HWCM - Ministry of Environment and Tourism

More documents

Recommendations

Info

National Workshop on Human Wildlife Conflict Management 2005 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
National Workshop on Human Wildlife Conflict Management 2005 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
Page 1 and 2: National Workshop on Human Wildlife
Page 11: National Workshop on Human Wildlife
Page 63 and 64:
National Workshop on Human Wildlife
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
show all

HWCM - Ministry of Environment and Tourism

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?