Namibia is one of the few countries in the world that has special rules about protecting nature and its resources in their country's laws. Article 95 says, "The government must work to improve the well-being of people by using policies from around the world to achieve these goals: keeping ecosystems healthy, protecting important natural processes, preserving the variety of plants and animals in Namibia, and using living natural resources in a way that does not run out. This should help all Namibians, both those living today and those who will live in the future."
History and developmentals
In 1993, the new government of Namibia received support from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through its Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE) Project. The Ministry of Environment and Tourism, along with groups like USAID, Endangered Wildlife Trust, WWF, and the Canadian Ambassador's Fund, created a system to help manage natural resources. The goal was to help communities manage wildlife and tourism in a way that protects the environment.
In 1996, the government passed a law allowing communities to form their own conservancies. This law let local groups manage wildlife on shared land and work with private companies to develop tourism. By 2006, 44 conservancies were operating. These groups are responsible for protecting wildlife and natural resources in a sustainable way, especially for activities like hunting and ecotourism.
In 2005, USAID started the third phase of its CBNRM program. This phase included helping communities manage forests, fisheries, and grazing land. It also focused on teaching communities skills for business and trade.
Conservancies emphasize that local communities should have control over their resources. However, joining a conservancy is not required. Communities interested in becoming a conservancy must apply through the Minister of Environment and Tourism. To apply, they must provide a list of local members, describe their goals, and show a map of their area. They must also discuss their plans with nearby communities. Any money earned through the conservancy must be given to the local people.
There are different types of conservancies in Namibia. Money earned by conservancies is shared among members and used for community projects, such as building schools, daycare centers, or clinics. For example, the Torra Conservancy used $2,000 to improve a school, including buying a photocopier. Funds have also been used to buy ambulances, and some money is given directly to members as a reward for their work.
Since the 1996 law, communities have seen more benefits. In 2004, 31 conservancies earned $2.35 million combined, compared to $100,000 in 1995. The Torra Conservancy was the first to become self-sufficient, giving each member about $75 on average in 2003. Today, about 1 in 12 Namibians is part of a communal wildlife conservancy. An example is the African Wild Dog Conservancy.
Protecting wildlife through the conservancies
Namibia has a high level of biodiversity. About 75% of the mammal species found in Southern Africa live in Namibia, including 14 species that are found nowhere else in the world. The southwest arid zone in Namibia and parts of South Africa are areas where many species live only in that region. Some species are limited to certain areas because of natural barriers, like the Rocky Escarpment, or because they are adapted to dry conditions.
Namibia has three major ecological regions, each with many species found only there: the Namib Desert, the Southwest Arid Zone, and the Southern Savanna Woodland. The Namib Desert is home to species such as the desert elephant and the black rhino.
Because much of Namibia is very dry, wetlands are very important for many animals. The number of species in different areas of Namibia changes gradually from the southwest to the northeast, similar to how rainfall changes. Due to the dry conditions, many animals depend on protected paths to move during dry periods.
About half of all species in Namibia are at risk of harm or loss. In the past, large animals were hunted or poached, and other species lost their homes because land was turned into farms, leading to fewer animals and some species disappearing. Over the last 200 years, animals like zebras and lions have lost 95% of their original range in Namibia. Elephants and rhinos were reduced to as few as 50 individuals. Scientists believe at least 10 mammal species that once lived in Namibia are no longer there.
Many wildlife populations have also decreased because of conflicts between people and animals. To address this, conservancies (groups that protect land and wildlife) help by compensating farmers for losses caused by animals like cheetahs and lions. Some conservancies give cash, while others replace lost livestock with animals from breeding programs. This helps reduce the killing of predators by humans.
Conflicts between people and elephants near water sources are also a problem. In the northwestern part of Namibia, elephants have attacked people. The Nyae Nyae Conservancy uses money from tourism to build and manage water sources for elephants away from human areas. Conservancy members are given cash to help maintain these water sources.
About 14% of Namibia is protected as nature reserves. In 2003, this was 112,000 square kilometers. Adding land managed by conservancies increases the total protected area to 192,000 square kilometers. Some protected areas are not well connected, but 17 of 29 conservancies at that time were near government-protected areas. This helps animals like elephants move between protected areas.
Because of conservancies, wildlife populations are improving. Poaching has decreased, likely because people now see wildlife as valuable for tourism and hunting. Conservancies employ guards to protect animals. Species like elephants, oryx, buffalo, Hartmann’s zebra, springbok, and lions are returning. The black rhino population has grown to one of the largest free-roaming groups, and the cheetah population is the largest in the world, with about 2,500 individuals. A 2003 count in northwestern Namibia showed 500 elephants (up from 50), 14,000 zebras (up from 500), 100,000 springbok, and 35,000 oryx.
Despite these improvements, questions remain about the success of conservancies. By 2004, no studies had confirmed whether conservancies helped protect all wildlife or only high-value species. This could harm biodiversity if only certain animals are protected. Focusing on activities like ecotourism, where people visit to see wildlife without hunting, might help. However, ecotourism could also lead to problems like pollution or overcrowding.
Some protected areas in Namibia focus mainly on the Namib Desert, but other ecosystems, like savannas, woodlands, and the Succulent Karoo region, are not well represented. In 1998, the Namib Desert made up 69% of protected areas, while savannas and woodlands made up only 7.5% and 8.4%, respectively. The Succulent Karoo region was only 1.6% of protected areas.
More than 15 nonprofit groups work to stop poaching and protect wildlife in Namibia.
Sustainability of communal wildlife conservancies
A study in Zimbabwe compared cattle ranching with "wildlife ranching" and found that wildlife ranching was more profitable. However, it required a variety of wildlife and large areas of land. Wildlife ranching involves protecting wild animals that can be used for economic purposes, such as bushmeat, hunting for trophies, or tourism. In Namibia, conservancies give local people the ability to decide how to use land for cattle ranching, farming, or protecting wildlife in ways that help both the economy and the environment. Because more people are interested in protecting nature and ecotourism, conservancies often support wildlife ranching. Instead of farming methods that are hard to keep going and not very profitable, conservancies earn money from tourists and hunters.
The study also found that wildlife ranching needed less money to start compared to cattle ranching, which reduced the risk for conservancies. Wildlife ranching also had lower costs to begin and maintain, and it was more profitable per unit of land, especially on large areas where wild animals stayed for long periods. This profit came partly from better meat quality but mostly from the interest of tourists and hunters in seeing wildlife. Few people would pay to see domestic cattle in the wild.
A study in South Africa found that younger people in communities liked conservancies because they created more jobs and improved the economy. However, some cattle ranchers were unhappy because conservancies reduced land available for grazing in favor of protecting wildlife. A study by King (2007) found that some communities had not met their economic goals, but King believed this was due to unrealistic expectations and a focus on international ideas that ignored local needs.
Wildlife conservancies help protect biodiversity in many ways. By protecting animals that are valuable for the economy, they also protect other plants and animals that depend on them, and most of the land stays natural. A 2002 study found that a game reserve in Tanzania was not sustainable because the government could not patrol the entire area. In parts of the reserve patrolled by wildlife agents, animals were more common. However, most of the reserve was not well protected, leading to overhunting and stress on animals from poaching and farming. Poaching often happened to feed local people, but some animals like rhinos and elephants were hunted for trophies. If rules were enforced, locals would lose access to meat from hunting, which made the problem worse. Because the government could not afford to patrol large areas, poaching continued, and wildlife populations dropped.
In Zimbabwe, the Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) is an example of giving local people control over land and wildlife. CAMPFIRE allowed communities to manage wildlife and collect money from hunting and tourism. These funds stayed in the community and were used for projects like schools, clinics, and roads. This improved quality of life made wildlife protection more valuable to the people. Evidence shows that poaching dropped so much that hunting limits could be increased, raising local income. Communities now manage wildlife as a resource that can provide food and money if protected.
A study found that CAMPFIRE succeeded in helping rural areas develop and managing wildlife sustainably. For example, many locals were willing to let wildlife damage crops because they saw wildlife as valuable. CAMPFIRE’s methods could work well in Namibia, where conservancies are similar. However, recent political changes in Zimbabwe may affect CAMPFIRE’s future success.
Giving communities control over their lives and land helps them manage resources better than national governments. Studies showed that other wildlife programs failed because they did not understand local communities or involve them. While tourists and ecotourists can move elsewhere, local people cannot. Not involving locals in planning led to poor results. Many failures were due to pressure from foreign groups that ignored local needs.
Better understanding of local needs and cheaper technology, like GIS software, helped communities manage conservancies more effectively. Governments can now afford tools and trained workers to create maps using local and other data. These maps help communities make decisions about land use, build agreement, and see the bigger picture of their conservancy. Even small amounts of technology helped improve resource management in underdeveloped areas.