HWCM - Ministry of Environment and Tourism

National Workshop on Human Wildlife Conflict Management 2005 

National Workshop on 

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM 

Human Wildlife Conflict Management 

(HWCM) in Namibia 

Safari Hotel, Windhoek 

16 and 17 May 2005 

1


CONTENTS 

LIST OF ACRONYMS...........................................................................................................................................3 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................4 

PROGRAMME ....................................................................................................................................................6 

BACKGROUND NOTE ON THE HUMAN WILDLIFE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT (HWCM) WORKSHOP .........................9 

A. SPEECHES AND PRESENTATIONS ................................................................................................................11 

KEYNOTE SPEECH: WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES AND OVERVIEW OF HWC ISSUES IN NAMIBIA................................12 

CURRENT LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR HWC IN NAMIBIA.......................................................................................16 

REVISITING THE 2001 WORKSHOP...................................................................................................................20 

ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS OF HUMAN-WILDLIFE CONFLICTS IN CAPRIVI ........................................................21 

HWC REALITIES IN THE FIELD ..........................................................................................................................27 

3.1 CROP DAMAGE IN CAPRIVI...........................................................................................................27 

3.2 LIVESTOCK LOSS AND COUNTER MEASURES AT TORRA CONSERVANCY ........................................28 

3.3 HUMAN WILDLIFE CONFLICT: PARKS PERSPECTIVE FROM ETOSHA NATIONAL PARK ......................29 

A CONFLICT BETWEEN HUMANS AND LARGE CARNIVORES.................................................................................33 

ELEPHANT MANAGEMENT PLAN ......................................................................ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. 

HUMAN ANIMAL CONSERVANCY COMPENSATION SCHEME (HACCS) AND HUMAN ANIMAL CONSERVANCY 

SELF-INSURANCE SCHEME (HACSIS) .............................................................................................................40 

DESIGNING STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE HUMAN-ELEPHANT CONFLICT: LESSONS AND BEST PRACTICES 

IN THE REGION.................................................................................................................................................45 

DEVELOPMENT OF A STANDARDISED MONITORING AND INFORMATION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................51 

CURRENT HWCM POLICIES AND KEY INGREDIENTS FOR FUTURE POLICY...........................................................55 

PLANNED SURVEYS OF HWC SITUATIONS........................................................................................................56 

B. WORKING GROUP SESSIONS AND ......................................................................................................57 

ACTION PLANS............................................................................................................................................57 

CLOSING REMARKS.........................................................................................................................................73 

2


List of Acronyms 

AfESG 

CBNRM 

CBOs 

CC 

CDC 

CITES 

DEA 

DPWM 

DSS 

ENP 

EHRA 

FO 

GDP 

GEF 

GPTF 

GRN 

HACCS 

HACSIS 

HEC 

HECTF 

HWC 

HWCM 

ICEMA 

IRDNC 

IUCN 

MAWF 

MET 

MOU 

NACSO 

NAMPOL 

NGO 

NRWG 

NTDP 

PAC 

PS 

RISE 

SPAN 

TA/s 

UNDP 

USAID 

VDC 

WWF-LIFE 

African Elephant Specialist Group 

Community-based Natural Resource Management 

Community-based Organisations 

Conservancy Committee 

Constituency Development Committee 

Convention for International Trade in Endangered Species 

Directorate of Environmental Affairs 

Directorate of Parks and Wildlife Management 

Directorate of Scientific Services 

Etosha National Park 

Elephant Human Relation Aid 

Field Officer 

Gross Domestic Product 

Global Environmental Forum 

Game Products Trust Fund 

Government of the Republic of Namibia 

Human Animal Conservancy Compensation Scheme 

Human Animal Conservancy Self-insurance Scheme 

Human Elephant Conflict 

Human-Elephant Conflict Management Working Group 

Human Wildlife Conflict 

Human Wildlife Conflict Management 

Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management 

Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation 

World Conservation Union 

Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry 

Ministry of Environment and Tourism 

Memorandum of Understanding 

Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations 

Namibian Police 

Non-Governmental Organisation 

Natural Resources Working Group 

Namibia Tourism Development Programme 

Problem Animal Control 

Permanent Secretary 

Rural People’s Development Institute for Social Empowerment 

Strengthening the Protected Areas Network 

Traditional Authorities 

United Nations Development Programme 

United States Agency for International Development 

Village Development Committee 

World Wildlife Fund- Living in a Finite Environment Programme 

3


Executive Summary 

Most Namibians depend on the land for their subsistence. But the presence of many species of 

large mammals, combined with settlement patterns of people, leads to conflict between people 

and wildlife. A balance is needed between forming systems of protected areas in Namibia and 

possibilities for community empowerment to manage and benefit from wildlife and other natural 

resources. 

Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC) refers to conflict between wild animals and humans. This ranges 

from the destruction of crops and water installations to loss of livestock, homes and human life. 

Friction between park managers and neighboring communities living on the perimeters of 

protected areas potentially weakens the effectiveness of projects and programmes, for example 

the Conservancy Programme. 

A stakeholder meeting was held in Windhoek in July 2001 to discuss mechanisms to reduce 

conflicts between people and wildlife. Among decisions taken was to replace the term ‘problem 

animal’ with the more appropriate term ’Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC)’. Stakeholders identified 

elephants as the most challenging and destructive of all HWC species, along with lion, hyena, 

hippopotamus and crocodile. Damage assessed included crop damage to farmers’ fields and loss 

of human lives. The meeting also discussed different measures of mitigating human wildlife 

conflict. 

Building on the successes of the 2001 workshop, the Strengthening the Protected Area Network 

(SPAN) and Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management (ICEMA) projects organized 

a workshop on 16 – 17 May, 2005 in Windhoek. This meeting was funded by USAID and hosted 

by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. 

The objectives of the workshop were: 

1. To develop a framework for future Human Wildlife Conflict Management (HWCM) policy 

directions in Namibia; 

2. To initiate the development of a standardized monitoring system for HWCM; 

3. To discuss best practice mitigation measures in Namibia and throughout the region; and 

4. To launch a survey on HWC situations in two areas. 

Namibia does not have a HWCM policy and the workshop enabled stakeholders to take the first 

steps in identifying essential ingredients for policy formulation. To achieve objectives, field experts 

and researchers were invited to share their experiences and knowledge and discuss lessons 

learnt from the field. 

Presentations tackled the issue of HWC from a variety of perspectives, including detailed 

economic, socio-economic and institutional viewpoints. They focused on demonstrating the 

impacts of HWC from: 

• A crop-farming perspective; 

• A livestock farming perspective; and 

• A parks’ management perspective. 

The workshop also analyzed successful mitigation and monitoring methods for the creation of 

best mitigation measures and explored requirements and design implications for a standardized 

monitoring system for HWC. 

4


The meeting incorporated presentations on regional perspectives and lessons learnt from 

monitoring HWC situations and various deterrence methods, their effectiveness and suitability in 

different situations. 

Two working group sessions were facilitated: the first session enabled participants to brain-storm 

issues relating to the development of a framework for the decentralization and devolution of 

wildlife management, determining best-practice mitigation measures and self-insurance and 

developing a standardized monitoring and reporting system. The second session focused on the 

development of a policy framework to be included in the new Parks and Wildlife Management Bill 

regarding HWC and to develop an Action Plan. 

In line with the fourth workshop objective, two surveys were launched at the end of the meeting. 

The first survey will consist of a situation analysis report of HWC situations, with special reference 

to Kavango, Caprivi, North-Central Namibia and Otjozondjupa regions. The second survey will 

entail a detailed study of the state of HWC in three areas: Omatendeka and Ehirovipuka 

conservancies and the northern boundary of Etosha National Park. 

This report is a detailed account of the presentations and ensuing discussions. It covers methods 

used to arrive at the final Action Plan to take forward all activities agreed upon by stakeholders. 

5



Human Wildlife Conflict Management (HWCM) Workshop 

16 – 17 May 2005 

Programme 

Objectives: 

1. To develop a framework for future HWCM policy directions in Namibia. 

2. To initiate the development of a standardized monitoring system for HWCM. 

3. To discuss best practice mitigation measures in Namibia and throughout the 

region. 


Programme Proceedings: 

DAY 1 , 16 May 2005 

07:30 - 08:30 Registration 

08:30 - 08:55 Keynote speech: Workshop objectives and overview of HWC issues 

in Namibia (Malan Lindeque) 

08:55 - 09:15 Current legal framework for HWC in Namibia, Status report on current 

MET approach to HWCM and envisaged measures in the new Parks 

and Wildlife Management Bill. (Ben Beytell) 

09:15 - 09:35 Q&A 

09:35 - 09:45 Presentation 1: Revisiting the 2001 Workshop (Leeverty Muyoba) 

09:45 - 09:55 Q&A 

09:55 - 10:15 Presentation 2: Economic Impact analysis of HWCM (Jon Barnes) 

10:15 - 10:35 Q&A 

10:35 - 10:50 Break 

6


10:50 - 11:40 Presentation 3: Human Wildlife Conflict realities in the field 

1. Crop Damage in Caprivi (Conservancy or community 

representative) 

2. Livestock loss and counter measures at Torra Conservancy 

(Conservancy representative: Vitalis Florry) 

3. Park perspective on HWCM (Michael Sibalatani) 

11:40 - 12:00 Q&A 

12:00 – 12:25 Presentation 4: A review of conflict between humans and large 

carnivores and an evaluation management options (Flip Stander) 

12:25 - 12:45 Q&A 

12:45 - 13:45 Lunch 

13:45 - 14:05 Presentation 5: Elephant Management Plan (Rowan Martin) 

14:05 - 14:15 Q&A 

14:15 - 14:40 Presentation 6: The work of the Human Elephant Conflict Task Force 

(HECTF): Lessons learnt and best practices from the region (IUCN, 

Leo Niskanen and Holly Dublin) 

14:40 - 14:55 Q&A 

14:55 - 15:15 Presentation 7: Self Insurance schemes and alternative mitigation 

measures (IRDNC) 

15:15 - 15:35 Q&A 

15:35 - 15:50 Break 

15:50 - 16:20 Presentation 8: Development of a standardized monitoring and 

information management system (IUCN/ HECTF) 

16:20 - 16:40 Q&A 

16:40 – 16:55 Orientation of Working Group session for Day 2 

17:00 Closing of Day 1 

18:00 – 19:00 1 st Park Talk with Dr Brian Child (optional) 

19:30-21:30 Reception, Omatako 1 

7


Day 2, 17 May 2005 

08:30 - 8:45 Opening of Day 2 (review of Day 1) 

8:45 -10:15 Working group session: 4 groups 

Group 1: Decentralization/devolution of wildlife management and 

regulatory framework (facilitator: Ben Beytell and Brian Jones) 

Group 2: Self insurance methods (facilitator: Malan Lindeque and 

Fanuel Demas) 

Group 3: Alternative mitigation measures and options (facilitator: 

Anton Esterhuizen and Flip Stander) 

Group 4: Standardized monitoring and reporting system (facilitator: 

Pauline Lindeque and Greg Stuart-Hill) 

10:15 - 11:30 Report Back 

11:30 - 11:45 Break 

11:45 - 12:00 Presentation 9: Current HWCM policies and key ingredients for future 

policy (Brian Child) 

12:00 - 13:30 Plenary session : 

. Developing a policy framework for Human Wildlife Conflict 

Management 

13:30 - 14:30 Lunch 

14:30 - 15:30 Plenary session: 

Way Forward: Development of action plan 

15:30 - 15:40 Presentation 10: Planned surveys of HWC situations (Meed 

Mbidzo) 

15:40 - 15:50 Q&A 

15:50 - 16:10 Official closing of the workshop (PS) 

16:10 Tea & Coffee 

8



Tel: (09 264 61) 284 2111 Private Bag 13306 

Fax: (09 264 61) 229936 

Windhoek 

Namibia 

16 May 2005 

Background Note on the Human Wildlife Conflict 

Management (HWCM) Workshop 16/17 May 2005 

On behalf of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET), I cordially welcome you to the 

Human Wildlife Conflict Management Workshop 2005. 

Namibia’s internationally-acclaimed Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) 

approach, including the Communal Conservancy Programme, is working towards restoring the 

link between conservation and rural development and achieving biodiversity conservation within 

the framework of national development plans including Vision 2030 and poverty reduction 

strategies. 

The commitment shown by Namibians has led to the remarkable recovery and increase of wildlife 

populations. Despite this success, the MET recognises that living with wildlife often carries a 

cost, with increased wildlife populations and expanded ranges into communal and commercial 

farming areas resulting in more frequent conflicts between people and animals, particularly 

elephants and predators, in many areas. This has resulted in livestock and crop losses and, in 

some instances, loss of human lives. 

MET offices across Namibia have reported intensifying problems and incident reports relating to 

human wildlife conflict. Measures are urgently needed to mitigate the conflict and increase the 

benefits of living alongside wildlife. 

Innovative mechanisms have been created to reduce the level of human-wildlife conflict, to 

ensure that the benefits of conservation management by far outweigh the costs, and to build on 

the significant successes already achieved. The MET seeks to develop an HWCM policy that will 

influence the way in which this problem is quickly and effectively addressed. 

This problem is not unique to Namibia, and other African countries are also working on creating 

innovative ways of addressing HWCM. Namibia hopes to draw on successes and lessons learned 

by other countries, while developing a uniquely Namibian approach to the problem. Through this 

workshop we will have the opportunity to hear from a number of renowned international experts 

about HWCM techniques throughout the region. 

9


With this in mind, the MET is actively seeking solutions to these problems by canvassing input 

and suggestions from a wide range of stakeholders. It was toward this end that the MET has 

acquired funding from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to hold a 

Human Wildlife Conflict Management Workshop on May 16 and 17, 2005. 

The objectives of the workshop are: 

1. To develop a framework for future HWCM policy directions in Namibia; 

2. To initiate the development of a standardized monitoring system for HWCM; 

3. To discuss best practice mitigation measures in Namibia and throughout the region; and 


I am very heartened by the wide range of experience and expertise which this workshop has 

managed to attract. I look forward to hearing your contributions as we work together towards 

finding innovative solutions to HWCM. 

Kind regards, 

10


A. Speeches and 

Presentations 

11


Keynote speech: 

Workshop Objectives and overview of HWC issues in 

Namibia 

Permanent Secretary, MET, Dr Malan Lindeque 

Director of Ceremonies 

Representatives of our Development Partners and Partner Organizations 

Invited Guests 

Members of the Media 

Ladies and gentlemen 

Welcome to all of you, especially our invited guests who have traveled from outside Namibia to be 

with us. Thank you for making time to attend this meeting. 

The issue of impacts by wildlife on people, and therefore conflicts between people and wildlife, is 

probably the most difficult problem that conservation agencies such as the Ministry of 

Environment and Tourism in Namibia have to face. This is indeed a major unresolved issue that 

has not seen much progress or innovation for many years, at least so in Namibia until quite 

recently. 

You will notice my use of terms such as problem species or more or less valuable species, and I 

do not qualify these further to cover all aspects of either the historical, moral or ethical 

foundations behind these terms or all dimensions of economic or cultural values. That would go 

beyond the scope of what I felt would be a useful introduction to the subject on hand and current 

circumstances. I also refer to mammal examples, but it is well known that other groups of 

vertebrates are much involved in conflict situations, such as crocodiles, raptors and vultures, or 

even seed-eating birds, not to mention a range of agriculturally important insect species. 

The situation, as most of you would know, is very complex, with many factors interacting to create 

a conflict situation or perhaps provide the possibility of a solution. The exact nature of conflicts, 

as well as their causal and controlling factors, differs from site to site, and it is risky to generalize 

too much. Nevertheless, I feel there are three main categories. 

These are: 

Wildlife on commercial farms 

The typical scenario is one of unwanted but valuable species such as cheetahs and leopard 

predating on livestock, or of less valuable species such as black-backed jackal or caracal 

predating on small stock. In Namibia our approach has been thus far to allow unlimited “control” 

in terms of numbers but not methods, of the less valuable species. These are the so-called 

problem animal species. Nearly half a century of this policy has not resulted in major impacts on 

the populations of these species, nor perhaps on the scale of predation of livestock, although our 

data are not very good. For the larger carnivores of some conservation concern such as 

cheetah, we have followed an approach of mainly encouraging the commercial use of such 

species to offset the losses that they cause. There are also complex dimensions relating to land 

use and the increasing importance of tourism and game farming on such farms that relate to the 

12


scale and severity of conflicts on such land. We are told that some game farmers are, contrary 

to what most people would expect, less tolerant of such predators than stock farmers, and for 

reasons that we can understand. 

This situation on commercial farmland is a very big subject worthy of a separate discussion, but I 

believe the meeting should focus more on the next two categories where wildlife-related conflicts 

have more immediate and serious implications concerning land use and the livelihoods and 

welfare of vulnerable people. 

Wildlife on communal conservancies 

The scenario is one of a greater range of species, both valuable and less valuable, that impact in 

various degrees on people that still largely depend on subsistence farming. Some of these 

species include those that could form the basis of a lucrative tourism industry, for example 

elephants, lions, and hippos. Our approach in Namibia has been to similarly allow unlimited 

“control” in terms of numbers but not methods, of the less valuable species. More than a decade 

of this approach, in my estimation, has not resulted in major impacts on the populations of these 

species, nor perhaps on the scale of predation of livestock although our data are once again not 

very good. 

For the larger and more valuable species, we have followed an approach of mainly encouraging 

the commercial use of such species to offset the losses that they cause. Of the 31 registered 

conservancies, 20 have hunting quotas which specifically make provision for conflict species. 

Some of us believe that this approach has been very successful, as evident from the commitment 

towards a wildlife-based land use model and the recovery of wildlife populations in conservancies. 

Remarkably, we have even seen the expansion of range and numbers of species such as lions 

on communal land, and there are some indications that leopard, cheetah and other species are 

doing the same. 

There are nevertheless considerable problems remaining with wildlife conflicts in conservancies, 

basically in my view because the costs and benefits from wildlife are not equitably distributed 

within the larger human community that constitute an individual conservancy. It appears that, in 

most cases, the benefits from wildlife can not be easily used to offset the often dramatic costs 

suffered by individual households in a way and time that truly meets the needs of the affected 

household. 

We are concerned that this problem could affect the entire conservancy model in Namibia, and 

this is one of the main reasons behind this meeting. Clearly we cannot have an unmanaged 

situation where individual human lives or livelihoods are lost to wildlife that we promote as the 

basis of a diversified form of land use and economic development. An associated challenge is 

that the people that are impacted may not be members or residents of the specific conservancy 

and thus not within the applicable benefit-sharing system. 

Furthermore, a reasonably logical consequence of recovering wildlife populations, restored 

migration routes, but also increases in human density and progress in rural development, is that 

conflicts are likely to escalate. Success in this instance will breed problems. This means that we 

need to plan ahead on how to approach an even greater problem in future than we have already. 

Wildlife on other State land 

The scenario on other State land, also involving subsistence farmers, is similar in appearance to 

conservancies, but even more severe. Such communities have for various reasons not created 

the mechanisms to generate economic benefits from wildlife. In such instances, the onus of 

13


dealing with conflicts have remained with the State, mostly MET, and has largely been dealt with 

on a case-by-case basis. We have, however, encouraged such communities to form 

conservancies as a counter strategy, and I believe that we have had some success in this regard, 

as evident from the expansion of the conservancy system. 

In the last two categories in particular, we also recognize that many of the conflicts are due to 

wildlife that move in and out of our protected areas, and whose conservation status ultimately 

depends on our ability to find a balance between costs and benefits. We very much want our 

protected areas to be net exporters of valuable resources and economic benefits to neighbouring 

people and regional economies. A situation where our wildlife from parks amounts to the export 

of economic and social costs greatly undermines this objective. It is thus not possible for the 

State or our Ministry in particular to disengage when problems occur outside our parks, because 

we remain stakeholders in these problems. 

I have referred to the ‘approach in Namibia’, and gave some indications of the general concepts. 

A next speaker will go into greater detail about what this approach entails in terms of legislation 

and policy. However, the point I want to make now is that the ‘approach’ is very much defined by 

central Government and its implementation remains under the control of Government. The reality 

is that Government has not always had the resources to handle this responsibility efficiently or 

consistently. Some of you with experience in other countries will probably say that this indeed 

applies to almost everywhere in Africa, if not the rest of the world. It is somewhat comforting for 

us to see in the media how even European or American farmers react to stock losses from wolves 

or bears or lynx. These seem to be global problems. 

In our situation, with our progress in Community-based Natural Resource Management 

(CBNRM), our progress towards decentralization of governance at all levels, and also our cultural 

history concerning such matters, I believe that the time has come to reconsider aspects of the 

role of Central Government in decisions and their implementation concerning conflict situations. 

We need to consider if dealing with local conflict issues at the local level will not be more 

effective. We need to identify what needs to be done to empower local communities to deal with 

such conflict cases themselves. My perspective is that the current situation is frustrating for 

everyone, and inefficient and unsustainable. Decisions made at central level take too long and 

leave the regional staff of the Ministry with the almost impossible and mostly fruitless task of 

intervening in individual conflict cases, often too late to have a desirable result. 

Another important issue that I want to highlight is the absence of good information on these 

important issues. The information currently available on the incidence and impact of human 

wildlife conflict is not readily accessible to decision makers, and where available, data are not 

necessarily collected in a standardized format. This makes it difficult to obtain an overall picture 

of the true extent of the problem. In the past few years, progress has been made in capturing 

some of this data through the ‘event book system’ that we have in selected areas. However, 

much remains to be done if we are to ensure that we can fully assess and quantify the impact of 

conflicts on people’s livelihoods. In order to focus our efforts on mitigation measures in areas of 

high impact, it is imperative that we work towards a standardized monitoring, reporting and data 

management system that has applications at local, regional and national levels. This will be 

crucial to monitor and evaluate over time the impact of any policy direction and mitigation 

measures implemented, and to provide the basis for adaptive management in this regard. 

Lastly, I believe the time is right in Namibia to create a coherent policy on Human-Wildlife Conflict 

Management and reflect upon the integration implied in this term rather than the single 

14


dimensional approach followed thus far in so-called problem animal control. I hope this meeting 

will be the first step towards developing such a policy. 

This is also the time to innovate, and in this meeting we will discuss one of the most exciting new 

approaches that I have heard of for many years. I am referring to self-insurance. Another 

speaker will present this in greater detail, but for me the concept captures the essential elements 

of the way forward that we should pursue. To me it is a strong, and much more acceptable, 

alternative to a compensation system, which remains within the control of a community rather 

than Government. When Governments have managed compensation systems, as we have 

learnt within the SADC region, many distortions and administrative problems have occurred, and 

one by one these compensation systems were abandoned. 

Self-insurance, managed by a local community, has a strong connotation with self-reliance, which 

equally is a major part of development. We need to explore this concept fully, review the initial 

work and experience achieved in Namibia, and examine how we can expand this approach. We 

need to understand the costs of such a system and how it can be financed. We need to 

understand the need for protecting such small community-based schemes from major 

catastrophes that will cause such schemes to collapse. We need to find a way to achieve this 

and I believe that we already have a good idea of how this could be done. 

I hope that you will all feel the enormity of the challenge before us but also feel inspired to bring 

new thinking into the way that we will collectively deal with these issues in future. 

I wish to thank the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for their financial 

support for this workshop and related work. I also thank our colleagues who have organized this 

meeting within the broader SPAN and ICEMA projects, both GEF-funded projects, administered 

through the World Bank and the United Nations Development Programme respectively. 

Thank you for your attention. 

15


Current legal framework for HWC in Namibia, status 

report on current MET approach to HWCM and 

envisaged measures in the new Parks and 

Wildlife Management Bill 

Good morning ladies and gentleman, 

Director of Parks and Wildlife Management, Ben Beytell 

Conflict between humans and wildlife is not new – it is centuries old. Wherever people practice 

farming in areas where wildlife occur, conflict with wild animals is inevitable. The practice has 

always been to try and eliminate wildlife in order to allow humans to farm successfully. Allow me 

to quote something to you from Ezekiel: 

“I will make a covenant with them and rid the land of wild beasts so that they may live in 

the desert and skip in the forests in safety.” 

Yes, this quote is from the Bible, and the ‘they’ here are what we know as small stock or sheep 

and goats. In the Afrikaans translation of the Bible, ‘wild beasts’ are called roofdiere or predators. 

The drafters of Ordinance 4 of 1975 might have read the above and decided to apply it in the 

legislation. The whole of Namibia south of Windhoek was considered the small stock farming 

area. It was fenced in with what we know as jackal-proof fencing, and because of the threat they 

posted to the booming karakul industry, animals such as black-backed jackal and caracal were 

declared ‘problem animals’ and their control became compulsory. 

Later on, a cleaver scientist discovered that seven dassies eat as much as one sheep, and they 

were also declared problem animals. Then, some of the cattle farmers said: “What about the 

bleddie wild dogs that kill our cattle” And they were declared. And then some farmers said: “And 

the bleddie baboons, what about them Did you know that in times of drought, as we experience 

more often than not, baboons kill karakul lambs to eat the melk pensie.” And they were declared 

problem animals. 

Then, the small stock farmers complained that it became very difficult to maintain jackal-proof 

fences with ant bears and honey badgers being around (their nature being to dig under those 

fences, and the tendency of a honey badger to kill anything from a geelslang to several karakul 

sheep just for the hell of it) and albeit that these animals are protected species, you may kill them 

at any time and by any means whatsoever in the small stock areas. 

Soon the steenbok started to multiply in the absence of natural predators, and because they also 

deprived sheep of food, they were declared as huntable game on jackal-proofed fenced farms. 

Species like lion and the hyenas were classified as ‘wild animals’ and in accordance with the 

Ordinance (Section 40), the owner or lessee of land could kill or capture wild animals on such 

land for any purpose whatsoever. Lion and wild dog, at least, were declared protected game by 

Cabinet later, and now they have the some status in the Ordinance (Section 27). 

16


The owner or lessee of land or occupier of communal land may kill protected game on such land 

in defence of a human life or to prevent a human being from being injured or to protect the live of 

livestock, poultry or domestic animal of such owner, lessee or occupier, whilst the life is actually 

being threatened. 

What is not mentioned here is, for example, a sable antelope bull which a game farmer has 

purchased at N$90 000 and was killed by a lion from Etosha. Another misconception here is that 

the law allows the farm owner to kill a lion on his farm. If the Ministry wants to claim ownership of 

the lion, we must be prepared to pay the N$90 000 loss. 

But what if the owner/lessee/occupier cannot kill the lion Then the Minister should allow 

someone else to do the job under a permit. We can allow a neighbour to help, but the best option 

is a professional hunter who can trophy hunt it and pay the land owner/occupier a fee. 

We have ignored specially protected game, but exactly the same applies as with protected 

game, except when you hunt game to protect grazing, cultivated lands and gardens (Section 37). 

Here, the owner or lessee or any employee in permanent service of the owner/lessee may hunt 

any game, excluding elephant, hippos and rhinos, destroying crops or plants on such level during 

daytime and at night time, when it is larger than 100 hectares and game-proof fenced. 

The occupier of communal land may hunt any game, excluding the above-mentioned, if the land 

is fenced in with a fence approved by the director. In both cases – protected and specially 

protected – such killing must be reported in writing within 10 days to the nearest MET or Police 

office. 

The Minister may also issue a permit to the owner/lessee of a farm or any other land to hunt any 

species of game to protect grazing (Hartmann zebra, hartebeest). The option here is to issue a 

capture permit (subject to policy). Section 53 of the Ordinance provides for the declaration of 

problem animals: 

The Minister may declare any wild animal a problem animal throughout Namibia or within such 

part or parts of Namibia as he/she in his/her discretion determine. 

But it should be published in the Government Gazette every time. If the Minister must declare an 

elephant, it must be published in the Government Gazette to say it is a problem animal. Now if 

you think of the process, from the time we receive the complaint, our staff must do an inspection 

in the fields to determine if this animal really caused a problem, followed by correspondence up to 

the eventual declaration or signature of the Minister, then legally it must still be gazetted, it could 

take four to five months. 

Therefore we decided the Minister may approve any animal under the conditions he or she 

determines, and that is the system we follow if you want to declare a problem animal. But that is 

strictly speaking what is happening, we write to the Minister to say there is a problem, and we 

may, for example, have organised a professional hunter with a client who can hunt a lion or 

elephant causing problems in a community, then we inform that community or headman that they 

have a lion or elephant, this guy will contact you soon, and we advise that you should not sell it 

cheap because this is what the going price for a lion or elephant is. And in that we wash our 

hands and the professional hunter or concessionaire makes a deal with the community and the 

community gets their compensation from that professional hunter as paid by the client. But as the 

PS has said, the issue is confusing. I think this is about the seventh problem animal 

workshop/meeting I have attended, and we still haven’t come up with a solution. 

17


We must change the mindset of people. As I said here, even in biblical times the approach was to 

eliminate wildlife so that the people could farm. It is true that the approach has changed 

dramatically, especially with our people in communal areas who have established conservancies 

and see the benefit from it, but what about the communities who are not organised into 

conservancies and suffer tremendously from this conflict with wildlife It remains to be seen what 

happens in areas such as Tsumkwe where we have never experienced problems with wild dogs 

killing livestock. But at the Grootfontein boundary when a wild dog crosses that fence, it goes for 

cattle and will not go to eat wildlife. It’s not a question of the game being removed, I think they just 

like eating the sheep and goats and cattle – like us. 

However, the Minister may approve the hunting of any animal under the conditions he/ she 

determines, and that is the system we follow. 

This workshop is an important exercise – we must come up with something, we cannot carry on 

like this. I must mention briefly how we address this problem in the new Parks and Wildlife Bill. 

We are not really addressing it because we don’t have the solution. This workshop will lead to a 

policy that can later be written with regulations we can follow but we need to remove Chapter 4 in 

the Ordinance that deals with problem animals. 

When we discussed the bill, we had a public forum that included farmers from the south. We 

mentioned that there won’t be such a thing as a problem animal in future – on the contrary, all 

game will be protected, even black-backed jackal. In certain areas the Minister can issue permits 

to control certain animals. The Act makes provision for justified killing where: 

…any person may, without the authorisation, kill a wild animal or in relation to a wild 

animal take such measures or use such force as necessary and proportional in the 

circumstances in defence of a human life or prevent a human from being injured. 

It also says that: 

…no person other than a Nature Conservation official performing duties under the act or a 

MET staff member acting under instruction of a Nature Conservator, shall kill a wild animal 

to achieve a conservation objective, to prevent the destruction of crops, grazing or 

property without the prior written authority of the Minister. 

So we can do it and ask staff members to do it but any other person must have the written 

authority from the Minister. 

Here, we propose any person that kills a wild animal under this section must report the killing, the 

circumstances under which it occurred and details of the animal killed to a Conservator as soon 

as possible – within 10 days, or such other period as a Conservation Officer may deem 

reasonable under the circumstances. The Ordinance says it should be done in writing. So the 

communal farmer must put something in writing or get someone to write for them, and then must 

get transport to the nearest MET office to report it, otherwise they can be prosecuted. We are 

more lenient in the Act as far as that is concerned, but that is about all it says in the Act. 

It is our job now with this workshop and follow-up meetings to revisit and provide more input to 

come up with a policy and how we can deal with HWC and then have the policy and possibly 

regulations approved to be published under the new Act. 

18


Questions and Answers 

Sakkie Namugongo (MET) commented that as the ‘man in the firing line’ he strongly felt the 

workshop was important as it discussed life and death issues. He described recent problems 

experienced north and south of the Etosha National Park border. 

A participant from the MET asked about the liability of, for example, a lion killing a goat, and if the 

MET liable to pay Beytell replied that Ordinance 4 of 1975 states that the land owner may kill a 

lion if, for example, it was a threat to livestock. He said that several court cases had decided in 

favour of the land owner that the mere presence of a lion was a threat to workers and farmers. It 

was a transgression of the law for the MET to prevent the farmer from killing the lion. If a lion 

originated from Etosha, then MET was liable to pay. He commented that it was much easier for 

the farmer to deal with the problem as it was difficult to go onto the farm, capture the beast and 

return it to Etosha, as many lions simply returned to the farm concerned. 

19


1 

Revisiting the 2001 Workshop 

Leeverty Muyoba, MET 

Good morning ladies and gentlemen 

Building on a regional workshop held in Caprivi in July 2001, the Ministry of Environment and 

Tourism (MET) organised a national workshop as a first step to address the human/wildlife 

conflict, especially within the conservancies. It was attended by a wide range of stakeholders 

including MET, traditional authorities, conservancies and NGOs. 

The workshop was the first time that issues concerning human and wildlife conflict were 

discussed with representation from most of the communal area conservancies in Namibia. 

International experts from the region were also invited to give presentations on the value of 

wildlife for tourism and hunting and of the efforts that have been made to address the 

human/wildlife conflict. 

The workshop participants identified elephants as the most important human/wildlife conflict 

species. Other important species included lion, hyena, cheetah, jackal, hippo and crocodile. The 

main conflicts caused by elephants included damage to crops and infrastructure and threats to 

human life. The main conflicts caused by carnivores are loss of livestock. Through acknowledging 

the inappropriateness of the term, the workshop also produced a definition of ‘problem animal’. 

A number of policy and technical management options were identified as a means to address the 

human/wildlife conflict in conservancies. These included the need for a review of current MET 

policy and procedures for human/wildlife conflict management in conservancies, with the proviso 

that the appropriate checks and balances were put in place. A special insurance scheme was 

identified as potentially being able to service this need. The importance of trans-boundary 

management and land-use planning were acknowledged, as well as the need for farmers to 

provide better infrastructure and management for the protection of their livestock and crops. 

With regard to a plan of action to take this initiative forward, a working group was elected that 

included representation from the participating conservancies, the Tribal authorities, MET staff and 

the Namibian Community-based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Programme, nongovernmental 

organisations (IRDNC, NACSO, RISE and WWF-LIFE). After completion and 

dissemination of the workshop findings, the next step identified was to meet with MET Head 

Office staff. We can now look forward to a fruitful discussion of these important issues with the 

wide range of stakeholders we have gathered here today and tomorrow. 


Discussions followed concerning the slow progress since the last meeting. Input from both 

meetings would be used to draft the Regulations for the Parks and Wildlife Act, which will 

hopefully be passed later this year. Participants indicated that an action plan should be developed 

at the current workshop. 

20


2 

Economic impact analysis of human-wildlife 

conflicts in Caprivi 

Jonathan Barnes & Olimpio Nhuleipo, Economics Unit, MET 

Outline 

• General picture; 

• Past studies on values; 

• Synthesis of data; 

• Impacts on household livestock enterprises; 

• Impacts on household crop production; 

• Impacts on conservancies. 

Nature of HWC in Namibia 

• Crop damage - Caprivi, Kavango - elephant ungulates, locusts, etc; 

• Predation on livestock - all regions - lion, hyena, jackal, leopard, cheetah; 

• Damage to water points – Kunene – elephant. 

Past research on values of HWC damage in Caprivi 

Synthesis of values for HWC damage 

• Collate all available values per household; 

• Adjust data for discrepancies due to methodology - MET records, event books, etc; 

• Adjust for shadow price of maize (Sutton’s study); 

• Adjust for inflation to 2004 prices. 

Damage values/household/year (averages per worker and for all records) 

Study Period Crops/hh Stock/hh 

O’Connell 1991-95 146 437 

Mulonga 1996-01 50 152 

Suich 2002-03 535 - 

Evans 2003 589 - 

Sutton 1998 429 352 

Average 1991-03 269 274 

What is the impact on household enterprises 

• Measured using empirically-based household enterprise models which measure: 

o annual output and net income; 

o rates of return on investment - IRR, ROI; and 

o annual contribution to GDP. 

21


Impact of predators, Caprivi livestock enterprise (N$/year, 2004): Change from base case 

model resulting from different HWC cost levels (1 to 8 times average loss) 

Value Base Cost Cost X 4 Cost X 8 

Capital 58,300 58,300 58,300 58,300 

Output 20,900 20,900 20,900 20,900 

Net income 18,100 17,500 15,600 13,100 

NI loss 3.5% 13.9% 27.8% 

ROI 31.0% 29.9% 26.7% 22.4% 

Impact of predators, Ngamiland livestock enterprise (N$/year, 2004): Change from base 

case model resulting from different HWC cost levels (1 to 8 times average loss) 


Net income 5,200 4,900 4,100 3,000 

NI loss 5.3% 21.1% 42.3% 

Community 11,600 11,300 10,500 9,400 

FRR 11.5% 10.6% 9.3% 7.1% 

GDP 1,000 700 -100 -1,100 

GDP loss 300 

Impact of predators on 

household livestock returns 

(N$, 2004) Ngamiland livestock 

6000 

5000 

4000 

model 

3000 

2000 

Base 

Cost 

1000 

0 

NI GDP IRR (%) 

Impact of crop damage, Caprivi 

crops enterprise (N$/year, 2004): Change from base case model resulting from different 

HWC cost levels (1 to 8 times average loss) 

22



Capital 5,300 5,300 5,300 5,300 

Output 4,300 4,300 4,300 4,300 

Net income 2,200 1,600 900 -500 

NI loss 30.1% 43.0% 151.1% 

ROI 42.5% 29.7% 16.9% -8.7% 

Impact of crop damage, Floodplain crops enterprise (N$/year,2004): Change from base 

case model resulting from different HWC cost levels (1 to 8 times average loss) 


Output 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200 

Net income 900 700 100 -900 

NI loss 28.8% 86.4% 201.7% 

ROI 28.3% 20.2% 3.8% -28.8% 

GDP 500 400 100 -600 

GDP loss 200 

Impact of wildlife crop damage on household crop returns (N$, 2004): Caprivi floodplain 

model 

900 

800 

700 

600 

500 

400 

300 

200 

100 

0 

NI GDP ROI (%) 

Base 

Cost 

23


Aggregate costs of wildlife damage 

• Loss to the GDP from wildlife damage to crops in Caprivi is estimated at N$2.1 million/annum; 

• Loss to the GDP from wildlife predation on stock in Caprivi estimated at N$3.5 million/annum. 

Do CBNRM benefits compensate for costs of wildlife damage 

Cost-benefit analysis using Mayuni and Salambala conservancy models: 

• Base models include wildlife damage costs; 

• Additional costs applied to models; 

• Measure impacts on community income and returns on investment. 

Salambala Conservancy with costs of wildlife damage (N$/year, 2004): Change from base 

case model (cost) resulting from different HWC cost levels (2 to 4 times average loss) 

Value Cost Cost X 2 Cost X 4 

Net benefit 666,900 342,600 18,400 

NB loss 48.6% 94.6% 

FRR 40.4% 0.6% Negative 

GDP 823,100 534,900 246,700 

Mayuni Conservancy with costs of wildlife damage (N$/year, 2004): Change from base 

case model (cost) resulting from different HWC cost levels (2 to 8 times average loss) 

Value Cost Cost X 2 Cost X 4 Cost X 8 

Net benefit 

1,146,900 730,000 313,100 -520,700 

NB loss 36.4% 57.1% 266.3% 

FRR 219.6% 123.1% 37.7% Negative 

GDP 1,346,400 975,900 605,300 -135,800 

Impact of costs of wildlife damage to communities on community conservancy income 

(N$, 2004): Mayuni Conservancy model 

24


1400000 

1200000 

1000000 

800000 

600000 

400000 

200000 

Cost 

Cost x 2 

0 

NB GDP IRR (%) 

Conclusions 

• Crop damage and predation on stock by wildlife in Caprivi cost households some N$540 per 

annum, on average; 

• Aggregate loss of GDP per annum from wildlife damage is some N$5.6 million; 

• Households lose some 5% of their net livestock income, and some 29% of their net crop 

income due to wildlife damage on average; 

• In Caprivi benefits from CBNRM do compensate communities for the costs of wildlife damage; 

• Average impacts do not show how some households bear the brunt of damages and suffer 

devastating losses, while others don’t – data needed. 

Future work 

• Need to measure the costs and benefits of amelioration measures for HWC; 

• Need to measure the spatial variation in HWC costs and the true impacts on vulnerable 

households; 

• Need to test and evaluate wildlife damage insurance schemes. 

Thank you! 


The PS underlined that although a general figure of 5% losses cited by Barnes may seem low, 

unemployment, lack of cash and the impact of HIV/Aids compromised the social fabric and 

production abilities of farmers. The whole society was less productive, adding a burden to people 

already affected. This figure was an average and some households lost all of their crops. He was 

concerned that poor communities, who grow food for own consumption with a small surplus, were 

also affected by extra costs on crops and still needed to fund health care, school fees, travel and 

to purchase necessities. 

Fanuel Demas (MET) added that many days were lost due to the presence of a problem animal, 

as people could not cultivate if there was, for example, lion and elephant in the area. Barnes said 

this difficult to calculate due to the lack of data. 

Holly Dublin (IUCN) said that other impacts such as that of climate change and the human 

dimension not directly linked to economics needed to be taken into account. 

Namugongo (MET) asked about HWC and impacts on current and planned aquaculture projects. 

The PS replied that stakeholders needed to strengthen coordination with other Ministries such as 

25


Fisheries and Agriculture and gave the example of a citrus farm developed along a key migratory 

route along the Kwando River. 

Dixon Lusipane (Kwando Conservancy) asked if studies had been completed on commercial 

farming areas. Barnes replied that models were specific to enterprises and he had not done any 

work on impacts of predators on commercial models specific to Caprivi, for example on the flood 

plains. 

26


3 

HWC realities in the field 

3.1 Crop damage in Caprivi 

James Lizazi – Malengalenga Conservancy 

At the 2001 meeting, groups were given homework to compare the problem of HWC with the real 

situation on the ground. We Caprivians took up the problem of HWC and held consultations with 

stakeholders from throughout the region, including traditional authorities (TAs), conservancies, 

MET and all other stakeholders. 

We found that since conservancies have been established and are moving forward, people have 

knowledge about how to protect wildlife, but the numbers of problem animals have also 

increased. We asked ourselves questions such as: What problems were we were facing and with 

what species, was it with lions, elephants or hyenas 

Then we discussed animals’ movements through the Caprivi corridor to and from Botswana, 

Zambia and Zimbabwe. Elephants are moving from both sides in both directions, especially in 

times of drought and are destroying crops. 

We looked at how to solve the problem and at how to protect them. We then decided to approach 

the problem in another way. We thought that if farmers could be insured, they could receive some 

form of compensation when their property or crops were destroyed. We felt this would reduce the 

problem. 

Researchers say that compensation was given in some places such as Botswana and that was 

very meaningful. This needs to be revisited, because in Katima Mulilo, as a bread-basket, when 

we ploughed last year and there was no damage we knew we could supply other regions with 

food. Some workers are trying to go back to the land, farmers are increasing in numbers and so 

are animals. People are living on the land, and battle especially in drought years when rivers are 

down and elephant numbers increase. These animals tend to go for watermelons and pumpkins. 

We thought about how to handle this situation, as it was a big challenge. So we went to the TAs 

and the conservancies. People said they wanted to enjoy our natural resources other than 

through killing. No-one we spoke with wanted to kill animals, even through they are destructive. 

Communities came out with questions about the types of problems experienced and the 

frequency of problems. 

The main problem between farmers and the MET involves damage to crops. We came with more 

questions. After crops were destroyed, what happens to communities This is where poverty and 

the influence of poaching come in. We had questions to the MET Minister about how to protect 

our farms as elephants destroy crop fields on an almost weekly basis, and the MET takes a long 

time to react to problems. And this is where poaching comes in. Poachers are very clever. They 

know if they shoot an elephant in the head it will fall on their farm and that will involve statements, 

but if the animal is shot in the stomach it will fall about 2 km away. Let’s try by all means to use 

our money to insure peoples’ land. Let MAWF measure our fields, and then state the amount that 

can be paid out for damages. 

27


We also looked for some local solutions. We looked deeply into hunting concessions and found 

that professional hunters come to Caprivi during March and April - when the crops are already 

damaged. We need communication so the information reaches the Police and MET offices 

timeously to enable us to solve problems quickly, and MAWF can immediately be asked to 

assess damage to fields. We know the GRN has zoned some of the regions – for instance Katima 

Mulilo is controlled from Rundu and by the time the Rundu office receives information from Mamili 

or Mudumu national parks, more than 24 hours has passed. We would like to bring together 

Government and the community to establish a 24-hour information flow system, particularly 

during the crop-growing season when people are in the fields. 

We are not here to say we should kill all the elephants and lions – that is not our mission. Instead, 

we are asking how to handle the problem. Let’s conserve and protect our natural resources. We 

were asked at the last meeting to go to the local people, and they have accepted this challenge. 

We have the following requests from the Caprivi conservancies to MET: 

1. Game Products Trust Fund (GPTF): People want to know from us where the money from 

the GPTF goes. We should have access to money in the GPTF – when farms are insured, 

some of this money can be shared with farmers as a type of compensation. If we do this, 

maybe people will understand us when we ask them to protect our natural resources as 

they can also benefit from these resources. 

2. Institutional support: We have our community game guards who know the problems but 

don’t have the powers, transport, radios or other resources to help solve our problems. 

MET rangers from Mamili and Mudumu national parks have similar problems. So why 

can’t we try to strengthen the information flow, so that the MET head office knows within 

24 hours what has happened in Katima Mulilo and Rundu. 

These are some of the problems we will discuss in groups. Thank you. 

3.2 Livestock loss and counter measures at Torra Conservancy 

Vitalis Florry, Torra Conservancy 

Stock losses in the Torra Conservancy are our greatest challenge. Last year 96 incidents were 

recorded involving lion, leopard, cheetah and hyena. The Event Book System was in place and all 

community members reported incidents to our office at Bergsig. There are still lions in the 

conservancy. 

Last year lions occasionally killed livestock at night in kraals and a man was nearly killed by a 

leopard while searching for livestock. The conservancy members were very unhappy. 

Elephant damage occurred at waterpoints in the conservancy, but there was no damage to crops 

as these are not grown in our area.. 

We pay compensation to our members but they are not happy with the money as it is not enough. 

We try to convince members to kraal animals at night, but we are in a semi-desert area, there is 

not enough rain, areas are unfenced and people do not have total control over domestic stock as 

rainfall is patchy. Animals move from one farm to another and it is difficult to bring them back to 

28


areas where there has been no rain. This is the biggest challenge currently facing our 

conservancy. 

3.3 Human wildlife conflict: parks perspective from Etosha National 

Park 

Prepared by Michael Sibalatani, presented by Johnson Vejorerako (MET) 

Introduction 

• Most wildlife in park areas exists as island populations surrounded by people; 

• The growing human population results in encroachment upon land adjacent to park areas with 

the major relationship between human and wildlife being conflict; 

• The type of conflicts depend largely on economic activities of the people; 

• Agriculture is a major form of land use around most Park areas; 

• HWC involves casualties on both sides. 

Etosha National Park (ENP) 

• The entire boundary of ENP is fenced; 

• Fencing varies from cattle proof, high game proof, cable to electrified fence; 

• Two types of land tenure exists along the peripheral (over 800km boundary); 

• Communal farmers (western and northern boundary); 

• Private land owners (southern and eastern boundary) 

. 

Monitoring of HWC incidents 

• Two forums established -Southern Boundary Problem Animal Forum (formed in 1995) and the 

Northern Boundary Problem Animal Forum (formed in 2004); 

• Meetings are held quarterly; 

• Incidents are reported at each meeting; 

• Some incidents are reported as they take place; 

• Incidents recorded by DSS. 

Stock losses (reported) 

Stock 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Cattle 97 372 177 156 184 

Sheep 9 129 7 16 77 

Goats 12 261 42 95 190 

29


Donkey/Horse 2 27 5 5 22 

Various 

Game 

21 58 3 32 110 

Species destroyed (reported) 

Species 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 

Lion 37 23 10 24 46 

S/hyena 22 39 31 26 54 

Black/b-jackal - 54 58 8 88 

Leopard 1 4 4 1 3 

Cheetah 2 3 3 1 1 

Caracal - 8 - 3 5 

Investigation of incidents 

• Three Regional Offices overlapping along ENP – Etosha, Northwest and North Central 

regional offices; 

• ENP staff are the closest; 

• Each incident reported is investigated and verified; 

• Options weighed: 

o Relocation to park; 

o Destruction of individuals; 

o Trophy hunting of individuals; 

o DSS assistance required for relocation; 

o Destruction and trophy hunting requires Head Office approval. 

Incidents 

Verwag farm 

• Lioness and 4 cubs (about 6 months old); 

• One cow killed; 

• Lioness caught in cage and released in park; 

• Cubs caught and released in park (same place); 

• Lioness back at the farm after two days; 

• Lioness trophy-hunted; 

• Two cubs at the farm after three days from release; 

• One cub caught and released in predator enclosure (still in to date, one springbok shot 

each week); 

• One cub back to park on its own. 

Lion shot at Waterhole –Okaukuejo 

• Young male lion ended up in the camp in pursuit of a springbok; 

• Tourists taking photographs; 

• No veterinarian in the park; 

30


• Management faced with dilemma – either to leave the animal alone, or to destroy the 

animal; 

• Tourists not willing to leave the area for their safety; 

• Lion shot; 

• Tourists not happy; 

• Ends up in media. 

Rhino attack- Okaukuejo 

• Security injured by rhino – Okaukuejo; 

• No actions taken; 

• Victim reckless. 

Challenges faced by PA managers 

• Reducing conflicts between human and wildlife at the same time conserving wildlife; 

• Some people inflate losses in the hope of being compensated at the same level; 

• Lack of policies; 

• High costs/insufficient funds; 

• Lack of qualified staff (immobilization); 

• Delays in reporting of cases; 

• Delays in obtaining approvals. 

Lessons learnt 

• Destruction of problem animals (lions) is not always the solution; 

• Destruction creates vacuums that are rapidly filled by immigrants from other areas; 

• Big cats can eventually adapt to persecution and become more secretive and difficult to 

catch; 

• Relocation is also not successful all the time; 

• Dr Flip Stander classified stock-raiding lions from ENP as either occasional raiders or 

habitual raiders; and 

• Lions that are likely to become stock raiders are displaced sub-adult males; 

• Recommends that the long-term monitoring (recognition of individuals) is the key and the 

right course of action to be taken. 


Namugongo said HWC was highlighted in the media, and he had been interviewed several times 

on this matter on the OshiHerero and Oshiwambo radio stations, as well as on Open Line on 

National Radio. A mysterious animal was killing small stock in the North Central area, which also 

has lion problems. He explained that there was an Oshiwambo belief that lions only eat the cattle 

of the king. There were elephant problems around Ruacana, while a black mamba had killed eight 

livestock there. 

Chrispin Makata (MET) referred to the possibility of harnessing tourist fees to North East parks 

into the GPTF. He said hunters came to the area but were more interested in killing for trophy 

sizes instead of identified problem animals. 

Erwin Tjikuua (MET) wanted to know if it was possible to decentralise powers to regions. 

There was confusion over which MET regional offices should attend various meetings and 

forums. 

31


Beytell said that elephants were often wounded by farmers, and injured animals that returned to 

parks resulted in tourists registering complaints about wounded animals in the park. Wounded 

elephants were also dangerous. He said that of 16 people killed by wildlife, two were killed by 

elephants. Chasing animals out of fields was an expensive exercise. 

The PS responded that localised problems needed to be dealt with more effectively before 

broader regional harmony was achieved. Few people guard their livestock, kraals used were 

weak and lions could easily get into them. Fences cost a lot to erect and maintain and were 

marginally effective. 

Responding to a question about low compensation rates from Johannes Haasbroek (EHRA), 

Florry said that Torra was planning a strategy to place rocks around water points to prevent 

elephant damage. He agreed that compensation amounts were small, and a cow costing between 

N$2 000 to N$2 500 would be compensated with only about N$800. 

32


4 

A review of conflict between humans and large 

carnivores and an evaluation of management 

options 

Dr Flip Stander, Kunene Lion Project 

Distribution maps of predators 

Lion 

Cheetah 

Leopard 

Spotted hyena 

Brown Hyena 

Wild dog 

33


Of six large carnivore species, lions caused the most conflict with humans. Livestock is a major 

industry for communal and commercial farmers, but people on land have to carry the cost of living 

with animals. Until recently individuals had to cover costs of stock losses and had received little 

assistance in dealing with these problems. 

Lions 

There has been an increase in numbers, especially in the Kunene Region. The nature of the 

problems is more on the periphery, eg boundaries of Etosha and Khaudom parks, while leopard 

problems were worst in areas with the highest concentration of animals. Cheetahs caused the 

most problem on freehold land, spotted hyena were concentrated in protected areas, with 

problems occurring along park boundaries. Problems with wild dogs were highest in the north 

east along the periphery of green areas. 

Frequency of lions killed in four regions 

Region/ 

subpopulation 

Total 

number of 

lions killed 

Frequency Index 

(No. of lions/year/100 km2) 

0.5 

Caprivi 249 7 31 14 197 

Etosha 563 37 180 119 227 

Kaudom 42 10 24 8 0 

Kunene 41 20 21 0 0 

Total 895 74 256 141 424 

34


Problems with leopard and cheetah are dealt with in various ways, although there was little data 

available about the effectiveness of translocating animals. More information is needed on lion and 

human conflict. 

Data collected by H. Berry, I Berhens, P Stander, L Scheepers, K Venzke, O Fordge, J Kapner & 

B Kotting, collated over 20 years (1982- 2000) showed that 895 lions were killed. 

Yearly statistics 

Mean 29 

Std Dev 9.5 

Std Error 0.68 

Range 10-42 

35


36


Four sub-populations of lions existed. Separate sub-populations intermingled between Kunene 

and ENP, while sub populations in Khaudom and Caprivi had a similar link. Problems occurred on 

the periphery of these sub populations. Dr Stander had plotted the frequency and extent of 

incidents and found they were commonest up to 10 km around the ENP boundary, with high 

frequencies experienced in Caprivi. In these areas, about five lions were shot per year per 100 

km². This does not mean areas of lower incidents were less important but figures give an 

indication of the state of these problems. 

Around Etosha, a total of 563 lions have been killed, or an average of 29 each year, ranging 

between 10 and 42 shot in various years. More males are killed than females but there is not 

alarming difference. There are slightly more sub-adults shot and most animals were killed on 

commercial farms south of ENP. 

There is sufficient data in the system to develop a proactive management system to deal with 

conflicts. 

Management options include: 

8 Translocation 

Fifty-four lions were translocated an average of 55 km, ranging from one kilometre to 

about 300 km. Forty percent of translocations were unsuccessful as lions walked back to 

the area of conflict. Lions are classified as either occasional raiders or problem animals. In 

management we need an understanding of this and should manage animals appropriately. 

An occasional raider has a home range, while a problem animal will focus on killing 

livestock and will adapt its range if removed. An occasional lion will return, but if taken to 

the opposite side of its area, it returns to the area it inhabits. 

8 Conflict management strategies 

Western ENP has a long history of conflict and good data is available. 

37


The first action is to have a livestock management plan with preventative measures to 

avoid conflict from GRN and the conservancy side. When there is conflict, trophy-hunting 

takes place, supplemented by research and monitoring, adaptive measures and 

involvement of the local communities. Setting out management strategies is a positive 

move to addressing and perhaps solving conflicts. 

Questions and answers 

Chris Thouless (NTDP – MET) pointed out that data did not indicate the extent of the problems 

each lion mapped caused. Dr Stander agreed that the data relating to problems on the northern 

and southern boundaries was biased. Namugongo wanted to know if there were any lions left; Dr 

Stander replied that the population in Kunene, for example, was growing at 17 percent a year. 

Lions were fast breeders, with a gestation period of between two and three months and animals 

reached adulthood at a young age. 

The PS said that although Dr Stander had mentioned trophy-hunting in the Ehirovipuka 

Conservancy had solved problems and had generated funds to offset costs, the problems 

continued. Dr Stander agreed that lions return or soon fill gaps left by hunted animals. This was a 

mitigation measure rather than solving the problem. He said that the more effective people were 

at solving problems, the more problems were created. He said that if they continued to grow at 

the current rate, then 30 lions would die every year along the ENP border. “We are looking at 

more effective sustainable use, so that we can turn the problem into a use.” 

Haasbroek observed that the focus was more on large adult males, although there were more 

problems with sub-adults. Dr Stander said that hunters wanted large adult males as trophies, and 

although sub-adults did not fetch the same prices, the money from hunting them was useful. 

Responding to a question from George Masilo (MET) regarding wild dogs, Dr Stander outlined 

work done by a researcher employed by the NNF in the Omaheke and Otjozondjupa regions. A 

discussion ensued concerning the merits and demerits of poisoning wild dogs. 

Lizazi asked what could be done if a lion returned to an area. He said farmers were facing 

problems and sometimes poisoned animals. He suggested that this should be addressed and that 

people should be prevented from taking this measure. 

38


Greg-Stuart Hill (WWF-LIFE) suggested trophy hunting should be considered in ENP to create 

vacuums and to stop migration out of the park. Dr Stander felt that this would require a high level 

of management and understanding. 

39


6 

Human Animal Conservancy Compensation 

Scheme (HACCS) and Human Animal 

Conservancy Self-Insurance Scheme (HACSIS) 

Garth Owen-Smith, IRDNC 

Why do conservancies need HACCS 

• Improved conservation has led to increased wildlife; 

• Therefore increased human-wildlife conflict; 

• Need to balance individual losses vs. collective benefits. 

Unless addressed, local farmers’ support for conservation at risk. 

Why have other compensation schemes failed 

Ownership of scheme has not been devolved to users and beneficiaries: 

• costs have been prohibitive; 

• difficult to verify claims; 

• bureaucracy hinders process. 

Why HACCS can work 

Conservancies: 

• have their own funds; 

• are recognised social units with defined membership; 

• have local knowledge to make conditions that work for them; 

• have capacity to verify and process claims; 

• can be held accountable by members if scheme is mismanaged. 

What HACCS is NOT 

• Not ‘the solution’ to all human-wildlife conflict; 

• Cannot cover the full cost of losses; 

• Cannot address all losses to all wildlife - only those killed by high value species. 

Objectives of HACCS pilot 

• Develop and test practical locally-based verifications and processes; 

• Promote better stock management; 

• Get more accurate data on number of incidents and their costs; 

• Explore mechanisms for funding. 

Pilot participants 

Four conservancies funded by donor: 

8 Ehirovipuka and Omatendeka in Kunene; 

8 Mayuni and Kwandu in Caprivi; 

8 Torra – self funded. 

Selection Criteria 

• Track record in good monitoring; 

• High occurrence of wildlife conflict. 

40


Partners’ roles 

Institution 

Conservancies 

Traditional Authorities 

IRDNC 

MET 

Role 

Verified and processed claims 

Monitored conservancies 

• Sourced funding 

• Provided technical and logistical support 

Monitored the scheme 

Implementing HACCS 

Meet with selected conservancies to: 

• get buy-in of conservancies & TAs; 

• agree on what problems should be covered and for how much; 

• agree which wildlife be included; 

• agree on rules, conditions of claims; 

• MOUs signed. 

Components covered: 

• Partial stock cover 

Cattle N$ 800-00 

Horse N$ 500-00 

Pig N$ 250-00 

Donkey N$ 200-00 

Goat N$ 150-00 

Sheep N$ 120-00 

• Life insurance too expensive so funeral costs covered: 

Funeral benefits N$ 5 000-00 

• Caprivi wanted crops covered - agreed that IRDNC would work with committees to 

develop scheme. 

HACCS Conditions 

Only certain species: lion, leopard, cheetah, hyena, buffalo, crocodile, hippo, elephant, rhino. 

Claimant: 

• Registered conservancy member; 

• Must not have broken the agreed rules; 

• Appropriate attempts to protect livestock conflict; 

• Claim within 3 days. 

Conservancy required to: 

• Inform members about scheme; 

• Develop wildlife conflict mitigation plan; 

• Maintain financial and incident records. 

Some key points 

41


• Conservancy takes ownership: all management and administration; 

• Claim rules promote better farming and improve PAC management; 

• Conservancy keeps PAC records. 

HACCS process 

8 Report incident to CGG within 3 days; 

8 Investigate immediately; fill in form; 

8 Conservancy Committee and TA verify claim – visit scene if necessary; 

8 Review panel meets quarterly to approve claims (CC, TA, MET, NGO); 

8 Conservancy pays out claimant; 

8 Death – immediate funeral payout, but claim still to be reviewed by panel. 

Pilot year payments 

Conservancy 

Amount 

paid 

Number of 

Claims 

Ehirovipuka N$43 490 55 claims 

Omatendeka N$23 300 17 claims 

Kwandu N$20 200 35 claims 

Mayuni N$14 400 16 claims 

Torra N$ 6 150 17 claims 

Livestock losses 

Livestock type Kunene Caprivi 

Cattle 70 37 

Goats 90 - 

Sheep 2 - 

Horses 2 - 

Donkeys 1 - 

Problem causing animals: 

Animal Kunene Caprivi 

Lion 13 17 

Cheetah 58 - 

Crocodile - 17 

Hyena 62 - 

Leopard 14 - 

Elephant - * I Kwando 

youth killed 

by elephant 

Problems in pilot 

• Not enough technical and logistic support provided for verification and process of claims; 

• Review panel did not always work as well as needed; 

• Documentation weak; forms incorrectly filled in, others missing; 

• IRDNC did not have capacity to facilitate HWC mitigation plans. 

Some views from Kunene members 

• Insufficient information – in spite of pamphlets to all households; 

42


• Conservancy FO performance; 

• Not ‘compensated’ for ‘real’ value of livestock; 

• Torra plan: Breeding station to replace lost livestock; 

• Get trophy hunters more involved; 

• Need reaction unit trained to deal with PAC swiftly. 

Lessons learnt 

• More information on scheme to members; 

• More training on processing claims to conservancy staff; 

• Reporting of claims within 3 days too long; 

• If committee changes then immediate HACCS review with new committee; 

• Conservancy should identify small task team - not leave it to different groups or individuals; 

• ‘Champions’ required in both support agencies and conservancies to make it work. 

HACCS achievements 

• Conservancies took responsibility; 

• TAs provided overview; 

• Generally positive response from communities; 

• Total claims affordable; 

• Enough to motivate a second year of piloting. 

Ways forward 

• Expand to more conservancies; 

• Review conditions and MOU with conservancies; 

• Conservancies contribute 50% from own income; 

• Reporting period: 2 days in Kunene; 1 in Caprivi; 

• Ensure a ‘champion’ provides focus support, training and information; 

• Develop Caprivi crop compensation scheme; 

• Facilitate HWC mitigation plans with conservancies; 

• Explore ‘self-insurance’ fund; 

• Maintain detailed documentation of all results; 

• MET’s involvement to be strengthened. 


Mildred Kambinda (MAWF Caprivi) asked about the role of the village development committees 

(VDCs) and constituency development committees (CDCs). She felt that crop compensation in 

Caprivi was crucial, and wanted to find out about lessons learnt beyond conservancy boundaries. 

Richard Diggle (IRDNC) replied that it was the responsibility of conservancies to involve other 

players such as VDCs and CDCs. IRDNC’s mandate was to work with conservancies and could 

not look beyond them but the NGO was trying to put in an approach to deal with individual losses. 

The PS stated there was a need to differentiate between compensation and insurance. 

Compensation was against GRN policy, but it fully endorsed insurance schemes. He thanked 

IRDNC for developing the pilot scheme. 

43


Namugongo wanted to know why the payout for a donkey was less than a horse, and Bennie 

Roman (IRDNC) responded that conservancies had decided on the values themselves, based on 

market values. 

Bonnie Simataa (MET) asked why IRDNC did not also focus on the non-members of the 

conservancy. Diggle explained that people had the option of joining the conservancy and taking 

part in management decisions. 

44


7 

Designing Strategies to mitigate Human-Elephant 

Conflict: Lessons and best practices in the 

region 

Holly Dublin (IUCN/HECTF) 

Human-Elephant Conflict Working Group 

African Elephant Specialist Group 

What is human-elephant conflict (HEC) 

“Any human-elephant interaction which results in negative effects on human social, 

economic or cultural life, on elephant conservation or on the environment” 

Why is it so prevalent in Africa 

And 20 years later… growing conflict at the beginning of the new millennium 

Doubtful 

Possible 

Known 

And what can we expect in the Year 2040 

45


The African Elephant Specialist Group’s work on Mitigating HEC 

The African Elephant Specialist Group (AfESG): 

• is the largest of the six World Conservation Union (IUCN) Commissions (>7,300+ members); 

• is one of >120 taxonomic specialist groups; 

• has 48 members in 25 countries; 

• has five full-time staff and 1 volunteer Chair; and 

• many friends and supporters. 

Increasing our Understanding of the Local Characteristics and Dynamics of 

Conflict 

• Assessing damage in a standardised manner (using locally recruited enumerators); 

• Using GIS technologies to elucidate the spatial components; 

• Identifying key factors at the site level; 

• Designing and testing appropriate mitigation methods. 

Causes and effects of HEC 

• The causes and effects of HEC are both direct and indirect and can occur at various different 

levels: international/global, national and local. 

Causes 

8 The “footprint” of globalisation; 

8 Consumer demand from the North; 

8 Large-scale economic development in Africa; 

8 Habitats – loss, fragmentation and conversion; 

8 Growing human and elephant populations; 

8 Increased levels of poverty; 

8 Elephants killing people and vice versa. 

Direct effects of HEC 

8 Death and injury of people, livestock and elephants; 

8 Damage to crops, property, plantations and water installations; 

8 Damage to elephant habitat. 

Indirect effects of HEC 

8 Increased politicization of HEC; 

8 Increased management costs to wildlife authorities; 

8 Increased costs to communities: 

• Absence from work and school; 

• Reduced productivity of labour force; 

46


• Compounding effects of HIV/AIDS; 

• Compounding impacts of climate change; 

• Increased levels of poverty and food insecurity; 

• Increased reluctance by affected communities to conserve elephants and other 

wildlife. 

‘Our study of HEC is not currently a science and is certainly not rocket science. It is “work-inprogress”. 

We are trying to gain lessons from experience but there is still much to be done to improve 

our understanding.’ 

Mitigation techniques 

1. Traditional deterrent methods 

2. Disturbance methods 

3. Killing problem elephants 

4. Translocation 

5. Physical barriers 

6. Experimental repellents and alarm calls 

7. Compensation and insurance 

8. Wildlife utilization programmes 

9. Policy and land-use planning 

10. Building on positive relationships between people and elephants 

11. Conflict resolution committees. 

1. Traditional deterrent methods 

8 Fire 

8 Watchmen 

8 Noise-making 

8 Missiles thrown at elephants 

8 Cleared areas around fields 

8 Sharp objects on elephant pathways 

8 Low cost barriers 

8 Poison decoy foods 

8 Pit traps 

Lessons learned 

8 Relatively cheap, can be applied by the local communities themselves, and usually not 

fatal to the elephants; 

8 However, elephants habituate quickly to any given method and learn to ignore or avoid it. 

2. Disturbance methods 

8 Weapons fired near raiding elephants 

8 Killing of selected animals 

8 Thunder flashes 

8 Flares 

8 Trip wire alarms 

8 Elephant “drives” 


8 As with traditional methods, habituation is a problem; 

47


8 Can be dangerous due to the proximity of elephants; 

8 Must be applied by trained personnel. 

3. Killing problem elephants 

8 Killing of individual problem animals by management authorities; 

8 Commercial trophy hunts targeting problem animals; 

8 Depopulation of elephants (culling or eliminating the entire elephant sub-population). 


8 A relatively cheap and quick control method but skill dependent; 

8 Can provide value (meat, skins, ivory) to local populations; 

8 May be difficult to identify culprit animals with certainty or predict their movements – but 

SMS technology may hold promise; 

8 Long-term effectiveness questioned (‘problem component’ theory); 

8 Often involves sensitive political decisions at national level; 

8 Influenced by external pressure at national and international levels. 

4. Translocation 

8 Removing individual problem elephants; 

8 Removing the entire sub-population. 


8 May not work if only individual elephants are moved (problem component theory and 

difficulties with identifying culprits); 

8 Expensive, dangerous and complicated – needs expert staff and specialized equipment; 

8 Potentially highly disruptive to elephant social dynamics; 

8 Has to be carefully planned in national context as it can transfer problem elsewhere. 

5. Physical Barriers 

8 Cables and ad hoc fencing 

8 Conventional fencing 

8 Electric fencing 

8 Stone walls 

8 Moats 

8 Buffer crops 


8 Ropes smeared with Chilli/tobacco and grease have shown promising results in a number 

of sites (Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania) but long-term effectiveness not yet demonstrated; 

8 Maintenance by affected communities is the key to effectiveness; 

8 Lack of local community support can exacerbate HEC (fencing often used as snares); 

8 Can be resource and/or labour intensive; 

8 Often fail because of poor design, layout or maintenance. 

6. Experimental Repellents and Alarm Calls 

8 Olfactory repellents: 

• Capsicum; 

• Smoke from burning chilli seeds; 

• Rubber; 

• Dung; 

48


8 Broadcasting elephant alarm calls. 


8 Difficulties with finding practical delivery mechanisms for chilli sprays and smoke; 

8 Broadcasting elephant alarm calls requires expensive technology and may lead to 

habituation. 

7. Compensation and Insurance 

8 Monetary - payments linked to elephant damage; 

8 Non-monetary (e.g. food relief linked to elephant damage); 

8 Insurance schemes with contributions and claims. 


8 Village-based, self-insurance schemes can have potential if damage levels are fairly low 

and damage is randomly distributed; 

8 Monetary self-insurance may be an option in wealthy private landholdings; 

8 National-level monetary compensation is costly and generally open to abuse and 

mismanagement; 

8 Food relief is often not sustainable and is reliant on government and/or external support. 

8. Wildlife utilisation: returning benefits to local people 

8 Non-consumptive use of elephants: 

0 International tourism; 

0 Sale of live elephants; 

0 Domestic tourism. 

8 Consumptive use of elephants: 

0 Trophy hunting safaris; 

0 Sale of elephant products (ivory, meat and hides). 

8 Management of problem animals: 

0 Meat from elephants shot on problem animal control. 


8 Can help increase tolerance of problem elephants in the long-term; 

8 Can encourage positive changes in land use. 

However: 

8 Requires complex, long-term partnerships between wildlife authorities, local authorities, 

the private sector and local citizens; 

8 Benefits accrued must go to those directly affected – often difficult to achieve; 

8 Requires clear user/tenure rights and policies formulated at national level; 

8 May be restricted by international pressure or agreements (e.g. CITES). 

9. Policy and Land-use planning 

8 Policy reform at all levels; 

8 Modification of human settlement patterns and activities; 

8 Modification of cropping regimes; 

8 Modification of existing protected areas and creation of new protected areas; 

49


8 Modification of land use to create or secure elephant movement routes. 


8 Can be encouraged, implemented, monitored and evaluated entirely at the local level 

through dialogue and consultation; 

8 But only possible in a policy environment with some legitimate, enabled form of local 

participation in wildlife management. 

10. Building on positive relationships between people and elephants 

8 Coexistence of people and elephants in pastoralist societies; 

8 Beliefs that elephants are humans and associated taboos concerning the killing of 

elephants; 

8 Elephants considered as symbols of good luck in some societies (e.g. in Mali); 

8 Direction of elephant movements a portent of particular events. 


8 We still know surprisingly little about the human dimension of HEC – local attitudes and 

perceptions are central to the issue; 

8 Working within local belief systems leads to increased tolerance towards elephants, 

thereby reducing HEC; 

8 May only be site or society-specific solutions. 

11. Conflict Resolution Committees - sharing responsibility for managing HEC 

8 Local committees comprised of affected communities, relevant CBOs, NGOs, wildlife 

authorities and private sector, etc. who share responsibility for dealing with HEC; 

8 Used successfully in Ghana, Guinea and Kenya. 


8 Devolving responsibility to different local stakeholders helps to combat HEC more 

effectively; 

8 More sustainable in the long-term than relying on local wildlife authority to “take care of 

the problem”. 

Common fallacies 

8 “One size fits all”; 

8 The intensity of HEC is directly proportional to the size of the elephant population; 

8 Elephants can be easily “trained” to be deterred from crop raiding; 

8 The rogue elephant theory; 

8 HEC is the government’s problem and can be dealt with effectively by PAC measures 

alone; 

8 Elephants are the most serious pest species. 

So, what can we conclude 

8 Coexistence of people and elephants in pastoralist societies; 

8 Beliefs that elephants are humans and associated taboos concerning the killing of 

elephants; 

8 Elephants considered as symbols of good luck in some societies (e.g. in Mali); 

8 Direction of elephant movements a portent of particular events. 

AfESG’s HEC tools and products: 

8 Numerous technical briefs and case studies available in French, English and 

Portuguese on AfESG website: www.iucn.org/afesg 

8 African Elephant Library has a sub-set 50 of 4,700 abstracted references: 

www.elephant.chebucto.ns.ca


8 

Development of a standardised monitoring and 

information management system 

Leo Niskanen (IUCN/HECTF) 

Why collect data on HEC 

• To find out the nature of the conflict; 

• To find out where conflict occurs; 

• To find out when conflict occurs; 

• To find out its intensity; 

• To find out who is being affected; 

• To find out why conflict occurs; 

• To help design effective mitigation strategies; 

• To establish a baseline against which the effectiveness of these mitigation strategies can be 

measured. 

Background to the development of a standardized HEC data collection system 

• Past studies on HEC have been independently set up, conducted by different methods and 

the results presented in various ways; 

• A standardized system is required to allow valid comparisons to be made about levels of HEC 

and to help understand the driving forces behind HEC; 

• This is the first step in the development of effective mitigation strategies. 

The principles of assessing crop damage 

Assessing economic effects of crop damage - the largest category of elephant incidents - is 

problematic because: 

• Crop yields are site-specific; 

• Crop values and prices vary within and between countries; 

• Data collection of damage often relies on assessments by different enumerators; 

• Different sampling strategies are used. 

METHOD 1: number of “damage events” reported to an authority 

Advantages: 

• Gives a general idea of level of conflict and allows general comparisons of conflict 

intensity between sites; 

• Low cost; 

• Involves minimum effort. 

Disadvantages: 

• Little distinction between ‘visits’ and ‘raids’; 

• Can be very misleading. 

METHOD 2: actual losses to crops due to elephants (measured and quantified by an 

enumerator) 

51


Advantages: 

• Ideal method for assessing the real damage caused by elephants. 


• Logistically difficult over the large areas affected by elephants; 

• Bias. 

METHOD 3: perceived losses due to elephants (derived from interviews with farmers) 

Advantages: 

• Good for investigations where it is particularly important to assess either: (1) a range of 

pest species, or (2) attitudes of affected people. 


• Less accurate; 

• Tendency to exaggerate losses; 

• Tendency to overestimate losses caused by large, high-profile species vs. vermin. 

The AfESG’s Data Collection and Analysis Protocol 

• The AfESG’s data protocol uses a combination of Methods 1, 2 & 3 (above); 

• First version produced in 1996, currently being tested across Africa; 

• The protocol is structured around a hierarchy of data collection and analysis: 

1. Primary data collection; 

2. Secondary data collection and analysis; 

3. Tertiary data collection and analysis. 

1. Primary data collection 

• Requires trained local enumerators; 

• To qualify as an enumerator, the candidate must possess at least the following minimum 

requirements: 

8 Diplomacy, patience and communication skills; 

8 Trusted within the affected community; 

8 Physical fitness; 

8 Literacy and numeracy; and 

8 Honesty. 

Minimum resources required to establish an enumerator scheme: 

8 Sufficient resources to pay for the enumerators and their training; 

8 A dedicated researcher who has the time to supervise the enumerators and analyze 

data generated; 

8 Funds to cover costs of regular field visits by researcher/supervisor; 

8 GPS units to record HEC incidents; and 

8 If the area is large - bicycles, motorcycles, or another form of transport must be 

provided to enumerators and the supervisor. 

The process: 

52


1. The data collection scheme is discussed and explained to the affected 

community; 

2. The enumerators are selected from the affected community; 

3. Enumerators trained using a standard training package; 

4. The incident is reported to the enumerator; 

5. Enumerator visits site and interviews affected persons; 

6. Enumerator makes assessment of damage using a standard “Elephant 

Damage Form”. 

2. Secondary data collection and analysis 

1. Seriousness of each crop damage incident is further quantified by the researcher, using a 

very simple secondary data analysis; 

2. Variation in the severity of elephant crop-raiding is judged by ranking affected 

villages/farms; 

3. Annual summaries. 

These data can then be used for local management decisions. 

3. Tertiary data and analysis 

• Involves input of additional “site characteristics” data by the researcher; 

• Incident data can be linked to environmental variables in the conflict area; 

• Spatial analysis using GIS. 

Enables a deeper understanding of the dynamics and allows more meaningful management 

recommendations to be made. 

The AfESG’s Data Collection and Analysis Protocol 

Advantages: 

• Simple to use and relatively inexpensive to set up and run; 

• Data entry and reporting can be done manually; 

• Can be easily adapted to local circumstances; 

• Yields good information about distribution of HEC; 

• Allows adequate assessment of intensity; 

• Involves local people, provides employment and ‘ownership’; and 

• Does not rely on the complainants or on over-stretched national wildlife authorities. 

Lessons learned from the practical application of the Data Collection 

and Analysis Protocol 

General: 

• Has been successfully used to cover very large areas; 

• No data collected is ever wasted; 

• Can generate other useful ancillary data; 

• Can serve first step in devolving responsibility for management to the local level. 

But: 

53


• The local communities must be sensitized to the purpose and importance of data 

collection. Their buy-in an collaboration is key; 

• To maximise acceptance of the scheme among local communities, each enumerator 

should be assigned to collect HEC data only from the ward of his/her origin; 

• Success is largely dependent on individuals; 

• Supervision and encouragement of the enumerators by the researcher is a ‘must’; 

• Adequate funding and human resources lacking in many sites; 

• Ensuring continuity during periods of low conflict activity; 

• It is generally difficult to maintain data collection activities beyond a season or two without 

initiating some form of mitigation activity. 

Practical lessons learned from data collection: 

• To quantify the proportion of farms affected by elephants, all farms at risk should be 

mapped; 

• GPS is a better alternative to paper maps; 

• Important to note characteristics of farms not raided; 

• Determining size, sex and age classes of crop-raiders is difficult. 

From monitoring to mitigation: the Next Steps 

The Decision Support System 

• Expert system; 

• Not a blue-print; 

• Synthesis of lessons learned; 

• A “living document”. 

Conclusion 

• A simple data collection system using trained local enumerators under the supervision of 

committed and dedicated supervisors can provide extremely useful information about the 

distribution and intensity of conflict at a relatively low cost; 

• Adequate resources to ensure continuity of data collection, regular feedback to affected 

communities combined with timely implementation of locally-adapted and locally-developed 

mitigation strategies are necessary to ensure the continuity and long term success of such 

schemes. 

The AfESG’s Human Elephant Conflict Data Protocol, Training Package and Decision 

Support System are available on: http://iucn.org/afesg/hec 


Picking up on the point of devolution, Brian Jones (consultant) felt that it was necessary to work 

where people had already undertaken development initiatives. Conservancies for instance 

provided feedback to their communities using data for management decisions which was an 

incentive for them to manage data. 

Niskanen said that in some places there is no history of local involvement in NRM. He added that 

areas and conditions varied considerably and the reality in Africa was that most places did not 

have their own management systems. 

54


Stuart-Hill explained that in Namibia, there was an advanced HWC monitoring system that had 

been devolved even further down to the local level, although there were some shortcomings. One 

of the biggest challenges was communication. Demas felt the questionnaire was complex, and 

asked if it could be simplified for communities. Niskanen said it was basically a recommended 

standard format that could be adapted to local conditions. 

9 

Current HWCM policies and key ingredients for 

future policy 

Dr Brian Child, University of Florida, USA 

He concluded by saying that Namibia is at the cutting edge of CBNRM, which is an uncomfortable 

position to be in because: ‘You are the guardians of the principles that have evolved over about 

20 years which also gives you responsibility to make things work. CBNRM is getting such a bad 

name in academic literature and this is about the only country in which it is working. If you fail that 

will be the end of it.’ 


The PS stated that although finding solutions to problems was being done by various players, part 

of the success of CBNRM in Namibia was due to the framework set out by Government. Jones 

supported this and said that the approach by government was to continue monitoring and 

providing support for proposed devolution activities. 

55


10 

Planned Surveys of HWC situations 

Meed Mbidzo, MET 

Funding 

• Strengthening the Protected Area Network (SPAN); 

• Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management (ICEMA); 

• Consultancy; 

Situation analysis of HWC in Namibia; 

• Detailed survey on the state of HWC in Ehirovipuka and Omatendeka conservancies; 

• Preliminary survey of HWC on the northern border of Etosha National Park. 

Country overview 

• To review the HWC situation in Namibia; 

• Conflict hotspots; 

• Species causing conflict; 

• Types and extent of damage caused; 

• Seasonality (trends) of conflict; 

• Development of effective mitigation approaches and measures; 

• Development of a basic data management system. 

Surveys in Ehirovipuka & Omatendeka Conservancies 

• To assess the significance and nature of HWC in the area; 

• To provide the platform for piloting a self-insurance compensation scheme; 

• Distribution, frequency & severity of HWC; 

• Conflict patterns for each identified species; 

• Site characteristics; 

• Settlement patterns; 

• Population densities (human, wildlife, livestock). 

Etosha northern boundary 

• To assess the status of conflict wildlife species in the bordering protected area; 

• Borders of the conflict area; 

• Characteristics & demography of HWC (human, social & economic status); 

• GIS mapping data of human demography & land-use practices. 

56


B. Working Group Sessions 

and 

Action Plans 

57


Working Group Session 1 

1. Decentralisation/ devolution of wildlife management and regulatory 

framework (Facilitators: Ben Beytell and Brian Jones) 

Problem area 

Direct threats to 

human life: 

Too much red tape; 

Make as easy, quick and 

local as possible; 

Need a flexible approach 

No uniform institution 

across country (some 

areas have 

conservancies, others 

not). 

Appropriate institutional 

arrangements 

• Needs a quick decision: 

• Devolution to MET regional 

offices, consulting with lowest 

appropriate institutional level, eg 

conservancy. Where there are no 

conservancies, have to look at the 

appropriate institution eg Regional 

Council, CDCs. 

Potential threats to life • Devolve to lowest appropriate 

institution eg MET regional office, 

conservancies etc; 

• Involve other institutions eg Regional 

Councils; 

• Need a decision-making framework 

with no delays, local decisions taken; 

• The group debated the merits and demerits 

of whether we should allow 

people to make mistakes; 

• Debate over level MET needs to be 

involved. 

Capacities required 

on the ground 

• MET required to do 

investigations; 

• Capacity built in 

conservancies, institutions 

such as Regional 

Councils, NAMPOL; 

• Whatever we are 

proposing needs to have 

capacity-building, and 

monitoring for decisionmaking 

and good 

information campaign. 

Damage to crops, 

livestock and property 

Elephants: 

Destruction 

Chasing 

Mitigation 

• Devolve to lowest appropriate 


conservancies; 

• Declaration of a problem animal – 

speed up process and who decides. 

• Devolve to lowest appropriate 


conservancies; 

• Elephants are given on quota system, 

but need to decide when to use the 

quota; 

• Conservancy has the right to decide 

which elephants are to be shot and 

when. 

During a short discussion, the PS underlined the need for devolution to the lowest levels. 

58


2. Key Issues for Developing Self-Insurance Scheme Policy 

(Facilitator: Dr M Lindeque and Fanuel Demas) 

Key Issues 

Objectives of the 

scheme 

Guiding principles 

Key Concerns for 

policy 

List of approaches 

• Balance individual losses with collective gain; 

• Increase threshold of tolerance to wildlife; 

• Motivate better management—create an incentive 

• Policy can provide guidance, but rules must be decided by 

specific communities, for example: 

• Time period by which one must submit a claim 

• What will be covered 

• Focus on legal entities that have the capacity to pay out and earn 

an income from wildlife, i.e. conservancies 

• Based upon a well-researched understanding of the financial level 

of loss. 

• What should be covered and where is the benchmark 

• How do we assess benchmark 

• What are the principles 

Affordability; 

De-linking from market value. 

• Who should be covered 

• Members 

• All residents 

• Neighbours 

• Financial mechanisms 

• Management; 

• Level of financing; 

• Source of funding; 

• Capital and process vs. recurrent costs, reinsurance. 

• Who are the culprits 

• What wildlife species 

Elephants, lions, etc 

• What value do those animals have for the revenue creation, 

biodiversity, etc 

How will this impact upon who the culprits are 

• Legal issues 

• How will payment be made out 

• Must be clear about not distorting the process as a result of 

external funding. 

Discussion 

Diggle added that the group had also discussed the situation of a conservancy as a legal body making a 

payment – are they taking ownership over the animals The PS raised the issue of whether payments 

should be made in cash or in kind, and the group felt that for livestock, cash payments should be made, 

while for crops, there was more potential for replacing lost cereals or produce. Jo summarised discussions 

by saying that essentially people have accepted responsibility and have organised themselves at 

institutional level to deal and negotiate with Government to accept rights and responsibilities. The point was 

raised as to where money was going to come from to pay compensation and who would verify claims in 

areas where there were no conservancies. The PS responded by saying that people had the opportunity to 

organise themselves into conservancies that are institutions that could operate self-insurance schemes. 

59


3. Alternatives mitigation measures and options 

(Facilitators: Dr Flip Stander and Anton Esterhuizen) 

Issue Approach/ strategy Negative 

aspects 

Key points • Preventative vs. reactionary 

measures; 

• Changing of attitudes, moving from 

aggressive stance; 

• Combination of measures is critical: 

integration of approaches is only 

way; 

• Preventative vs. reactionary 

measures. 

Additional 

points 

• Applied livestock management – 

key to mitigation measures 

• Gin traps 

non-specific; welfare 

negatives (cruel). 

Positive 

aspects 

If used properly, 

with right skills, 

can be only way to 

target specific 

secretive species. 

• Poison 

• Trapping 

All poisons are bad. 

Seen as 

conservation, but 

animal is functionally 

‘dead’ to the system; 

can potential transfer 

problem to another 

area. 

No positive 

aspects. 

Very specific; 

does relieve 

problem in field; 

can bring finances 

into system. 

Population 

Control 

• 3 levels to consider with LETHAL 

CONTROL 

• Reactionary – targeting specific 

animals responsible for specific 

damage; 

• Group disturbance /dispersal; 

• Culling / reduction in numbers 

By simply discussing lethal control or 

population management, is to mix 

effective with less effective 

techniques. 

60


The WG broke issues into two sections: 

Species Region Preventative Pros Cons 

Elephant 

Caprivi / 

Kavango 

Caprivi 

Walls around water points 

Chilli (in its infancy) 

Electric fences 

Watch houses – making noise 

when elephants come 

Carnivores 

Kavango 

• Common boundary 

protection system – 

consolidating gardens / 

farms; 

• Specific management policy 

developed in interactive 

forum; 

• Education / info sharing; 

• Training to community; 

• Trenches; 

• Shooting some animals. 

• Upgrade fences; 

• Fence waterpoints / 

crocodiles; 

• Livestock management; 

• Kraaling; 

• Combination of livestock; 

management and kraaling; 

• Maintaining natural prey 

populations – depends on 

context; 

• Relocation. 

Effective but not a 

good measure 

61


Conflict 

type/ 

animal 

Elephants 

List of 

approaches 

Infrastructure • Protect 

water 

installations, 

crops, etc. 

Population 

management 

(3 levels): 

• culling • Reduce 

population. 

• disturbance • Should make 

animals 

avoid certain 

area. 

• shooting 

individuals 

Pros Cons Current / 

potential 

barriers & 

solutions 

• Solves 

immediate 

problem, for 

example, of 

low quality 

fences. 

• Very labour intensive; 

• Large scale; 

• Expensive; 

• Maintenance – 

especially with fences; 

• Non-physical 

boundaries: habituation 

and adaptation of 

animals; 

• Restrictive, affecting 

other species. 

• Needs to be done 

regionally; 

• large effort; 

• Not likely to have 

sustainable success. 

• Not proven to be 

successful; 

• Disruptive to elephant 

societies. 


• High level of 

management required; 

• Dangerous. 

Alternate crops • Need a market; 

• Cultural element; 

• Individuals on the 

boundaries of conflict 

areas being at a 

disadvantage. 

Self-reliance / 

management 

strategy 

• Encourages 

ownership of 

mitigation 

measures. 

• Requires agreed 

conflict 

management 

plan; 

• Requires 

capacity for 

community to 

internalise costs, 

responsibilities, 

etc. 

62


Conflict 

type/ 

animal 

Carnivores 

List of 

approaches 

Pros Cons Current / 

potential 

barriers & 

solutions 

Infrastructure • Prevents conflict. • Very labour intensive 

– especially with 

kraals; 

• Large-scale; 


• Maintenance – 

especially with 

fences; 

• Non-physical 

boundaries: 

habituation and 

adaptation of animals; 

• Restrictive, affecting 

other species; 

• Kraal has to be 

species-specific. 

Livestock 

management 

(including 

relocation) 

• Obvious. • Extra costs involved 

to individuals; 

• Social/cultural issues; 

• Practical 

considerations in 

desert areas; 

• Translocation: shortterm 

solution. 

Shooting • Targets corrects 

individual. 

• Doesn’t solve issue in 

long-run 

• If correct animal is not 

identified, then no 

effect on problem 

• Disadvantage of using 

poison: too many 

really severe 

consequences; 

indiscriminate; 

destructive. 

Expensive; 

impractical for 

certain species; 

needs to 

integrated with 

national policy 

Targeting correct 

individual is 

difficult 

Tagg observed that issues discussed were closely linked to self-insurance and people taking 

steps to prevent damage eg kraaling livestock at night. 

63


4: Standardised monitoring and reporting system - Summary 

(Facilitators: Dr Pauline Lindeque and Dr Greg Stuart-Hill) 

• Recognition of stakeholders information needs: 

• local 

• national 

• Recognise: 

• Research monitoring 

• Incident recording 

• PAC (problem animal control, removal monitoring) 

• Mitigation 

• Self insurance 

• To consolidate progress – working group 

• Review & build one existing system 

• ID Gaps 

• Built & harmonize 

• Develop standard guidelines for policy support. 

64


4: Standardised monitoring and reporting system 

What do we record, and 

who does it 

Local incidents 

• Incidents of each species 

recorded per month; 

• (Who does the recordings 

Depends from the land 

manager: conservancies, 

farmers, TAs, MET, etc.) 

• Where 

• When 

• Who affected 

• Relationship 

• Action desired 

• Species 

• Damage 

• Who recorded 

• Mitigation (action before) 

• Follow-up response 

National 

How do we get to the point 

of recording it 

• Formation of problem 

animal monitoring working 

group; 

• Assumed that devolution of 

monitoring of incident 

reporting; 

• Review of what is going 

on, gaps; 

• Need to be timetable 

driven. 

Individual (or institution) 

responsible 

• DSS/MET (DSS will 

coordinate the working 

group, to develop 

guidelines). 

PAC (animals destroyed) 

• Incident aggregation 

(summary data versus 

every incident) 

• Context data (population, 

number, land tenure, 

human population, climate 

etc.) 

• Mitigation survey 

• Financial loss 

• HWC Response (eg. self 

insurance) 

• Verification of incidents 

/PAC 

65


Developing a policy framework for 

Human Wildlife Conflict 

Policy principles 

Over-riding policy approach 

statement 

Strategies 

Devolution Mitigation Monitoring Capacitybuilding 

Summary statement 

“The MET’s policy is to manage HWC in a way that recognises the 

rights and development needs of local communities, recognises the 

need to promote conservation and ensures that decision-making is 

quick, efficient, and based on the best available information. 

In order to achieve this, the MET will devolve decision-making to the 

lowest appropriate institutional level, develop appropriate mitigation 

and monitoring methods and develop the capacity of all stakeholders 

to manage the HWC.” 

66


Examples of founding principles for policy 

approach 

• HWC cannot be removed, but needs to be managed; 

• Policy needs to take into account the rights and 

development needs of people as well as biodiversity 

conservation; 

• Decision-making needs to be at the lowest appropriate 

institutional level so that the problem can be solved 

quickly and efficiently; 

• Devolution needs to be accompanied by capacity 

building; 

• Devolution should be accompanied by appropriate 

accountability for actions taken and monitoring by MET; 

• Integrated policy environment; 

• Communication and clear guidelines; 

• Sustainability and transparency; 

• Representative of all stakeholders; 

• Appropriate incentives; 

• Living document – adapting to changing needs. 

67


1. Action Plan: Devolution of decision-making 

Issue 

1. Clarify what 

(eg meat 

distribution, 

trophies, 

skins, 

benefits) is 

being 

devolved and 

delegated to 

whom: 

• What 

decisions and 

actions 

cannot be 

devolved to 

lower levels, 

i.e. anything 

essential at 

central level 

Next 

steps 

• MET to 

start the 

process of 

clarification 

. 

Lead person/ 

institution 

• Directors, 

Parks and 

Wildlife, and six 

chief control 

wardens. 

When 

• Meeting in 

July at 

Quarterly 

Management 

Meeting for 

DPWM 

• September 

2005. 

Key people 

• Ben Beytell and other 

directors and control 

wardens 

• ICEMA 

• SPAN 

• Minister 

Community consultations eg: 

• Conservancies 

Traditional authorities 

• Conservancy 

associations 

• Conservancy committees. 

• What can be 

devolved to 

regional MET 

offices 

• What can be 

devolved to 

community 

level 

2. Establish 

lines of 

accountability 

between 

levels and 

capacity eg: 

• ToR, 

• guidelines, 

• report back 

required, 

• monitoring etc 

(conformance 

criteria) 

Reporting, 

monitoring, 

conformance 

criteria 

• Assess 

capacity 

(MET HQ 

and 

regional) 

• Build 

Capacity 

• Directors, 

Parks and 

Wildlife, and six 

chief control 

wardens 

• Top 

management, 

working with 

regional staff 

• Regional MET 

staff 

• MET using 

resources from 

programmes 

• September 

2005 

• (concurrent 

with above) 

• November 

2005 

Ongoing 

• Ben Beytell and other 

directors and control 

wardens, 

• ICEMA 

• SPAN 

• Minister 

Community consultations eg: 


Traditional authorities 

• Conservancy 

associations 

• Conservancy committees. 

Non-MET entities eg LIFE 

68


Issue 

3. Establish 

application 

procedure (non- 

MET entities eg 

Green Scheme) 

Next 

steps 

Lead person 

(or 

institution) 

MET, (DPWM, 

DSSS) 

When 

November 2005 

Key people 

To be involved in approval 

process: 

• Regional Councils 

• TAs 


4. Trial 

devolution to 

non-MET 

entities 

5. Institute 

annual info and 

engagement 

with Regional 

Councilors and 

CDCs 

MET DPWM Early 2006 Regional Councils 

TAs 

conservancies 

other institutions 

MET DPWM Early 2006 Regional Councils 

TAs 

Conservancies 

• Principles around flexible, regional basis, depending on type of institution 

• Look at streamlining to be quick and efficient. 

69


2. Mitigation Measures and Action Plan 

Issue 

Self-insurance scheme 

Internal community conservancy 

management strategy 

Research and Knowledge sharing 

Large scale zoning 

Rationale / justification 

No infrastructure, valuation must come in 

More effective zoning of crops 

• acceptance of situation 

• Settlement 

• More direct allocation of income from wildlife 

• zoning of areas for conflict management – can address complexity 

and variability of HWC 

Foundation of management and understanding 

Can address complexity and variability of HWC 

Issue Next steps Lead person 

(or 

institution) 

Large scale 

zoning 

(first step) 

Internal 

community 

conservancy 

management 

strategy 

Research and 

Knowledge 

sharing 

Specific 

Management 

plans 

• Identify key 

areas (eg 

conservancies) 

• Identify key 

conservancies 

to develop a 

scheme + up a 

time frame 

• Development of 

site appropriate 

schemes, pilot, 

modify, run 

• Implement, 

where 

necessary, 

research 

projects, 

• Implement onground 

training 

for community 

members 

• Willingness to 

adapt through 

community 

involvement 

METregional 

local 

All harmonized 

• MET 

• IRDNC 

• (Omatende 

ka, 

Kwandu) + 

EHRA 

• (MET backup) 

1 central 

person/region 

(IRDNC in 

Caprivi to 

coordinate) 

MET + 

Stakeholders 

When 

Key people 

6 – 12 months • MET 

6 – 12 months MET 

Ongoing (1 year 

to start in new 

places) 

MET/NGO 

specific) 

6-12 months • MET 

• IRDNC 


EHRA 

(regionally 

70


3. Monitoring Action Plan 

Issue Next steps Lead 

person/ 

institution 

1. Finalization of 

the information 

management 

system 

framework 

• Draft based on the 

HWCM workshop 

(May 2005); 

• Draft circulated for 

wider input; 

• Approved within MET. 

DSS 

When 

Finished by the 

end of 

September 

2005 

Key people 

• Natural 

Resources 

Working Group 

(NRWG) 

• IRDNC 

• RISE 

• Communities 

• Stakeholders 

2. Review and 

gap analysis of 

existing data, 

information 

management 

systems 

• Identification of all 

HWC systems: 

• Evaluation of the 

system used 

including, for 

example, what 

information 

collected, where 

implemented, etc. 

DSS 

Finished by the 

end of 

August 2005 

• NRWG 

• IRDNC 

• RISE 



3. Guidelines and 

protocol 

development 

• To complete steps 

1&2; 

• Draft, circulate and 

consult for inputs; 

• Approved within MET. 

DSS 

Finished by 

June 2006 

• NRWG 

• IRDNC 

• RISE 



4. 

Implementation 

5. Evaluation of 

implementation 

• Different needs at 

different levels to 

be addressed 

71


4. Key areas for Capacity Building policy development Action Plan (Tsukhoe 

Garoes) 

• Interpretation and understanding of legislation and policy: 

• Critical to understand overall direction and constraints. 

• Environmental education: 

• Understanding of conservation issues; 

• Training of trainers. 

• Self-insurance scheme: 

• Insurance plan managed at conservancy level; 

• Financial management; 

• Income and expenditure . 

• Conflict management: 

• Negotiation; 

• Local wildlife policy and decision-making; creation; 

• Wildlife management 

Issue Next steps Lead person (or 

institution) 

Problem Decision-making: how to 

animal conserve; how to finance; 

how to monitor; 

control / 

wildlife 

management 

Environmental education 

critical before decisionmaking 

• MET / DEA – extension; 

• NGO: CBNRM and Wildlife 

management; 

• Higher education 

institutions; 

• School curricula; 

• UNAM/ Polytechnic. 

Stakeholders 

• Local, Regional and 

National Levels: 

Local: 

• Conservancies; 

• TAs; 

• VDCs 

Regional: 

• MET staff; 

• Regional 

Development 

Committees. 

Problem animal control 

Monitoring and 

evaluation, and 

communication 

72


Discussion 

A concern was raised that the action plans tended to focus on conservancies. It was pointed out that the 

workshop aimed at establishing a national policy and conservancies were sound management units to 

carry plans forward, but this did not exclude other institutions. The MET has the mandate to address 

HWCM throughout the country. The PS added that attention would also be given to resettled farmers 

and State land. He said that the draft policy should be ready to be presented in a year’s time. 

Closing Remarks 

Permanent Secretary Dr Malan Lindeque 

I have rarely been at a workshop where we have achieved so much, so quickly, with so much 

cooperation and goodwill. I think this has been a significant achievement. On anything this big and this 

complex we cannot solve everything in one session over two days. We will definitely need a lot of followup 

work but we have reached a common vision with common aspirations as to the way forward. 

From the side of the MET, we believe this is the first step towards obtaining such relief – we are under 

great pressure. There is hardly a weekend or a week that goes by without a Governor, councilor, 

conservancy member or private individual calling us and bitterly complaining about problem animals. 

Whatever we seem to do is never on time or sufficient in actually dealing with the problem. We believe 

this is the right direction to developing something we can put on the table that is much more holistic and 

inclusive and to ultimately make it clear that these responsibilities should be shared. Our Ministry was 

not designed to deal with these problems in an isolated way. We don’t have the resources to take on that 

responsibility. It is simply not possible any longer and we have to make use of all the assistance and all 

the shared responsibilities that we can achieve in this regard. If not, I think our budget needs to be 

tripled. 

Clearly, we have seen some great efficiency here at this meeting and I think this is quite remarkable. I 

would like to again thank USAID for the funding they made available for this meeting and I believe that 

USAID has also contributed to one of these studies; we acknowledge your great support. I want to thank 

everybody who has contributed. It is 5 pm on the second day and virtually everyone is still here; this is 

quite impressive. I am so happy to see such a large group from the MET, along with many conservancy 

and community representatives. Unfortunately, some could not make it but we have had excellent 

contributions from the conservancies and we appreciate it. Also thanks to the other partners and all other 

stakeholders. 

I conclude by thanking one of the most efficient workshop teams I have ever seen. You have done an 

outstanding job and everyone recognised your efficiency. 

The results of the workshop will be written up and circulated. Lets have results in as short a timeframe 

as is possible and from my side I will also ensure that this happens. 

73


List of Participants 

Surname Name Institution E-mail 

Jooste Leon MET 

Lindeque Dr Malan MET mlindeque@met.gov.na 

Beytell Ben MET (DPWM) bbeytell@mweb.com.na 

Lindeque Dr Pauline MET (DSS) p.lindeque@mweb.com.na 

Boois Ulrich MET (DPWM) uboois@met.gov.na 

Namugongo Sacky MET (DPWM) 

Demas Fanuel MET (DSS) fdemas@mweb.com.na 

Mupetani Louisa MET (DSS) 

Braine Nad gamecap@iafrica.com.na 

Fox Betsy MET (DSS) metoutjo1@iway.na 

LeRoux Johann MET (DSS) 

Mbidzo Meed MET (DSS) meed@mweb.com.na 

Sibalatani Michael MET (DPWM) 

Kannyinga Apollinaris MET (DPWM) kannyinga@yahoo.com 

Muyoba Leeverty MET (DPWM) 

Sikopo Colgar MET (DPWM) csikopo@homail.com 

Siloka Shadrick MET (DPWM) 

Tjihukununa Harry MET (DPWM) 

Aingura Richard MET (DPWM) 

Kaseba S MET (DPWM) 

Mundia Cedric MET (DPWM) 

Simataa B MET (DPWM) 

Vejorerako J MET (DPWM) 

Shilongo A MET (DPWM) 

Masilo George MET (DPWM) 

Matongo Greenwell MET (DPWM) 

Tjikuaa Erwin MET (DPWM) 

Gawiseb Siegfried MET (DPWM) 

Nekongo Gerry MET (DPWM) 

Van Niekerck Wessel MET (DPWM) 

LeRoux Speedy MET (DPWM) 

Howoseb Nahor MET 

Mwilima Elvis MET simbaeluis@yahoo.com 

Uahoo I MET 

Barnes Dr Jon MET Economics Unit jibarnes@iafrica.com.na 

Nuleipo Olimpio MET Economics Unit 

//Garoes TM MET CBNRM tmgaroes@iway.na 

Makata Crispin MET 

Lizazi James Malengalenga Conservancy 

Brown Dr Chris NNF cb@nnf.org.na 

Gaseb Nickey UNDP/GEF-SGP ng@nnf.org.na 

Nangolo Selma UNDP/GEF-SGP sn@nnf.org.na 

Lines Robin NNF wilddog@mweb.com.na 

Diggle Richard IRDNC Caprivi rwdiggle@iway.na 

Owen-Smith Garth IRDNC 

Esterhuizen Anton IRDNC Kunene irdncwe@mweb.com.na 

74


Stewart Alastair IRDNC 

Maiba James IRDNC 

Gotlieb Theofilus Caprivi 

Lusipani Dixon Caprivi 

Kambinda Mildred MAWF Caprivi 

Namaseb Johannes MAWF Kunene extnwdir@iway.na 

Aupokolo Titus MAWF Windhoek AupokoloT@mawrd.gov.na 

Jones 

Brian 

Pieterse Shereen USAID spieterse@usaid.gov 

Dooley Tina USAID tdooley-jones@usaid.gov 

Child Dr Brian University of Florida (USA) 

Odada Catherine UNDP Catherine.odada@undp.org 

Mwandingi Martha UNDP 

Nghiulikwa Romie UNDP 

Stander Dr Flip Predator Conservation Trust 

Tagg Jo ICEMA Jotagg@iafrica.com.na 

Stankevica Vita ICEMA 

Muhinda Mr GPTF 

Smit Pierre UNAM psmit@unam.na 

Kandawa-Schultz Dr UNAM 

Weaver Chris WWF LIFE Project cweaver@wwflife.org 

Peters Raymond WWF LIFE Project raymond@wwflife.org 

Hazam John MET-WWF jhazam@met.gov.na 

Thouless Dr Chris Na Tourism Dev. Programme namtdp@mweb.com.na 

Smith Jonathan SPAN - PMU npa.jon@mweb.com.na 

Hasheela Raili SPAN - PMU raili@mweb.com 

Paxton Midori SPAN - PMU npa@mweb.com.na 

Nafidi Lazarus SPAN - PMU hamutele@yahoo.com 

Neely Abigail SPAN - PMU 

Gaseb Arnold DRFN 

Stuart-Hill Greg 

Martin 

Rowan 

SRT 

simson@rhino-trust.org.na 

Dublin Holly IUCN/AfESG holly.dublin@ssc.iucn.org 

Niskanen Leo IUCN/AfESG leoniskanen@ssc.iucn.org 

Strauss Danie NAPHA napha@mweb.com.na 

Kronsbein Almut NAPHA napha@mweb.com.na 

Schumann Bonnie Cheetah Conservation Fund cheeta@iafrica.com.na 

Stein Andrew Cheetah Conservation Fund cheeta@iafrica.com.na 

Hengali Josephine Cheetah Conservation Fund cheeta@iafrica.com.na 

Mumbalu Michael Cheetah Conservation Fund cheeta@iafrica.com.na 

Forster Harald Okatumba Research okatumba@namibnet.com.wild 

Haasbroek Johannes EHRA elephant@iway.na 

Warren 

Dr Ymke 

Nicholas and Warren Environmental 

Consultancy 

nwec@iway.na 

Uarijeh Alphons Omatendeka Conservancy 065 276611 

Kapi Phillemon Ehirovipuka Conservancy 065 276200 

Florry Vitalis Torra Conservancy torra@iway.na 

Roman Benny Torra Conservancy c/o IRDNC Kunene 

#Guibeb Bob Khoadi//Hoas Conservancy 

Christiaans Johannes Khoadi//Hoas Conservancy 

75


Sibongo Alfred Kasika Conservancy c/o IRDNC 

Kamwi Gloria Kasika Conservancy c/o IRDNC 

Hipandulwa Gabriel Nyae-Nyae Conservancy nndf@iafrica.com.na 

Steenbergen Dirk Nyae-Nyae Conservancy dirk.steenbergen@wur.nl 

Nyae-Nyae Conservancy 

nndf@iafrica.com.na 

Sinasi Hasken Wuparo Conservancy c/o IRDNC 

Naha Lusken Mayuni Conservancy c/o IRDNC 

Simataa John Impalila Conservancy c/o IRDNC 

Mawayaim Muchaka Mashi Conservancy c/o IRDNC 

Busihu Bennetty Kwandu Conservancy c/o IRDNC 

Masene Simon Caprivi Hope For Life c/o IRDNC 

Chadau Alfred West Caprivi (Kyaramashan Trust) c/o IRDNC 

Munali Beaven West Caprivi c/o IRDNC 

Bakko Abraham IRDNC c/o IRDNC 

Malanzabi Francis Traditional Authority (Mayuni) c/o IRDNC 

Mbwee Morrison Traditional Authority (Mayeyi) c/o IRDNC 

Mwilima 

Alexius 

Sisamu Traditional Authority (Masubia) c/o IRDNC 

Hoth Tammy AFRI-LEO Foundation afrileo@iway.na 

Smith Yanna AFRI-LEO Foundation liongirl@mweb.com.na 

Houghton Dave AfriCat Foundation nam00037@mweb.com.na 

Baker Linda linda@mweb.com.na 

Jago 

Dr Mark 

Large Carnivore Management 

Association of Namibia 

afrijago@iafrica.com.na 

Guises A Welwitschia Development Trust wdt@iway.na 

Kvam Jenny NEPRU Unn.Kvam@cmi.no 

Sinyambo Robert Salambala Conservancy c/o IRDNC 

76

HWCM - Ministry of Environment and Tourism

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?