HWCM - Ministry of Environment and Tourism

More documents

Recommendations

Info

National Workshop on Human Wildlife Conflict Management 2005 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
National Workshop on Human Wildlife Conflict Management 2005 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
Page 1 and 2: National Workshop on Human Wildlife
Page 13: National Workshop on Human Wildlife
Page 65 and 66:
National Workshop on Human Wildlife
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?