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.

But after kilometers and kilometers, the Savannah still looked the same, and even though I was straining my eyes, I couldn’t spot animals anymore. Trees, bushes, dry grass, sand, over and over again. For hours, nothing happened. I looked out of the window, into the monotonous landscape, trying to spot something that would stand out, something that would break the recurring scenery. But then there was again nothing, nothing except trees, bushes and dry grass, softly swaying in the wind. The journey seemed to stretch into infinity…

Around midday, we crossed the veterinary cordon fence (VCF), which runs through the whole width of Namibia, from East to West. Back in colonial times, it was meant for keeping the indigenous people in the North, and separating them from the, usually white, farmers in the South. Today, the fence (sometimes also called the “red line”)  serves to control the transport of meat across the country. Since 1896, when a Rinderpest outbreak shook Namibia, it is not allowed to transport meat from the North to the South. In the 1960s, the fence was also used to isolate Foot-and-mouth disease outbreaks in the North from the farms in the South.

It is notable to contemplate the respective land tenure systems in Namibia differing between the North and the South: In the South, being influenced by German and South African colonial politics, and formerly occupied by German settlers, the land is owned by the farmers. Each farmer can buy land (5000 hectares in the North and Central Namibia, and even more in the South) and build up a commercial farm. (Check out our article about our stay at a commercial farm here.) As the land needs to be bought, it is freehold land. In the South, the most of the agricultural usable land belonged to commercial farms. We saw the fences, stretching for kilometers next to the road. In the North, most of the land is communal land, and everyone in the respective community is allowed to use it. Livestock is usually not restricted by fences and roams freely, often accompanied by a shepherd, guarding the cattle from wild animals. Some people have inheritance rights to use a certain piece of land  but they cannot sell the land. Otherwise, the distribution and use of the land is in the sovereignty of the local chief. He (or she) can assign or withdraw land use rights. This, however, clashes with the concept of the management of a conservancy. Here, the deputies of the conservancy (as representatives of the government) can decide how the communal land is used and can declare certain land use zones, which can lead to local conflicts over land use rights. But often, this is well managed in conservancies and the chief acknowledges the land use zones and assigns land use right accordingly.

When we crossed the fence, our Professor said: “Now we are driving into the real Africa.” And lo! The scenery was changing: The fences next to the road vanished, and small villages with round huts made from clay or corrugated iron appeared. We could see children playing under Acacia trees and people walking along the road, carrying huge baskets on their head. Sometimes, some cows or goats where crossing the road, jumping nervously when a car approached them. Not always in the right direction. Sometimes we would see people were riding donkeys or just sitting in the shade of a tree, waving merrily at us. Our Professor was right: Whether this is the real Africa or not – this was substantially different from what we had seen before.

The post Blog Journal: Heading north 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.

On our second day in Windhoek and after a nice long sleep (shivering as the African sun still did not hold its promises), we tried out our rented car and headed to the GIZ (German Corporation for International Cooperation) office in Windhoek. It took some time to get used to drive on the “wrong” side of the road, but after a while it felt quite normal to drive on the left-hand side. The GIZ office can be found in a neat, white house, not so different from the family homes in the neighbourhood, surrounded by a huge wall, topped with barbed wire, and a nice blooming tree reaching over it, covering the street with faded-red blossoms. While the wall might seem unusual for someone from Germany, this is a common sight in Windhoek. Also gated communities can be seen often, and many houses are protected by a huge fence. We passed a sleepy guard and stepped into the building. Inside, it looked like a normal office which you could find all over the world, with posters on the wall and pictures from projects in Namibia. We were asked into a kind of conference room, with a long table and a beamer in the front. Sitting down, I could see long-tailed birds fluttering around the trees outside.

We met three GIZ employees, Johannes Laufs, who works on a project about bush encroachment, Innocent Haingura, who gave us insights how the GIZ supports CBNRM (community-based natural resource management) projects and Alexander Schönig who talked about the adaption of agriculture to climate change.

Johannes Laufs, a brown-haired man, who looked very German and behaved accordingly, told us about the issue of bush encroachment, which is a huge problem in Namibia. Approximately 30-45 million ha are affected – an area as big as Germany. Bush encroachment affects the savannah, an ecosystem that is usually composed of grass and occasionally by trees, because more and more bushes are growing there. This is mainly caused by overgrazing, the lack of natural fires (often because fires are suppressed by farmers) and according to some sources also the rising levels of CO2. And even though most of the bush-species are indigenous to Namibia (and not invasive), the ecosystem savannah is still disturbed. This means for example that the habitat for certain species vanishes because of the bushes or the available food range has changed, which in turn can affect biodiversity and ecosystem services accordingly. Bushes have also deeper roots than grasses and are thus affecting the groundwater. This is decreases the quality of land negatively: The livestock carrying capacity of the land is reduced by two thirds which in turn causes a loss of 100 million € per year. As bush encroachment diminishes not only the functionality of the ecosystem but also the income of the farmer, it is crucial to restore the natural savannah to guarantee food security and fight poverty in Namibia, Johannes Laufs tells.

However, the bushes provide a huge amount of biomass, which can be used in many ways. In total, 500 million tons of biomass can be harvested in Namibia every year and used to produce coal or energy. In fact, a 20 MW power plant could be sustained from within a 50-kilometre radius over 20 years, and there is furthermore a great potential to export coal or other products. This means, there could be a win-win situation accomplished, which can create environmental as well as ecological benefits.

However, a key factor for establishing a win-win situation is the creation of value chains and helping the farmers to utilize those. The biomass can be used to produce charcoal, which is also exported to Germany, wood chips that can be used for cement production as well as for power generation; or even more advanced materials such as chip boards, fuels or biodegradable plastic. The GIZ is working with approaches like these, introducing modern technology and approaches which can support, for example, the Namibia Biomass Industry Group.

According to Laufs, there is still a long way to go. De-bushing is expensive and work intensive and it often has to be redone after some while. Huge investments have to be made. But there is also the possibility to generate a substantial net benefit of around 48 billion Namibian Dollar over the next 25 years, with bush control and biomass utilisation. And there is even more to it: De-Bushing will restore the former carrying capacity of the land, ecosystem services will increase, more water will be available. This can, in turn, increase food and water security and combat poverty. So – if you find coal from Namibia in a German supermarket, you can actually help to bring back the savannah to Namibia.

The post Blog-Journal: Talking with the GIZ about bush encroachment 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.

The airplane is making its landing approach around 10 am at the airport of Namibia’s capital city, Windhoek. Quite exhausted after the 10 hours flight through the night, I look up. Outside I can see dry grass, some bushes and a seemingly endless savannah. I am finally in Africa! A bright sun is gleaming in a cloudless blue sky and I am preparing myself for the heat. But when I step out of the plane, a strong gust of cold wind blows in my face. Shivering I draw my jacket closer around my shoulders. What a start for spending the next two weeks in Namibia!

We are spending the first two days of our excursion in Windhoek, a clean, and quite European looking city, trying to acclimatize to the windy and colder than expected conditions. On our very first day, we have the opportunity to meet John Kasaona, who is the head of the the IRDNC (Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation), one of two major nature conservation agencies in Namibia (the other one is NASCO (Namibian Association of Community-Based Natural Resource Management Support Organizations)). John Kasaona is a huge man with lively eyes, who greets us friendly and guides us into his office.

John tells us that Namibia experienced a severe drought in 1980 that endangered many wildlife species and threatened the life of the communities depending on the animals. Thus, the government decided to act and engage rangers to protect wildlife. But who knew the bush and the animals best? The answer was simple: Local poachers. So, John’s father, a former poacher, became a conservationist und John became one after him. In 1986, the number wildlife began to increase again and communities got the right to manage the nature surrounding them. To make nature conservation work, it is crucial that the locals can also benefit from nature. “Conserve and make sure that you benefit from the resources that you protect,” says John. Ten years later, the “Nature Conservation Amendment Act” finally passed, allowing communities to become so-called “conservancies”. This would prove to be a very successful concept throughout Namibia in terms of nature conservation.

Communities wanting to become a conservancy have to define their boundaries, give themselves a constitution, elect representatives of the community and submit management and financial plans. Thus, a conservancy resembles a national park, with the exception that people are still allowed to live on and use the land in defined areas. Nevertheless, the local communities have to respect certain restrictions e.g. in hunting and land use, to conserve nature. In turn, the conservancy gets the right to manage its own land. To generate income, conservancies can set up contracts with investors, who want to build lodges for tourists and trophy hunters. Part of the profit of the lodge goes then to the conservancy. The money is can be distributed evenly amongst the conservancy members or be used to build schools, health points or other projects that benefit the community. To make the foundation process even easier, the IRDNC provides assistance when communities choose to become a conservancy. John told us, he once camped under a large tree for many weeks, until the conservancy was finally running. Now, the conservancy office building is built under that tree. (Check out John’s TedTalk as well.) Today, in 2018, the number of conservancies has summed up to 82 conservancies in Namibia. And it is working: Wildlife numbers are increasing, poaching is becoming harder and harder and ecosystems find their balance again. Thus, Namibia, which is one of the few countries who specifically address habitat conservation and the protection of natural resources in their constitution, can set an example for us all.

The post Blog Journal: How nature conservation works in Namibia 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.