Wildlife utilisation in Namibia is subject to quotas and permits. This is to ensure that wildlife is not overexploited.

An opposing hypothesis is, that given full authority over wildlife resources, the incentive will be present for landholders to use them sustainably. The situation is compared to that dictating the relationship between a farmer and his cattle: no-one questions that his motive is to husband his cattle in a manner which will provide a sustainable livelihood. In competitive land use situations it is imperative that the rights of a would-be wildlife farmer are no different to those which he enjoys over his cattle if he is to make choices which value one resource above the other. The present style of mixed cattle and wildlife farming on commercial farms in northern Namibia is considered likely to persist. Barnes and de Jager (1995) remark that there is little financial incentive for northern cattle/wildlife farmers to convert to 'pure' wildlife systems, either for consumptive or non-consumptive uses.

At present Namibian farmers do not enjoy the same rights over their wildlife as they do over their cattle and this could be the single most important factor which is slowing down the process of farmers converting to 'pure' wildlife systems. In Zimbabwe, once farmers were granted this right it resulted in a 'domino effect' where one property after another switched to full wildlife systems without cattle and it led to the formation of large conservancies to manage wildlife over areas exceeding 3,000km2 in extent.

A critical mass of lobbyists is unlikely to emerge from within the Namibian farming community to argue for the introduction of buffalo to northern farms until such rights are in place.

Other negative incentives are present in the legislation. The rights over "Huntable Game" which are conferred on private landholders if their properties are fenced to certain standards would seem to mitigate against the desirable amalgamation of adjacent wildlife properties. Where roan, sable and tsessebe are concerned, it is evident that many of the populations on commercial ranches are being held at densities which exceed the carrying capacity for low rainfall areas. The formation of large "conservancies" (of the order of 1,000km2 or more) would greatly enhance the likelihood of survival of the three species in times of drought and improve their breeding performance when rainfall conditions are favourable.

Rather than pursue a "custodianship policy" under which commercial farmers are allowed to keep certain valuable wildlife species which are seen as the property of the State, greater incentives would be provided if the State used species such as roan, sable and tsessebe to promote the formation of larger amalgamated wildlife areas amongst commercial farmers - without attempting to retain controls on the use of the species. The same principles apply to the empowerment of communal conservancies.

back to top