Competing Conservation Ideologies: Troubled Times For Reporting On Namibian Wildlife

Discussion in 'Articles' started by Hoas, Apr 16, 2019.

  1. Hoas

    Hoas AH Fanatic

    Nov 11, 2014
    Likes Received:

    Competing conservation ideologies: Troubled times for reporting on Namibian wildlife


    Two competing ideological narratives have emerged in African wildlife conservation. The one is based on so-called ‘compassionate conservation’, aligned with the mostly Western animal rights movement, the other based on the human rights of the owners of the wildlife, the local people who live with wild animals. In Namibia, wildlife is thriving under the second narrative, which endorses consumptive use of wildlife.

    Conservation of African wildlife and habitat is coming under increasing threat across the continent, but despite the overall gloomy prognosis, there are a few countries that can boast remarkable success.

    Foremost among these is Namibia, which along with other southern African countries developed the healthiest wildlife populations and habitat on the continent during the latter half of the 20th century.

    Namibia has designated about 17% of its land as state-protected areas (such as national parks), yet more than 90% of its wildlife population, numbering more than three million animals, occurs outside protected areas. Despite an onslaught of poaching by organised crime Africa-wide, Namibia still has increasing elephant and rhino populations, while lions have returned to land outside protected areas for the first time in decades.

    At the same time, hundreds of thousands of people from some of the poorest communities in the country have seen significant improvements in their livelihoods. Namibian conservancies generated benefits of close to $10-million in 2017 alone, including the provision of more than 5,000 full-time and seasonal jobs in remote rural areas where employment opportunities rarely exist. The popularity of the conservancies is such that 86 now exist, placing an additional 20% of Namibia under a conservation management regime where wildlife is seen as a valued livelihood asset.

    This is a remarkable success story.

    Yet despite this, Namibia now finds itself under scathing attack, the most recent example being an op-ed by John Grobler “Troubled times for Namibian wildlife” published in Daily Maverick.

    This article is remarkable primarily because it makes no attempt to hide the fact that its sweeping conclusions on “troubled times” for conservation in Namibia are based on nothing but speculation, second-hand hearsay, quoting of officials from out-of-date and out-of-context sources, anecdote and innuendo. No attempt is made to explore the scientific and social complexities of conservation or present any facts or analysis on the status of conservation in Namibia. Conversely, information from an NGO website is applied out of context, resulting in false and misleading conclusions.

    Perhaps most remarkable is that while acknowledging that all those interviewed indicated that the worst drought in 30 years has led to reduced wildlife numbers, the author nevertheless concludes that wildlife numbers are falling as a result of Namibia’s community conservation initiatives. He makes no attempt to substantiate this conclusion — a disappointing and uninformative read for anyone with an interest in conservation in Namibia.

    However, in another respect, this article is extremely revealing about the competing ideologies in conservation. The article is partially financed by the Cape Town-based Conservation Action Trust, an organisation closely aligned with what was formally known as the animal rights movement — a movement and group of organisations which now prefers to be collectively identified under the rubric of “compassionate conservation”.

    This movement, which has its roots and a vast majority of supporters in the western hemisphere, is vehemently opposed to the consumptive use of animals. In adopting this position, they place the rights of individual animals before those of people. Given the intensity of their lobbying efforts on African wildlife, it seems fair to conclude that they consider human rights are particularly easy to disregard when they are the rights of Africans.

    This ideological stance puts these organisations in direct conflict with the governments, people and conservation community of Namibia and other southern African countries.

    The conservation strategies adopted by Namibia are underpinned by pragmatic recognition that the fate of wildlife lies mainly in the hands of the rural farmers who live on the front-line with wild animals and that people must have appropriate incentives if they are to live with dangerous animals.

    Provision of these incentives is ensured through recognition of the rights of all people to earn a living from the sustainable use of their natural resources within legally mandated boundaries. These basic human rights are enshrined in both international and national law and such rights include sustainable and regulated hunting, both for subsistence and trophy purposes.

    In terms of conservation, Namibia is probably the most outstanding global example of how successful this strategy can be. Wildlife is now more prolific outside protected areas because people want it there as they have the right to benefit from it. Compare this with Kenya, where people have no rights to benefit from wildlife and hunting is banned. Since 1977, Kenya has lost an estimated 80% of its wildlife, and what remains is almost entirely within protected areas.

    But as an outstanding example of success, Namibia is also the outstanding target for those who oppose its conservation strategies on ideological grounds. Hence attempts, no matter how blatantly ill-informed, such as the Grobler article, to discredit Namibia. Such attempts will gain momentum in the coming months with the approach in May 2019 of the triennial meeting of the Convention on the International Trades in Endangered Species (CITES). This convention is the only forum for shaping rules of global trade in wildlife and represents a major battleground for those opposing a human rights-based approach to conservation.

    These attempts to discredit and undermine conservation strategies for ideological reasons are undermining the rights of the people who live with these animals to earn their livelihood. These are the same people who worry daily that their children may encounter elephant or lion on their way to school and never return, or that their crops and livestock on which they rely entirely for survival will be destroyed by the marauding elephant, buffalo or hippo. In Namibia over the past two years, 10 people have been killed by elephants while trying to defend their crops, while in neighbouring Botswana, 36 people have been killed.

    Upholding the rights of these often marginalised rural farmers to generate a livelihood from wildlife is essential not only for their livelihoods and dignity, but also for the survival of wildlife. Conservation efforts that fail to acknowledge the rights of people to benefit from wildlife — ensuring they have incentives to live side-by-side with dangerous animals and become wildlife defenders — force people and wildlife into a battle from which both emerge as losers.

    It should be clearly recognised that these attacks on successful conservation strategies for ideological reasons not only threaten the success of conservation in Africa, but also undermine the basic human rights of some of the poorest in our countries.

    The motivations and implications of these attacks should give pause for thought to all those concerned with human rights, democracy, rural livelihoods and development, not just conservationists. DM

    Dr Liz Rihoy is a political scientist specialising in the politics and governance of conservation and community development in Africa. She is a Director of Resource Africa.

    Dr Malan Lindeque is a conservation biologist who is the former Permanent Secretary of Environment and Tourism and the current Chairperson of the Nature Conservation Board of Namibia. He is a director of Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation, IRDNC.

  2. Hank2211


    Jan 12, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Member of:
    SCI, DU, Pheasants Forever
    Canada, United States, Zimbabwe, South Africa (Eastern Cape; Northern Cape; North West Province, Natal, Mpumalanga, Limpopo), Namibia, Cameroon, Benin, Ethiopia, Argentina
    At the time of the "three amigos" lawsuit in the US (to stop hunting of scimitar horned oryx, dama gazelle and addax), one of those who sued said she would rather see the animals extinct than hunted.

    This is the same mentality as that which we see attacking Namibia. But to point out, as this article does, that Namibia has seen explosive growth in animals in non-protected areas, while Kenya has seen a precipitous drop, is making an argument that in effect doesn't matter to most of those involved. Hunters and others who support consumptive use of wildlife are simply not speaking the same language as the anti-hunting movement.

    Take Kenya. Hunters and conservationists point to Kenya as an example of what can happen when consumptive use is banned. A drop in wildlife numbers approaching 70-80%. We see that as unmitigated failure.

    The animal rights movement however, sees Kenya as a shining example of success. Hunting - consumptive use of animals - was banned, and it remains banned. The fact that this has reduced the number of animals dramatically is utterly irrelevant. Those animals which remain are not hunted, and that is all that matters. If one day there are no animals left, or left in the wild, it will be because those which remain have died of natural causes, not at the end of a hunter's rifle, and that will also be success.

    The Namibian or South African examples, where consumptive use advocates point to huge increases in the numbers of wildlife, are equally irrelevant. Increasing wildlife numbers are not at all important to animal rights advocates, if those animals are hunted or if that increase is as a result of consumptive use.

    So hunters and animal rights activists are not speaking the same language. We don't agree on what success looks like. We can keep arguing that the Namibian model is an example of success, and the animal rightist will argue it is a failure. We will argue Kenya is a failure, and they will argue it is a success.

    We can continue making these arguments until we are blue in the face. But if a tree falls in the forest . . .
    Mort Hill, spike.t and johnnyblues like this.

  3. mark-hunter

    mark-hunter AH Fanatic

    Aug 14, 2016
    Likes Received:
    Namibia - Kalahari, Namibia - Khomas highland
    We have all learned and elaborated well on Kenya's negative example of conservation.

    This often helps me as a good point in many pro-and-anti hunting discussion with non-hunting people that I know.
    (by non-hunting I mean the people that are just not hunters, but also have no negative prejudice to hunting as well)

    The question is: apart from Kenya is there any other country, in Africa, with so obvious negative decline of wildlife numbers, and also well documented due to local hunting ban?

  4. johnnyblues

    johnnyblues AH ENABLER AH Ambassador

    Jun 13, 2013
    Likes Received:
    USA, ALASKA Canada, New Zealand, Mexico Africa.
    I believe Botswana is seeing a decline in certain species.

  5. spike.t

    spike.t AH ENABLER SPONSOR Since 2013 AH Ambassador

    Sep 12, 2010
    Likes Received:
    Member of:
    sci int, basc,wpaz
    zambia, tanzania, zimbabwe,Mozambique ,hungary, france, england
    Too f-n true.........
    flatwater bill likes this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice