by Adelina Matinca, AIWC Cologne
Brief Accounts from the Field in Northeastern Namibia
As I wrapped up my MA thesis entitled “Human-Wildlife Conflict in Northeastern Namibia: CITES, Elephant Conservation and Local Livelihoods,” I began to ask myself how many people actually know about CITES or elephant conservation and the impact they both have on local livelihoods. Many of you might have heard these terms, either in articles you have been reading or in documentaries: by regulating – and in many cases prohibiting – international trade with products made from endangered plant and animal species, CITES ultimately aims to stop poaching and save species that might otherwise be hunted to extinction.
I would like to introduce these terms to you from a different angle, namely the impact that they have, and offer my experience from the field.
This is Part II of a three-part series. This part will focus on my personal accounts from the field – researching elephant conservation and its effect on local livelihoods.
Where?
I spent most of my time conducting research and interviewing locals in two major parks in Northeastern Namibia called Mudumu National Park and Bwabwata National Park. These two national parks differ in size but the fauna and flora found is quite similar. You can see herds of about 20, sometimes even 50 wild elephants roaming around looking for food and water.
The locals in villages within the parks live in close proximity to these wild animals, so much so that the elephants are constantly eating their crops and there are reports of deaths and injuries weekly. There is great tension between local farmers and the local government that the monetary compensations (if any) are not enough to combat the losses from the human-wildlife incidents.
What?
The tension between local communities, the local government’s responses and the need to conserve wild elephants are three major topics that are all very unique and require extreme care to come up win-win solutions that work for everyone.
Local communities are reporting lots of damage as a result of the wildlife. Local governments do not have enough funds to reimburse every report of crop damage. Elephant conservation must take place to ensure a healthy number of elephants continue to thrive, and local NGOs work to maintain these healthy wildlife populations.
We need to accept that all of the three topics have three significantly different agendas. Therefore I ask, is it possible to find win-win solutions when you have so many different agendas tugging in vastly different corners? I remain optimistic, although I must admit it’s quite the challenge.
How?
There are a number of local NGO incentives that often test pilot solutions that might help mitigate some of the human-wildlife conflicts.
One example I came across during my research is building and maintaining “beehive walls” around the farm land. The presence of bees deters elephants from the crops, and the bees themselves are useful to locals as well as they can pollinate crops and produce honey.
This pilot project was very successful at first, but due to the costs it could not be maintained by most of the local farmers without ongoing funding (which the local NGOs could not provide). These initiatives take quite a long time to take off, and they can only happen in one or two communities. While these initiatives are taking place, the local communities get used to the additional help or resources attached to the individual pilot project. Once the projects are complete and resources are no longer available, they are not able to financially sustain the upkeep of the tools or material needed to continue, so they abandon the techniques they learned and revert back to old ways.
Results
My detailed accounts and findings from the field can be read in my published master thesis linked here: Human Wildlife Conflict in Northeastern Namibia
Part 1 of 3, Why You Should Care about CITES
Photo Sources:
- Photos of 1) Adelina by jeep and 2) Village meeting: Adelina Matinca
- Elephants on Road: Pixabay
