Trophy hunting is a quite common practice in Namibia. The Wuparo Conservancy is no exception. “We have two different types of tourism here in the conservancy: photography and safari tourism on the one side and trophy hunting on the other side”, Shine Limbo, manager of the conservancy, says. “Today, trophy hunting brings more money than tourism. But I hope this will change.” In a long-term perspective, he believes that photography and safari tourism will be more sustainable than trophy hunting because the latter “could stop at any time, tourism won’t”.

Trophy hunting is a very controversial topic – it can get quite emotional. Trophy hunting can be defined as killing wild animals for their body parts, such as head and hide, for display but not primarily for food or sustenance. The controversy about trophy hunting is whether it supports biodiversity and wildlife conservation or if it is a threat to the species. Some in favour of trophy hunting argue that by targeting only old bull elephants, it is a sustainable way to protect the animals and their habitat. On the other hand, there are arguments that the practice leads to decreasing numbers of wildlife – especially when it comes to already endangered species.

One other point of supporters of trophy hunting is that it brings huge financial benefits to the communities in Namibia – which is in fact a solid argument: In 2017, the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism said that conservancies are generating about 100 million Namibian dollars (around 61.500 Dollar) on average per year with trophy hunting. Besides the financial benefits on a national scale, also the local population of conservancies receives monetary support from hunting: The hunter pays a fee for the animal and this fee goes back to the conservancy. The rates for hunting are nothing for people with a small purse: To go for a 14 days elephant trophy hunt in the Zambezi region, one has to calculate about 72.000 US dollars. Hunting a buffalo costs up to 22000 US dollars including the trophy. The hunting organizations also offer packages for hunting: 7 days of trophy hunting including 7 trophies cost up to 6450 US dollars – the 7 species to be hunted are springbok, blesbok, gemsbok, blue wildebeest, red hartebeest, warthog and zebra.

The conservancies receive parts of this money and use it in various ways to support the local communities. In the Wuparo Conservancy, most of the money is used for social projects like the installation of electricity or providing access to clean water by drilling wells. The big aim of this kind of hunting tourism is to stop people from poaching. If some individual animals are killed and bring benefits to the whole community, the rest of the species is protected and the ecosystem remains in a sound state. At least, this is the theory. Also, the hunter is taking the trophy of his hunt – like horns, tusks or skin – with him, but the meat goes to the local population. During our research in Wuparo, the majority of the local respondents of the interviews rated trophy hunting as “good” because it brings them meat and money. Tourists on the other hand mostly disliked trophy hunting, arguing that it was a cruel and unnecessary practice.

Every year, the rangers of the Wuparo Conservancy monitor animals, record the numbers of wildlife and write them down. Based on these records of the monitoring, the Namibian state gives out so called “hunting quotas” for every year. These quotas define how many animals are free for shooting. “We have quotas for our own use, for traditional use and for trophy hunting”, Shine says. If a certain species has not been registered a lot of times and therefore seems to be not very abundant, the quota is low. On the other hand, if a species has been recorded frequently, the quota is higher. For the last year, in Wuparo, there have been quotas on buffalos and elephants for example. “This year, we had 16 quotas on buffalos, two for our own use, two for traditional use and twelve for trophy hunting”, Shine says. “Quotas for elephants were much lower: one for own use, one for traditional use and three for trophy hunting.”

Roggero Michelletti sits on one of the comfortable chairs in the Nkasa Lupala Lodge in the Wuparo Conservancy when we meet him. The rolling R’s and his singing way of speaking reveal the Italian roots of the lodge owner. “I don’t consider trophy hunting as tourism”, he says. In his eyes, it isn’t sustainable in the long term – even though at the moment it brings more money than safari and photography tourism. He lets his glance wander over the dry, yellowish savannah. A huge male hippo is taking a bath in the cool water of the river in front of the lodge. “I would stop hunting elephants and lions. By killing all the big bulls, you destroy the genetic pool.” He is happy though that in the Wuparo Conservancy there is a zonation defining areas for different usages. “It is not like in other conservancies, where safari tourists are marvelling an elephant from the car – and the next moment it falls over, dead, shot by a hunting tourist.”

Brutus Liwate Mosutela, a tall and robust man, sees this differently. “As they (editor’s note: the elephants) migrate and mix with others, there is still an exchange of genes”, he says. Being the hunting guide and the head of the rangers in the Wuparo Conservancy, he has a lot of experience with the fragile topic of hunting tourism. Growing up in the area, poaching was a daily companion, he says. “I have been poaching game like buffalos and hippos before as well, to feed my kids. We just hunted for the meat. If we stopped trophy hunting now, people would go back to poaching again. Before this became a conservancy, I had no work and no money – now I do have both and can feed my kids”, he says, gesticulating with his large hands. When we ask him if he thinks the Wuparo Conservancy could survive without trophy hunting, he tends his head back and forth, thinking for some moments. “For some time, it might survive”, he then says, “but not for long.”

The topic of trophy hunting is indeed controversial. When only looking at the local population of the Wuparo Conservancy, it might seem like it totally makes sense because people need to eat, and they want their lives to change to the better. Free meat from the hunter plus money for the conservancy – there is an undeniable benefit for the people. When looking at biodiversity and animal numbers, different statistics exist, different results of research indicate either decreases in wildlife numbers due to trophy hunting or they suggest that trophy hunting leads to less poaching. So at the end of the day it is a very personal decision if you want to shoot an elephant or let it roam in the wilderness of the Namibian bush.

The post Trophy hunting in Namibia: “If we stopped it, people would go back to poaching” appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

After breakfast, we pack the things we need for our day in the field: backpacks, pens, questionnaires, water, food, tree and wildlife books, sunscreen, hats and sunglasses. Dust raises as our two cars drive on the gravel roads of the Wuparo conservancy to the village Sangwali where we start our fieldwork every day. Wuparo means “life” in the local language Siyey. On our first day here, the committee of the conservancy welcomed us and gave us an insight into their work and progress. Conservancies are protected areas in Namibia where the local community protects their nature and is also allowed to work in tourism, for example by running lodges, campsites – but also by offering hunting tourism. If you want to know further about the concept of conservancies, read this article .The Wuparo conservancy is 148 km2 in area – quite big for the 2500 people living in it. “1500 of them are registered members which means that they will profit from the benefits of the conservancy”, says Shine Limbo, manager of the Wuparo conservancy. When asked why 1000 people are not registered, he answers with a smile, explaining that you can only register when you are above 18 – and there are many children in the area.

The days of our fieldwork are intense but incredibly interesting and full of new lessons. We are split up into three working groups:

One group goes into the field, recording plants by installing transects in the bush. For a transect, we throw a stick, roll out a measuring tape of 30 meters in the direction the stick points to and then record all the trees within two arm-lengths when standing on the measuring tape. Coully Sanimombo, a 27-year old ranger of the conservancy, helps with identifying the tree species – frequently recorded species are for example Combretum imberbe and Acacia nigrescens. Even though Coully doesn’t have a scientific background, the fieldwork without him would be almost impossible: He knows how the flowers of trees look like, which fruits they carry, if they are poisonous or not. As most trees don’t carry any fruits or flowers at the time of our research, he is basically indispensable for identifying the trees. As we are spending the whole day together, we also have lunch together, mostly sweaty and exhausted, sitting in the sparse shade of a tree. It’s a time filled of laughter and breezily chattering, exchanging about cultural traditions and differences. When Coully tries some of the olives we brought for lunch, he makes a face, shakes his head and grins: “Too sour”, he says.

The second and third group work mainly with the same method: interviewing people in the conservancy. While group two focuses on human-wildlife-conflicts (HWC), group three wants to investigate which impacts the conservancy has on the life of local people and on (the perception of) biodiversity and nature conservation.

The HWC-group has one questionnaire and mostly speaks to the people living in the villages: As not all speak English fluently, they get assistance from John Musuweu, a 30-year old member of the committee. He turns out to be very skilled in translating and choosing the houses and families. Once, when driving back to the conservancy’s office, he starts singing “The lion sleeps tonight” in a perfect imitation of the original song. “Bonjovo” – the Siyey word for elephant, is the most frequent answer of the local farmers when they get asked which animals cause the biggest problems. The people have different strategies to keep elephants away from their fields (the big animals frequently come at night and eat all of the farmers’ crops and fruits, leaving the fields totally destroyed): All farms are surrounded by a rather low traditional fence, built out of interwoven wood sticks. But there are also a few people who  set up fences with metal cans because the animals don’t like noise, they grow chili to build so-called chili bombs to ward of the animals with the stinging smoke or they guard their fields at night with torches to chase away the unwelcome guests. Taking care of the crops is work intensive, expensive and time consuming, so most of the people are not able to invest a lot in it. But most of them would invest in wired fences if they had enough money.

The third group has three different target groups and therefore also three different questionnaires. They speak to experts – referring to people working for the conservancy, at the lodge, in the field of nature conservation in Wuparo like John Kasaona (https://globalchangeecology.com/2018/10/17/living-with-wildlife-is-not-easy/). The second questionnaire is for people from all over the conservancy: farmers, students, workers, old people. It means a lot of walking around, talking to people, getting in touch with local people and their traditions. For example, in this region of Namibia, people clap their hands to say thank you. As tourism plays a big role in the conservancy, also tourists from all over the world get interviewed as a third target group. They are here for different reasons: Some just want to do a safari, others are interested in the culture – and then, there are also trophy hunters who come to the conservancy with a license to kill. More specifically, a license to kill wildlife in the Wuparo conservancy. Each Namibian conservancy gets annual so-called quota – numbers of animals they are allowed to shoot, given by the government to each conservancy and according to the numbers of wildlife living in the area.

After spending the whole day in the sun, crawling around in the bush, entangling ourselves in thornes, walking through the dusty villages, and talking to people, we return to our campsite in the evening with reddish, sweaty faces and dusty hands and feet. Exhausted but happy. We even have the luxury of being able to shower every night – but what is even better is to put the hurting feet into the cool water of the river next to the campsite. It’s a time for reflecting the experiences of the day, going through conversations again, thinking about that one tree species we couldn’t define yet. Sitting there, harking to the croaking frog-concert, it feels as if this adventurous life could go on like this forever.

The post Fieldwork in the Wuparo Conservancy: Between acacia trees and clay huts appeared first on Global Change Ecology.

How do you feel about the progress of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: Comparing the Wuparo conservancy to others, I think they are doing well. They have a structure and are quite well organized. I hope changes in the constitution will lead to a spread of knowledge to the new committee members.

How is the status of the management plan of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: Speaking about conservancies in general, their success always depends on the layout of the area (editor’s note: this refers to the environmental surrounding and conditions) which determines the setup of the management plan. It is important to check where people use the land for agriculture, tourism, cattle etc. It is also important to sensitize people for the use of the land. In Wuparo, there is little space for livestock – and farmers depend on this space. Therefore, a flexible management is necessary, also in order to adapt to climate change. With flexible I want to say that they should adapt to altering situations and nothing should be gravelled in stone. The conservancy should help people to fulfil their needs.

Does the conservancy receive any subsidies? If yes, from whom and are they sufficient?

John Kasaona: We (editor’s note: IRDNC) were supporting conservancies here in the North: 30 in the Kunene region and 16 in the Caprivi region. Since 1997, we were helping the communities with their management, with committee elections, human-wildlife-conflicts and tourist accommodation. We were carrying them from the very beginning. Since a couple of years, these conservancies are financially independent.

What is the next step in or for this conservancy?

John Kasaona: People look at conservancies like they look at a president: They expect that their lives will change, they expect that all social needs will be solved with the help of the conservancy. This is impossible – you would need an ideal area for that. As a next step, I think it is important that the conservancy covers access to water, electricity, animal vaccination and education. Once this is done, the conservancy should look at the households and try to help the most vulnerable ones, as they must benefit the fastest as possible.

Do you think the people living here benefit from the conservancy itself?

John Kasaona: It depends on what you see as a benefit. We can’t reach everyone but there is a change as we are creating a platform for talking about conflicts with wildlife and for raising awareness for conservation. Also, there is more employment, e.g. in the lodges, the campsite, in hunting and in the office of the conservancy. So, not everyone benefits but in general there is improvement.

Do you think the health education situation (e.g. AIDS) has changed since the establishment of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: This was part of our education programme from IRDNC. We were talking about how a healthy environment is connected with a healthy population. Conservancies became unknowingly a platform where different NGOs and parties from the government came to. People could talk about their problems. Thus, there were indirect improvements in the health situation.

Do you think the infrastructure in this area (e.g. medical aid, schools, roads, shops) has improved since the establishment of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: Indirectly, yes. In conservancies, we encourage rural democracy. It was our approach to teach people to stand up for their wishes and demands. The communities start to know about their rights. All those things like medical aid and schools came here because the voice of the rural people got out. Remember: Conservancies are not only for wildlife but also for people.

Do you see any necessity for more research in the conservancy area?

John Kasaona: Why not? Looking at human-wildlife-conflicts and ways to mitigate those conflicts is important. Conservation related research would be good. Living with wildlife is not easy – I think, research could help a lot here.

Is tourism an important factor in this conservancy?

John Kasaona: Yes, it’s a key factor! The financial sustainability depends on tourism here. Without tourism, there would be nothing for the community.

Which kind of tourism is most prominent in this conservancy?

John Kasaona: Organized tours bring most income because they have certain routes they always take. (Editor’s note: Many tourists stay in the lodge which is situated in the conservancy. The owners of the lodge pay money to the conservancy because it is the land of the local community.)

Which role does trophy hunting play in this conservancy?

John Kasaona: Trophy hunting depends on the abundance of big game like elephants or buffalos which bring most money (editor’s note: The Namibian government gives so called “quotas” on how many animals can be hunted. The hunting tourists pay a given price to the conservancy for the animal they want to shoot ). What I see as a problem is targeting big bulls – especially regarding elephants. Shooting old bulls that will die soon is not so much of a problem – but how many do remain? (Editor’s note: killing bulls leads to a smaller genetic pool) Baby elephants and female animals shouldn’t be killed either. Therefore, hunting guides need to be very comprehensive. They shouldn’t actively target breeding ones and not kill all the bulls.

Could the conservancy survive without trophy hunting?

John Kasaona: Yes, because we have to be very adaptive and look at alternative ways of income generation. The use of the devil’s claw could be an idea. (Editor’s note: Devil’s claw is an indigenous Namibian plant which is used for treatment of arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.)

Did the number of tourists increase since the establishment of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: Overall, the tourist numbers have increased. In the conservancies, land and wildlife became protected – people are coming to see this.

What influence does trophy hunting have on the local population?

John Kasaona: The population benefits economically as money is generated by trophy hunting.

What could be improved in this conservancy?

John Kasaona: I think that some administrational points could be improved. Also, the distribution of natural resources should be more equal.  

Do you think the traditional lifestyle has changed since the establishment of the conservancy?

John Kasaona: Well, life is changing with new technologies anyways. There is lots of influence and people are exposed to changes and challenges. People also go to other areas and see new things. So, yes, it could well be that the lifestyle has changed.

The post “Living with wildlife is not easy” appeared first on Global Change Ecology.