, before the people doing the work run out of road.

Conservationists are direct about how the funding shortfall is being made up. At the moment, uniform, new projects like rhino security, maintenance for crumbling infrastructure and sundries used on daily basis are mostly funded by NGO’s.

The proof of public-private collaboration is in the field. 352 rhinos were poached in South Africa in 2025, with 266 on state properties. Hluhluwe-iMfolozi, once the epicentre of the crisis, saw losses drop from 198 in 2024 to 63 in 2025. Ezemvelo credited collaboration with WWF-SA for the main dehorning project in 2024 in Hluhluwe iMfolozi Park, with African Wildlife Vets, Wild Wonderful World, Save the Rhino International and Wildlife ACT co-funding the maintenance dehorning in 2025. Meanwhile, Kruger's losses jumped from 88 to 175. Same country, same year, two opposite trajectories. The difference was integration of state, NGO and private capacity, or the absence of it.

Actors in the conservation space are realistic about what comes next. "If drastic changes and plans from government and the provincial entities are not implemented the protected areas might not stand the test of time. This is the time to think outside the box and implement new strategies for protected areas to be more self-sustainable”.  

‍

‍

The instruction to think outside the box is reasonable. The architecture to make it work is missing. A national conservation finance framework would map every funding stream in a single public register, set shared performance metrics across all three sectors, anchor priorities in conservation science rather than marketing, and create ring-fenced channels for private capital to reach underfunded provincial reserves, not just the photogenic ones.

NGOs already report meticulously because their survival depends on it. Provincial agencies report to legislatures with mixed results because their survival, so far, has not. A unified framework changes that calculation for everyone and forces the story to be told.

Conservationists on the ground might have limited budgets, but they have not been completely overrun by the problems they are facing on a daily basis. Teams on the ground have shown great resilience and are becoming more innovative in dealing with the current challenges. Every day they wake up and do what needs to be done to save our wildlife.

‍

What private donors can do that government cannot

The problem is clear: government funding alone will not close the gap. Mismanagement compounds the problem, but fixing governance does not fix the shortfall. The costs are too high, too volatile, and growing faster than any public budget is designed to absorb.

In a time when we can’t really be sure that our vote is going to cut it, your true power lies in where you spend your dollar. Stewardship of our shared natural resource is a shared, global responsibility. And that responsibility does not stop at any border. The wild spaces of Africa are not a regional concern. They are our shared inheritance, and their loss affects everyone. In practical terms, it means that it is every individual’s responsibility to protect. Not as a substitute for systemic change, but as the only mechanism fast enough and flexible enough to meet the need as it exists today.

There are a lot of passionate people out there fighting the fight because it is the right thing to do – Wild Wonderful World included. We watched funding gaps stall operations that couldn't wait. We saw field teams do extraordinary work, only to then pause operations because of depleted funds. In my opinion? The situation from government is unlikely to change so the only viable path is building private funding mechanisms that are sustainable, transparent and structurally independent of political cycles.

Our motto is simple: if everyone fights one corner, supports one project, protects one area, we create hope for success. Our conservation-first model follows the same logic. Safari travel becomes a funding mechanism. Storytelling builds the trust that converts interest into commitment. And every contribution, regardless of size, is tracked, allocated, and transparently reported. 

Can you imagine what this would look like if everyone's efforts were coordinated? Collaboration is the way forward, it is time to stop passing blame for all the things that are broken, put egos aside and start working together to save our wild spaces before it is too late. The people doing the work are doing it anyway, on depleted budgets and goodwill that should not be taken for granted. The question for anyone who has read this far is not whether the problem is serious enough to act on. It is whether the dollar you control will go further than the vote you cast.

Ours will.

‍

‍

FAQ

Why is private conservation funding necessary in South Africa?

Because the funding gap is structural, not temporary. Even with full government allocation and no mismanagement, IUCN research shows that available funding for protected area management across Africa meets only 10 to 20% of actual management needs. Conservation costs have also changed fundamentally. Twenty years ago, running a reserve meant a fence, a few rangers, and a gate. Today it requires helicopter time, K9 units, GPS collaring, drone surveillance, DNA forensics, and community engagement programmes. Tourism revenue has grown, but conservation costs have grown faster, and unlike costs, tourism revenue disappears overnight when borders close. Private funding is not a stopgap while the state catches up. It is a permanent, necessary component of any viable conservation model.

How much does SANParks spend per hectare, compared to other countries?

SANParks manages approximately 4 million hectares on a budget of roughly $220 million, which works out to around $55 per hectare. The US National Park Service, by comparison, spends approximately $97 per hectare on 34 million hectares. Critically, US parks are managing trails and visitor infrastructure. SANParks is simultaneously running a large-scale tourism business and fighting a militarised, transnational poaching war. The per-hectare comparison understates how far the money has to stretch.

What caused Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife's funding crisis?

Several factors converged. Ezemvelo manages more than 80 reserves, including two World Heritage Sites and Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park, on a budget of approximately R1 billion per year. Unlike SANParks, only around 40% of that comes from tourism, with the remainder from a provincial government grant. When Treasury cut the grant by R108 million in 2017/18 alone, there was no commercial buffer to absorb it. At the same time, rhino poaching collapsed the game sales revenue that previously generated around R18 million annually for the agency. Rising diesel costs, new security and dehorning expenses, and an infrastructure backlog that no public finance model is designed to absorb have compounded the pressure. As of the most recent reporting, 378 of Ezemvelo's 996 ranger posts remain vacant due to lack of operational funding.

Does government mismanagement explain the conservation funding shortage?

Partly, but not primarily. Governance failures at both SANParks and Ezemvelo are documented and real. Ezemvelo's entire board was suspended in 2020 amid forensic investigations, and SANParks had R202 million in irregular expenditure flagged in 2019/20. These problems compound the shortfall. But even with perfect governance, the structural gap would remain. The work has changed faster than the funding model, the infrastructure backlog is decades deep, and provincial conservation agencies operate under Public Finance Management Act rules that prevent them from running deficits or redirecting tourism revenue quickly the way a private reserve can.

What is the difference between SANParks and provincial conservation agencies like Ezemvelo?

SANParks is a national entity managing iconic parks including Kruger and Table Mountain. It generated R4.1 billion in revenue in 2024/25, with 75% from tourism, and is one of the most commercially successful conservation bodies in the world. Pre-Covid, government funding made up less than 20% of its operational budget. Provincial agencies like Ezemvelo operate very differently, with lower tourism income, higher dependence on government grants, and a much thinner buffer when either source declines. The two systems face similar conservation challenges but have very different financial resilience.

Can't rhino sales and game auctions fund conservation operations?

They used to contribute significantly. Ezemvelo's game capture team previously generated around R18 million per year through rhino sales to other reserves. Poaching has made that income stream largely nonviable, as reserves cannot safely sell animals that may be targeted. Livestock-transferable disease restrictions have further suppressed game sales more broadly. These were never the primary income source, but their collapse removed a meaningful buffer at precisely the moment that security and dehorning costs began escalating.

Why does private funding matter even when conservation is succeeding?

The 2025 rhino poaching data illustrates this clearly. Hluhluwe-iMfolozi Park reduced losses from 198 rhinos in 2024 to 63 in 2025, following a collaboration between Ezemvelo, WWF, Save the Rhino International, Wildlife ACT, Peace Parks Foundation, and privately co-funded dehorning. Kruger, with less integrated support, saw losses increase from 88 to 175 in the same period. Same country, same year, two opposite outcomes. The difference was not government policy. It was the presence or absence of coordinated private and NGO capacity alongside state operations.

How does Wild Wonderful World direct private funding to conservation?

WWW operates a 100% donations model, meaning every dollar donated reaches conservation projects directly. All charity overheads and salaries are covered by WWW Safaris. Every safari booked contributes a minimum of 1% of booking value to the conservation fund, which rises to 3% when guests activate their Triple Your Impact. Funding is allocated across four pillars: Flying for Conservation, Rapid Response, Research Projects, and Anti-Poaching. All expenditure is audited and publicly reported annually.

‍

Written by Michelle Pengilly, founder Wild Wonderful World Conservation