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.

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.

As mentioned above, we will go to the Wuparo conservancy. For eight days, we will span out tents there and during the day a lot of fieldwork has to be done. The aim of our study trip to the Caprivi region is to collect information and data about the impact of the conservancy on the life of the locals and on biodiversity. We teamed up in three working groups – as we are only six students and one professor – and we will look at different aspects of the conservancy. One team is going to interpret satellite data and compare it with the data collected in the field: The aim is to see how biodiversity is developing in the conservancy and if there are disturbances and threats to biodiversity (which can also be caused by animals for example by browsing of cattle on trees). The second team will investigate how humans and wildlife live together: Are there conflicts between the two groups? If yes, which ones? Is this causing an increase or a decrease of biodiversity? The third group will have a closer look at the impacts of the conservancy on the people living and working there: We want to check if the people benefit from the conservancy, if the management plan is successful. In total, we have around 8-10 days for research.

As we have two members of the blog travelling to Namibia for doing research, we want to try something new: We want to write a little scientific and also personal journal here. Probably, the articles will just be uploaded after the trip as we are not sure how the situation is concerning internet (or phone) access in the remote area we stay at. Before we leave in the beginning of September, we both would like to share our expectations for this trip with you.

Leonie:

This is my second time visiting an African country. Last time, I was in Tanzania – East Africa. Now, it is the other side of this large continent. Namibia has always been in my dreams: Wide deserts, endless skies, wildlife and in general a colourful spectacle – and indigenous people, a very dear and special interest of mine in general. The research part of this trip is going to be hard, I expect. As it is only short time we have for our investigations, we have to get the most out of it. And that’s a challenge I am really looking forward to. I hope to get insight into the culture of the people we are visiting, talk to them, get to know them. This way, our two cultures can connect and understand each other better – for me an absolutely necessary aspect if our generation wants to enter the frey against challenges like climate change, biodiversity loss or global inequality. We have to understand and respect each other. Therefore, I am really looking forward to meeting the people living in the Caprivi region. If there is the chance to meet people belonging to indigenous tribes in Namibia, like Himba, San, Nama, Semba or Twa people, I would be delighted. Indigenous communities have an understanding of the world and the environment which has always interested and fascinated me – in many ways they know much more than we do in our industrialized, western cultures. I will keep you updated about the experiences we make in Namibia.

Katharina:

As I’m writing these lines, it will be less than 32 hours till we will be leaving Germany. After a 10 hours flight we will arrive in Windhoek, the capital city of Namibia. My last visit in Africa, more precisely Madagascar, last year got me thinking a lot. And I am sure, this excursion will teach me a lot as well – about the attitude towards life, about a very different nature and about how other cultures perceive and use their land. I am looking forward to return to this fascinating continent and to see a completely different facet this time. Visiting the wide steppes of Namibia, encountering wildlife, meeting people from different cultures, sleeping under the African night sky – I cannot even imagine how this journey will change myself. I have a great interest in the relationship between man and nature and how both can coexist. Thus, I will investigate the attitudes of the local people towards wildlife and try to identify indicators that enhance or reduce human-wildlife conflicts. I’m looking forward to get to know another country, other cultures, other ecosystems. And I hope, one day, I can use this knowledge to help fighting climate change, the global inequality or help protecting nature.

The post Blog-Journal: Excursion to Namibia appeared first on Global Change Ecology.