HWCM - Ministry of Environment and Tourism

More documents

Recommendations

Info

National Workshop on Human Wildlife Conflict Management 2005 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
National Workshop on Human Wildlife Conflict Management 2005 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
Page 1 and 2: National Workshop on Human Wildlife
Page 17: National Workshop on Human Wildlife
Page 69 and 70:
National Workshop on Human Wildlife
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?