As the Namibian drought worsens and grazing land for cattle becomes scarce, the Namibian government last week announced a plan to cull 723 wild animals. The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) asserts the cull will relieve drought by contributing game meat to communities. In the wake of the announcement, a group of conservationists has released a response that raises concerns about the initiative. The report challenges the government’s motives, suggesting the move is politically driven and timed to influence upcoming elections. But MEFT insists the primary goal of the cull is to benefit wildlife and ecosystems amidst the drought.
A group of 14 conservationists, researchers and scientists is challenging the Namibian government’s plan to cull 723 wild animals, including endangered species. The conservationists, many of whom wish to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal, suggest the cull is politically motivated and lacks necessary environmental or food security assessments. The group released a report critiquing the government’s plan, announced last week, which will see 83 elephants, 300 zebras, 30 hippos, 60 buffaloes, 50 impalas, 100 eland and 100 wildebeest shot, primarily within Namibia’s national parks. Details from the report are included below.
MEFT spokesperson Romeo Muyunda announced in a press release that the meat from these animals will support Namibia’s drought relief programme. The shooting of these animals will take place in Namib Naukluft Park, Mangetti National Park, Bwabwata National Park, Mudumu National Park and Nkasa Rupara National Park, and several areas outside of national parks. The culling is being conducted by professional hunters and safari outfitters contracted by MEFT, and 262 animals have already been killed.
In response to the report, Muyunda says MEFT stands by their statement on the benefits of the cull. “The arguments included in the report are mere assumptions,” he says, reiterating that the decision to cull was not “primarily made to feed people but as a conservation measure… Wildlife culling is a conservation measure taken by the wildlife authority in the country.”
A risky conservation precedent
The conservationists’ report states that allowing the cull to proceed will set a worrying precedent, paving the way for other African governments to engage in similar practices under the guise of humanitarian relief. The authors highlight the decline in African elephant numbers – from over 5 million in 1900 to just over 400,000 today – as a blunt reminder of the fragility of the continent’s wildlife.
“We are calling upon the Namibian government to desist from attacking our wildlife and instead to embrace their resources and expertise to solve their challenges in a way which assists local people, without destroying their natural heritage,” says John Grobler, Namibian environmental journalist who is quoted in the report.
In response, MEFT’s Muyunda says Namibia’s wildlife numbers continue to increase despite the concerns often expressed by critics: “Our laws and policies provide for sustainable utilisation in a well-regulated system. What our critics don’t realise is that our wildlife populations increase because we have chosen a people-centred approach. We have advanced benefits from utilisation of wildlife to communities and people. This way, people see the need for a peaceful co-existence as opposed to when there are no benefits – they would kill the animals uncontrollably.”
Editorial note: Muyunda’s response about Namibia’s increasing wildlife numbers contradicts data gathered by NACSO which states that trends over the last decade for north-west Namibia reflect a drastic decline in various animal populations since 2014, including kudu, gemsbok, zebra, springbok, and ostrich. NACSO further states that wildlife population health has declined sharply in recent years as a result of the drought.
Timing and politics
The conservationists raise questions about the timing of the cull, which coincides with the lead-up to Namibia’s elections. The report alleges the culling targets rural areas, particularly Kavango and Caprivi, where the ruling party needs to boost its support base.
“The latest move by the government is an election ploy where meat seems to be earmarked for contested constituencies,” says Izak Smit of Namibia’s Desert Lions Human Relations Aid, who is quoted in the report.
Muyunda, however, says that the drought is a natural phenomenon that happens to coincide with an election year. “The drought is not manufactured – its impact is tangible in Namibia, and ignoring that… would be catastrophic for conservation.” Muyunda continues, “The culling is happening across the country – not only in the two regions mentioned [in the report].”
The conservationists also suggest MEFT has not conducted comprehensive environmental impact assessments, stakeholder consultations, game counts, or food insecurity evaluations in the targeted areas, further fuelling suspicions about the government’s motives. The group has questioned the government’s claims that the cull is necessary to alleviate food insecurity or drought impacts.
Muyunda says this is inaccurate. “We have undertaken an assessment in all our national parks and found that some need intervention. The culling will take place in six national parks, which were found to have been affected the most.”
MEFT’s original statement says the cull will “assist in reducing the negative impact of drought on the conservation of wild animals in both our national parks and communal areas.” The statement continues, “This will assist in managing the current grazing pressure and water availability by reducing wildlife numbers in some parks and communal areas where we feel numbers exceed available grazing and water.”
However, the report’s authors suggest that livestock, rather than wildlife, should be the focus of any drought-relief efforts, as livestock cannot survive prolonged droughts while wildlife is more adapted to the harsh Namibian climate.
“If meat supply is the only solution, a bonafide scheme would involve livestock,” the report argues. The report suggests a livestock-purchase programme would provide more meaningful assistance to farmers and communities, who could sell their animals before they die from starvation and increase the available water for people and grass for remaining livestock.
But Muyunda argues the decision to cull was taken as a conservation measure. “Our assessment has indicated that in selected national parks, there are currently limited grazing and water resources for wild animals. This is the basis for these decisions. If we do not reduce wildlife numbers, these resources will finish before the rainy season, which may potentially lead to mass mortalities from hunger or thirst.”
Muyunda says meat derived from the cull is a secondary benefit. “We are where we are because people have accepted living with wild animals primarily because they derive benefits from this. In this time of need, we are happy to contribute to the food security of Namibians.”
A questionable track record
The report highlights concerns about the Namibian government’s credibility in light of past government incidents, such as the 2021 “Fishrot scandal”, which resulted in the imprisonment of two ministers for environmental exploitation. Other controversial government schemes aimed at monetising Namibia’s natural resources are also mentioned, including the government proposal to auction 170 wild elephants to zoos and trophy hunters, efforts to lobby for the sale of ivory stockpiles despite international laws preventing ivory trade, the sale of oil rights in protected areas, and the sale of rhino calves and elephants to a Cuban zoo.
MEFT’s Muyunda argues that the Fishrot scandal was an isolated incident. “We will not stop working just because of previous cases. There is no motive beyond conservation.”
Potential negative impact of a cull on tourism & ecosystem balance
The report underscores the potential negative consequences of the cull on Namibia’s tourism industry, which contributes N$14.2 billion to the economy and employs 58,000 people. The authors warn that graphic images and videos of the culling process may surface on social media and provoke international tourism boycotts, leading to significant economic losses.
Adam Cruise, investigative journalist and academic, is quoted in the report, saying, “One of the most concerning aspects is that wildlife is being culled in national parks, which ought to be safe havens for wildlife populations. Photographic tourism is a major sector in the Namibian economy, with most visitors flocking to national parks to view wildlife. It may not sit well with tourists if they know the elephant or the zebra they are photographing one day will be butchered for meat production the next.”
The report also notes that elephants, which are endangered (although Namibian populations are stable), offer immense value to the tourism sector. “Over the course of an elephant’s long life it is worth over $1.6m to communities from its contribution to poverty-alleviation through tourism income and its critical role in ecosystem services,” states the report.
Muyunda responds that wildlife species are important to Namibia, which is why MEFT is doing everything possible to protect them. “Sometimes this includes taking the most unpopular decisions. Our interventions over the years have shown tangible results while others just criticise.”
MEFT’s statement says, “elephant numbers need to be reduced as a measure to assist in reducing prevailing cases of human-wildlife conflict,” and that conflicts are expected to increase if no interventions are made during the drought. However, the report by conservationists warns that culling could exacerbate human-wildlife conflict in the region. “Elephants are highly intelligent, socially complex, have long memories and show a documented increase in aggressiveness toward humans, following the loss of individuals through culling or trophy hunting.”
But Muyunda says the cull of animals by professional hunters will be guided by the Namibia’s hunting Code of Conduct, and ethics. “We will not hunt elephants in herds, obviously.”
Editorial note: Namibia has a track record of questionable behaviour by the trophy hunting industry, which is usually shielded from prosecution by MEFT. Two examples include legalities and due process surrounding the killing of a desert-adapted lion and an iconic desert-adapted elephant.
And while Muyunda says that “83 elephants represent 0.3% of Namibia’s total population,” and that the impact should be minimal, the authors also raise concerns that hunters could cull trans-national elephant herds passing through the country, or rare desert-adapted elephants.
Editorial note: MEFT fails to acknowledge that many of the areas earmarked for elephant culling are within Namibia’s north-west regions, home to desert-adapted elephants, which are uniquely adapted to living in arid areas. These desert-adapted elephants are low in number, but MEFT’s statements do not provide the portion of that population to be culled.
The report highlights that desert-adapted elephants are able to survive droughts by digging for water and help other animals by creating pools for other animals to drink from.
Muyunda says MEFT has already considered this. “No desert-adapted animals will be culled – only resident elephants in the identified areas will be culled,” he says.
Adam Cruise, however, challenges whether this will be the case. “The area earmarked for the cull includes the range of desert-adapted elephants. They are not genetically different from other elephants and there is certainly an overlap in breeding between desert-adapted elephants and others, which means any elephants targeted in that area are problematic.” He continues, “There is little chance that MEFT-employed hunters will be able to distinguish between the two, unless monitors from Elephant-Human Relations Aid are on hand to point them out. Will MEFT guarantee that is the case?”
The report further highlights the potential disruption to the delicate balance of Namibia’s ecosystems. Aside from affecting only the targeted species, such as elephants, zebras, and antelope, the cull could also affect predators like lions, leopards, cheetahs and hyenas, and scavengers such as vultures, all of which depend on weakened prey during droughts. But Muyunda says the number of animals targeted by the cull will not affect ecosystems. “We will have sufficient animals after the cull to maintain ecological processes.”
Legal action against the cull
The report states the conservation community is exploring legal avenues to challenge the Namibian government’s proposal. Calling for international solidarity in opposing the cull, the authors argue Namibia’s actions could set a dangerous example for other African countries facing food insecurity, leading to widespread exploitation of national parks and protected species. It expresses particular concern at the monetisation of Africa’s endangered elephants – and big tuskers – through international sales and trophy hunting. Trophy hunts for the cull are already on sale.
Government’s alleged misuse of data
The report accuses some African governments, including Namibia, of inflating elephant population figures. The conservationists suggest this could be to justify controversial wildlife management practices, such as higher hunting quotas, zoo sales, and culling. However, the report shows how an official data analysis indicates Namibian elephant populations have remained stable for years.
In response, MEFT’s Muyunda says Namibia has grown its elephant population from 7,000 in 1990 to more than 24,000 today.
The authors denounce media for uncritically accepting these figures, often used to support government narratives that downplay public sympathy for elephant conservation. “The pro-government bias in conservation reporting is exacerbated by African conservationists’ fear of speaking out due to potential repercussions like permit revocation, deportation, or legal action,” the report states.
Editorial note: Namibia does, in fact, have an ongoing elephant population survey process which we reported on here.
A call to action
The report concludes with a call for the Namibian government to desist from compromising wildlife and find alternative solutions that do not compromise the country’s natural heritage.
Stephan Scholvin, a Namibian professional guide and conservationist, echoes this sentiment, and is quoted in the report, stating, “Conservationists here in Namibia have proven solutions to the government’s claimed human-wildlife-conflict – including moving water points away from villages and electric fencing – but the government are ignoring them all. Despite their claims, it’s clear that their plans are about money, not wildlife.”
Outside of the report, other organisations have critiqued the government’s proposal. Mary Rice, the Environmental Investigation Agency’s executive director, says: “We are deeply disturbed by the Namibian Government’s cynical decision to cull hundreds of animals, including elephants and hippos, under the pretext of needing meat to feed people following a drought. Official figures show that Namibia has a human population of just over 2.5 million, with 2.5 million cattle, 2.4 million sheep, and 1.8 million goats. It is important to prioritise using livestock to feed the population rather than resorting to culling wildlife, especially when some of these species are endangered.”
Media outlets have also decried Namibia’s targeting of elephants. Writing on behalf of AllAfrica, Adam Cruise suggests that targeting elephants, which are not mass grazers and are mainly browsers, is being done for their high meat yield rather than to eliminate grazing competition with livestock.
In AllAfrica’s response, elephant biologist Dr Keith Lindsay says the cull will hurt the entire arid ecosystem. “Destructive interventions of removing animals at random from wildlife populations,” he says, “are likely to reduce the resilience of the ecosystems of northern Namibia in the longer term.” He also says the cull sets a dangerous precedent of reliance on wildlife populations to solve human problems. “This practice, if adopted and normalised, is very likely to create a continuing demand on vulnerable wildlife populations that would be unsustainable in the dwindling areas of natural habitat. There is also the risk that it will give neighbouring nations a strong case for doing so as well, triggering a colossal disaster,” says Lindsay.
“Wildlife cannot become a replacement for domestic livestock production,” continues Lindsay, “as its productivity is much more susceptible to the effects of variable seasonal conditions than livestock populations under human husbandry and protection.”
As the world watches, the Namibian government’s next steps could have far-reaching consequences for Africa’s wildlife and the future of conservation on the continent.
Related reading
- For more interpretations on current information available on the cull, read this post on Conservation Namibia by Dr Chris Brown and Gail Thomson
- Read more about the link between hunting and tourism in Namibia, written by Dr Chris Brown, here.
- Op-ed: Izak Smit explores solutions to human-wildlife conflict in Kunene, Namibia, focusing on ethical conservation of desert-adapted lions. Read Smit’s Op-ed here.
- Read more on the hunt of a male desert-adapted lion – hunted amidst suspicious circumstances. We asked questions of MEFT.
- Research in Namibia on the type and frequency of human-wildlife conflict incidents between 2001 and 2019 can aid in mitigating future conflict occurrences. Read more about human-wildlife conflict trends in Namibia.
- We evaluated the results of Namibia’s controversial elephant auction. Read our Op-ed on the auction here.
- Journalists target Namibia’s community-based conservation program. This is what 76 affected entities have to say – decide for yourself.
- In 2021, Gail Thomson penned an article for AG on how elephants are thriving in Namibia. could exacerbate human-wildlife conflict.
To comment on this story: Login (or sign up) to our app here - it's a troll-free safe place 🙂.
