There has been sufficient research to argue that on marginal land in southern Africa the highest valued and most ecologically beneficial land uses are those which rely on natural resources - more specifically in the case under discussion - wildlife.

Those who are investing in wildlife development are following an established trend in southern Africa with strong justification for their actions. Those who are opposed to the introduction of buffalo do so on the grounds of a perceived threat to the viability of the cattle industry and, to a certain extent, the threat of diseases which affect other domestic livestock.

If a hypothetical situation existed where a single landholder wished to introduce a disease-ridden wildlife species into a farming community which was pursuing a thriving industry based on domestic livestock, it would seem very reasonable to reject the proposition. If the proposal came from a large group of potential investors it would have to be treated with more weight.

The Directorate of Veterinary Services point out that the decision whether or not to introduce buffalo to areas south of the "red line" veterinary control fence is not theirs but sits with the commercial farming community at large (Novall, pers.comm.10/10/02).

Obviously it will require a critical mass of would-be wildlife investors to sway the issue - but the nature of the democratic institution which these potential investors have to convince is arguable. The further away from the locality of a proposed buffalo introduction any particular livestock farmer is, the lower is the real threat to his livelihood. In a large country such as Namibia it is questionable whether any potential stakeholder in the extreme south of the country should have a say over land use activities in the north.

There are many intermediate veterinary control solutions (Foggin and Taylor 1996) which would maintain protection against livestock disease for southern stakeholders whilst allowing northern farmers to hold disease-free buffalo. This has been achieved elsewhere in the southern African region through introductions of disease-free buffalo, through modifications to veterinary cordon fences and through specific fencing to enclose those buffalo populations which are not disease-free.

Recent data from Botswana (J. Broekhuis, pers.comm. 16/10/02) shows that the wildlife industry is generating some 4.5% of the gross national product from 40% of the national land - the cattle industry generates 3% from the remaining 60% of the land. Barnes (2001, Table 1) shows that commercial cattle farming in Botswana (which enjoys the same beef export status as Namibia) is capital intensive and suffers low profitability. Without government subsidies the annual net cash income/ha is about US$0.6 and the financial rate of return is negative when set against an 8% discount rate of money. The addition of buffalo to wildlife systems cannot be said to be threatening highly profitable alternative land uses. On the contrary, it has been shown that wildlife land use is more viable than cattle production.

Some experience with the introduction of buffalo to commercial farms in Zimbabwe is directly relevant here. The following is quoted directly from Foggin and Taylor (1996) -

"Whilst the establishment of FMD-free buffalo herds [478 buffalo on 21 commercial ranches in the veterinary 'clear zone' ] was highly innovative, it was clear that it would take a number of years before there were sufficient numbers of such buffalo to be of meaningful financial and economic benefit. Nevertheless, because of their value, there remains a great demand for buffalo on private land. The Department of Veterinary Services has been sympathetic towards the economic arguments put forward and, in consultation with the farmers concerned, drew up minimum fencing standards to hold free-ranging buffalo on approved properties in FMD control zones. The decision was also based on epidemiological evidence that the airborne spread of FMD virus has never been demonstrated in southern Africa. Whilst presently limited [more than 1,000 buffalo which are not disease-free now exist on private land in FMD control zones on arid terrain similar to that of northern Namibia], this number of buffalo can be expected to increase. . . . With the growth of the economic importance of wildlife production as a form of land use, veterinarians have recognised the demand to accommodate the needs of the wildlife sector. This has been strengthened by the declining viability of cattle production and the prevalence of drought over the last decade. The need to re-examine land use in non-arable marginal land and the adoption of imaginative approaches to both animal production and disease control is emphasized. This is true for both commercial farm land and communal areas where wildlife is now making an important contribution to rural development."

Morkel (1988) identified suitable sites to which FMD-free buffalo might be introduced in the commercial farming sector and considered the buffalo from the Waterberg Plateau as suitable animals to introduce. He also proposed the necessary veterinary precautions which would need be attached to the introduction.