An international study led by a Nelson Mandela University (NMU) researcher, published in the international journal Science, found that dehorning rhinos resulted in a drastic reduction in poaching at a fraction of the cost of other protection measures.
The study, published on Thursday, is titled “Dehorning reduces rhino poaching”, and is based on the analysis of data across 11 reserves in the Greater Kruger region of SA between 2017 and 2023.
The project was a collaboration between reserve managers under the banner of the Greater Kruger Environmental Protection Foundation (GKEPF), and scientists from the University of Cape Town (UCT), Nelson Mandela University (NMU), University of Stellenbosch and the University of Oxford.
Other partners included the South African National Parks, the World Wildlife Fund SA and the Rhino Recovery Fund.
Lead author Dr Tim Kuiper of NMU, who is based at the institution’s George campus, said they documented the poaching of 1,985 rhinos (about 6.5% of the population annually) across 11 Greater Kruger reserves over seven years.
“This landscape is a critical global stronghold that conserves around 25% of all Africa’s rhinos.”
The Greater Kruger spans the Mpumalanga and Limpopo provinces and includes the Kruger National Park and the private nature reserves around it.
The area spans more than 2-million hectares and borders Mozambique along its entire eastern boundary.
“Dehorning rhinos to reduce incentives for poaching — with 2,284 rhinos dehorned across eight reserves — was found to achieve a 78% reduction in poaching, using just 1.2% of the overall rhino protection budget,” Kuiper said.
This was based on comparison between sites with and without dehorning as well as changes in poaching before and after dehorning.
The study, however, shows that some poaching of dehorned rhinos for horn stumps and regrowth continued.
More recent evidence (2024/2025), emerging since the study concluded in 2023, suggests this is a growing challenge.
The reserves under study invested $74m (R1.3bn) in anti-poaching interventions from 2017-2021.
Most of the investment focused on reactive law enforcement — rangers, tracking dogs, helicopters, access controls and detection cameras — helping achieve more than 700 poacher arrests.
Yet, the authors found no statistical evidence that these interventions significantly reduced poaching while it cost $570 (R10,200) per dehorning operation.
Kuiper said interventions that worked to aid poacher detection and arrest as well as a necessary element of the anti-poaching toolkit were compromised by systemic factors such as local poverty and corruption.
“Finally, ineffective criminal justice systems mean that arrested offenders often escape punishment, with evidence from our study area of multiple repeat offenders.”
He said the project was first conceived by reserve managers at the frontline of rhino conservation who recognised the need to critically evaluate their investments into anti-poaching interventions — from tracking dogs to AI cameras.
The Greater Kruger Environmental Protection Foundation led the initiative by convening manager workshops and gathering data for the evaluation.
The foundation’s chief executive, Sharon Haussmann, was the intermediary between the managers and scientists.
“The true value of this innovative study, conceived by GKEPF operational managers, lies in its collective critical thinking,” Haussmann said.
“Ensuring not only that operations are guided by science, but also that science is grounded in real experience from the frontline.”
Dr Markus Hofmeyr of the Rhino Recovery Fund said that from a donor perspective, the study had given excellent insight where conservation donor funding could be spent and where to avoid funding.
The research results presented an opportunity for the government, funders, the private sector and NGOs to reassess their strategic approaches to wildlife crime in general and rhino poaching in particular.
Prof EJ Milner-Gulland of the University of Oxford said: “This collaboration is a brilliant example of how the effectiveness of conservation interventions can be assessed quantitatively, even in challenging and complex situations, and how important the participation of on-the-ground practitioners is in initiating, and interpreting, such research.”
UCT’s Prof Res Altwegg, who supervised the statistical analysis, also highlighted the importance of this publication.
“It’s important to check that our conservation interventions work as intended and keep working that way.
“For me, this project has again highlighted the value of collecting detailed data, both on the interventions that were applied and the outcome.
“It’s such data that makes robust quantitative analyses possible.”
The Herald
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.