RAN ANALYSIS OFGAME MEAT PRODUCTION AND
WILDLIFE-BASED LAND USES ON
FREEHOLD LAND IN NAMIBIA:
LINKS WITH FOOD SECURITY

PETER LINDSEYA TRAFFIC EAST/SOUTHERN AFRICA REPORTThis report was publishedwith the kind support ofPublished by TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa.
© 2011 TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa.
All rights reserved.
All material appearing in this publication is
copyrighted and may be reproduced withperrmission. Any reproduction in full or inpart of this publication must credit TRAFFIC
International as the copyright owner.
The views of the author expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the
TRAFFIC network, WWF or IUCN.
The designations of geographical entities inthis publication, and the presentation of thematerial, do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of TRAFFIC
or its supporting organizations concerning thelegal status of any country, territory, or area,
or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
The TRAFFIC symbol copyright andRegistered Trademark ownership is held byWWF. TRAFFIC is a joint programme of
WWF and IUCN.
Suggested citation: Lindsey, P. (2011). An
Analysis of Game Meat Production and
Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in
Namibia: Links with Food Security. TRAFFIC
East/Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe.
ISBN 978-1-85850-249-6
Front cover photograph: Greater Kudu
Tragelaphus strepsiceros and Springboks
Antidorcas marsupialis, Namibia.

Photograph credit: Martin Harvey/WWFCanon.

Printed on FSC-certified
paper and according to
FSC-certified processes.

AN ANALYSIS OF GAME MEATPRODUCTIONANDWILDLIFEBASED LAND USES ON FREEHOLDLAND IN NAMIBIA: LINKS WITH
FOOD SECURITY

Credit:Credit:Tiemen Rhebergen

by Peter Lindsey

Namibian-produced game meat, photographed during
survey work, 2010

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food SecurityiCONTENTS
Acknowledgements
Acronyms
Executive summary
Introduction
Trends in wildlife-based land use on freehold land
Challenges to WBLU in southern Africa
Methods
Statistical analyses
Results
Number of farms and farm sizes
Land use
Livestock
Wildlife-based land uses
Guest accommodation
Employees
Conservancies
FencingChanges in land use
Wildlife abundance and diversity
Wildlife and livestock biomass
Wildlife population trends
Meat production
How game meat is used
Export of game meat
Factors limiting the profitability of game meat production
Game meat rations
Illegal wildlife use: poaching
Discussion
Land use
Stunted development of wildlife ranching on freehold land
Wildlife population trends on freehold land
Game meat production
The sale of game meat and economic value of game meat production
Contribution of game meat to rural food security
Enhancing the contribution of WBLU to food security and social development
Conclusions
Recommendations
References
Appendix 1

ii

iii
iv
v
1
3
4
5
7
8
8
8
8
11
18
18
20
23
25
26
34
39
39
47
50
51
53
53
57
57
58
59
60
60
62
63
69
70
72
75

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks are due to TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, especially Tom Milliken, for instigating and coordinating this project and to the Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und
Entwicklung (Federal Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development—BMZ) for providing
the funds which made this study possible, and to the Rufford Foundation for supporting report
production. Thanks to the African Wildlife Conservation Fund for providing additional funds toenable expansion of the scope of field work. Appreciation is extended to the Ministry of Environment
and Tourism, the Namibian Agricultural Union, Namibian Professional Hunters Association,
CANAM, and WWF-Namibia for their valuable support, and specifically to Annetjie du Preez,
Harrald Marggraff, Elly Hamunyela, Amut Kronsbein, Danica Shaw, Laurie Marker and Chris
Weaver for their help. Thanks are also due to Jon Barnes and Peter Erb for comments on earlier
versions of this manuscript, and to the anonymous reviewers whose comments also served to improve
the report. Thanks to Cornelis Van Der Waal, C.J. Havemann, Tarryn Retief, Tiemen Rhebergen,
Aaron Price, Uapii Kazahe, and Robin Lines for assistance with field work and for the provision ofphotographs. And finally, an expression of gratitude to the Namibian farmers for providing time andinformation to make this study possible, and particularly to Sakkie Van Der Merwe and Wilfried Packfor their hospitality.
Please note that the views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily
represent the views of TRAFFIC or BMZ.

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Securityiii

ACRONYMS
BMZ

Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung (Federal
Ministry for Economic Co-operation and Development)

CANAM

Conservancies Association of Namibia

EU

European Union

FMD

Foot-and-mouth disease

GNI

Gross National Income

MET

Ministry of Environment and Tourism

NAD

Namibian dollars

NAPHA

Namibian Professional Hunting Association

USD

United States dollars

VAT

Value-added Tax

WBLU

Wildlife-based land use(s)iv

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project forms a component of the BMZ-funded programme with TRAFFIC entitled “Vulnerable
People, Diminishing Wildlife: Addressing priority bushmeat trade, livelihood and food security issues
in Africa”.
The illegal trade in bushmeat represents a severe conservation threat in several African countries.
However, in Namibia, wildlife-based land uses (WBLU) and the legal production of game meat havepotential to contribute significantly to conservation, food security and the economy of the country. A
structured questionnaire survey of farmers in Namibia was used to gain insights into WBLU on
freehold land in the country and links with food security.

Results
Land use
Livestock farming is the most prevalent form of land use on freehold farms in Namibia. Thissituation contrasts with that in parts of South Africa and (formerly) Zimbabwe in areas of similar
rainfall where WBLU has largely replaced livestock farming in some semi-arid areas. However,
WBLU is increasingly common in Namibia. Approximately 288 000 km2 of freehold land is used for
WBLU and ~32 000 km2 is used exclusively for wildlife production (i.e. without livestock). Owing to
the expansion of trophy hunting and ecotourism, the economic output of wildlife on freehold land isapproaching that of livestock (despite veterinary policies which favour the latter and which markedly
reduce potential returns from WBLU). WBLU are more popular among younger farmers, tourist andhunter arrivals are likely to continue increasing in future and WBLU is likely to be less affected byclimate change than livestock farming. Consequently, WBLU is likely to continue to increase inprevalence in future and may exceed the economic contribution of livestock farming in the near or
medium term. Employment is positively correlated with the percentage of farmers’ income from
WBLU, and negatively correlated with the percentage of farmers’ income from livestock. Thisfinding is in keeping with work from South Africa, Zimbabwe and southern Namibia which suggeststhat WBLU are associated with both more and higher quality employment than livestock farming insemi-arid areas. Employment was also positively correlated with wildlife biomass: suggesting that
where there is more wildlife, more jobs are created.
Trophy or safari hunting is the most important form of WBLU on freehold land. Farmers’ income
from safari hunting is positively correlated with wildlife diversity. Wildlife populations, theirbiomass and diversity are increasing on freehold land in most areas, with larger and more diverse
populations occurring within conservancies. In some areas, however, where off-takes amongneighbouring farmers are not co-ordinated (outside conservancies in some areas), populations are
declining. However, WBLU has not been developed to anything near potential in Namibia and,An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Securityvunlike the situation in the former cattle-ranching areas of South Africa (and previously Zimbabwe),
most wildlife farmers have retained livestock.
Namibian commercial “conservancies” are fractured, retain internal fencing and livestock, and lackthe large and high-value wildlife species necessary for exploiting WBLU to its full potential. Most
Namibian wildlife ranchers offer low-value ecotourism, biltong hunting (hunting animals for the
purposes of making dried meat) or trophy-hunting experiences, based on the same few antelope
species. Consequently, the Namibian trophy-hunting industry generates some of the lowest returns
per hunting client in Africa.
The development and expansion of WBLU to its full potential on freehold land in Namibia issignificantly hampered by three aspects of legislation: veterinary restrictions preventing
reintroduction of buffaloes (the single-most important species for generating returns from WBLU);
failure to devolve user rights over wildlife to land owners more fully (or to the same extent as inSouth Africa and Zimbabwe); and preferential allocation of permits to use wildlife to farmers withperimeter game fencing, rather than to those farmers whose land is part of larger, open, co-managed
conservancies. Emerging farmers are greatly under-represented in WBLU on freehold land.

Game meat production
Considerably more game meat is produced on Namibian farmlands than previously recognized (16–26
million kg/year). Oryx Oryx gazella, Greater Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros and Springbok
Antidorcas marsupialis are responsible for producing approximately two thirds of game meat on
freehold farms. Trophy hunting is responsible for the production of more meat than other forms of
harvest (36.5%), followed by own use (22.5%). A relatively small proportion of game meat is
produced through harvest specifically for meat to sell (e.g. “shoot-and-sell” [19.3%] and wildlife
culling [7.3%]).
Off-take as proportion of a species population is increasing, although still well within sustainable
limits (on a national level). Farmers sell ~52% of the game meat they produce (including that sold tobiltong hunters). Prices paid to farmers for game meat have increased by 45% in the last two to three
years, though they are still 13–17% lower than prices they are paid for meat from livestock.
Nonetheless, game meat is sold in stores for higher prices than those for meat from livestock. The
price of game meat is enhanced significantly through processing and exports to the European Union.
Approximately NAD200 million [USD23.7 million] is generated by farmers through the sale of gamemeat (not including value addition by meat processors and exporters after the meat has beenpurchased from farmers). Game meat production comprises a more significant component of theeconomic output of WBLU than previously recognized.
Game meat from freehold farms is a high-value product not readily accessible by the rural poor.
However, game meat does contribute significantly to food security because more game meat fromfreehold land is used within Namibia than meat from formal domestic stock production, since thevi

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

majority of the latter is exported. Furthermore, game meat is the primary source of rations for
agricultural workers (22 855 workers are fed >4500 t of game meat/year). Making supplies ofaffordable game meat available to residents of communal land and/or informal settlements in freehold
farming areas may help reduce wildlife poaching in the minority of areas where illegal hunting is aserious problem.
WBLU also contributes significantly to food security on a national level through the creation offoreign currency and employment. However, the value of WBLU on Namibian freehold land to thenational economy (and to national food security) is much lower than it could be, as mentioned above,
because of the rarity of large and high-value species, the lack of fully integrated conservancies, andveterinary restrictions preventing the reintroduction of buffaloes.

Recommendations
Steps that could be taken to increase the economic and social contributions of WBLU
•
•
•

•

•

•

•
•

The promotion of the reintroduction of the full range of indigenous mammal fauna where possible
on freehold land, including large, high-value species (which are currently largely absent).
The exploration of possible alternative veterinary control strategies that would permit thereintroduction of buffaloes to some areas under certain conditions.
The reintroduction of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)-free buffaloes on freehold, andconsideration of creation of wildlife-production (and regulated FMD-endemic) zones in areas
where WBLU has clear comparative economic/financial advantages over livestock production, topermit the reintroduction of FMD-buffaloes (which are much cheaper and more affordable than
FMD-free individuals).
In addition, export markets should be encouraged to accept commodity-based trade (whereby
meat processed in a manner proven to provide minimal risk of transmitting FMD would beconsidered acceptable for export) as an alternative to costly and damaging veterinary restrictions
based on FMD-free zones.
Changes in legislation to promote the development of fully-integrated conservancies (i.e. with allinternal fencing removed) in which the full complement of indigenous mammals is reintroduced(e.g. by devolving full user rights over wildlife to conservancies following the submission of an
acceptable management plan, while retaining current permit-requirements for farms not part ofconservancies).
The organization of the wildlife industry to protect the interests of wildlife ranchers and lobbying
for policies conducive to profitable WBLU and against policies that are prejudicial toward theindustry.
The integration of the development of WBLU with the process of land reform and promotion ofparticipation of emerging farmers in wildlife-ranching.
The use of commercial conservancies as a vehicle for the integration of emerging farmers into
WBLU (by using the economies of scale and centralized management to make it easier for new
entrants to break into the industry).

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

vii

•

The increase in the value of game meat sales through the development of export markets, thedevelopment of infrastructure necessary to process high quality game meat, and measures toimprove the consistency of supply of game meat to abattoirs.

Research required
•
•

•

•

Credit: Tiemen Rhebergen•

An assessment of the scale and food-security contribution of game meat production in communal
areas.
An in-depth financial and economic analysis of the pros and cons of various potential alternative
veterinary control strategies and scenarios to explore the advisability or otherwise of various
possible options for buffalo reintroductions on freehold land.
A financial and economic analysis of the comparative profitability of various land use options invarious scenarios in Namibia, including mixed livestock/wildlife production systems, purewildlife systems, current conservancy models and more integrated conservancy systems (i.e. thoselacking internal fencing and where the full range of indigenous species have been reintroduced).
A review of co-management systems, conservancy constitutions and systems in place in Namibia,
South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya to identify those that are most effective, profitable and whichyield the greatest gains for conservation and social development.
An assessment of wildlife movement and migration patterns on freehold land to prevent
disruption through inappropriately placed fence lines.

Namibia’s spectacular scenery improves prospects for successful ecotourism
and hunting tourismviii

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

INTRODUCTION
During the 19th and 20th centuries, wildlife populations in Southern Africa were greatly depleted byoutbreaks of bovine pleuropneumonia (1850) and rinderpest (1896) and by over-hunting by European
explorer-hunters and settlers (Bond et al., 2004). Early colonial administrations responded to
declining wildlife populations by establishing protectionist legislation which centralized control overwildlife and limited commercial and subsistence use (Murombedzi, 2003; Bond et al., 2004). These
policies were effective at slowing unsustainable hunting, but made wildlife a financial burden for
landowners by preventing them from deriving income from hunting (Murombedzi, 2003; Bond et al.,2004). Under these conditions, wildlife populations continued to wane as a result of a mixture ofpersecution, competition with livestock, benign neglect and, in some areas, bushmeat poaching (Bondet al., 2004; Barnett and Patterson, 2006). During the 1960–70s, legislative changes occurred inseveral Southern African countries granting varying degrees of user rights over wildlife tolandowners. These changes (occurring in Namibia in 1967, Zimbabwe in 1960 and 1975, and South
Africa at varying times depending on the province) enabled landowners to use wildlife occurring on
their land for hunting and live capture and trade (Bond et al., 2004).
The South West Africa Wildlife Ordinance passed in Namibia in 1967 provided farmers on private
land with conditional rights to use wildlife on their properties (Barnett and Patterson, 2006). Thislegislation effectively conferred ownership over “huntable” species—Greater Kudu Tragelaphus
strepsiceros, Oryx Oryx gazella, Springbok Antidorcas marsupialis and Common Warthog
Phacochoerus africanus—in addition to extra-limital species introduced from elsewhere in the region(Erb, 2004). Landowners could then benefit from wildlife through consumptive use and ecotourism.
Consumptive wildlife use is governed primarily by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET)
through the Nature Conservation Ordinance No. 4 of 1975. This legislation was amended in 1996
with the Nature Conservation Amendment Act of 1996 (MET, 1998), which conferred similar userrights to residents of communal land conservancies as enjoyed by freehold farmers (Barnett andPatterson, 2006). The Parks and Wildlife Management Bill is being drafted to repeal the Nature
Conservation Ordinance no. 4 of 1975, but has not yet come into operation (Laubscher, 2007).
Several forms of consumptive use of wildlife are permitted on Namibian farmlands, including(summarized primarily using information from Gödde, 2008):a) “Shoot-and-sell”—where ranchers are allocated permits to shoot wildlife to sell the meat.
Shoot-and-sell permits are allocated to farmers during July and August, unless their wildlife isencompassed by a game fence, in which case the season is extended from June to September.
b) Safari hunting—the sale of guided hunting safaris to mainly foreign hunting tourists resulting
in the removal of animals (primarily males) with trophy horns, skulls, teeth or bodies. A farmmust be registered as a hunting farm in order for permits for safari hunting to be issued, andall hunting must be conducted in the company of a qualified hunting guide or professional
hunters (Lamprechts, 2009). The safari hunting season runs from 1 February to 30 November(NAPHA, www.natron.net).

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

1Credit: Peter Lindseyc) Management hunts—guided hunts sold to hunting tourists in a similar fashion to safari
hunting, but with a focus on hunting of non-trophy animals.
d) Biltong hunting—where visitors (primarily hunting tourists from South Africa) are sold theright to hunt non-trophy individuals (primarily involving Greater Kudu, Oryx, Springbok andCommon Warthog) for the production of biltong (dried meat). Biltong hunting is conductedunder shoot-and-sell permits. The biltong hunting season is May–August on properties withperimeter wildlife-proof fencing and June and July for properties without perimeter fencing.
e) Wildlife harvesting—where wildlife is culled by specialized culling teams (under shoot-andsell permits when conducted during the day or under specialized night culling permits when
conducted after dark). Culling teams negotiate a price per kilogramme for wildlife meat withthe farmer and then sell the meat on to abattoirs and meat-processing companies.
f) Shooting for own use—where animals may be shot for personal use. Permits are only
required for specially protected species. No transport of meat away from the farm ispermitted when animals are shot for own use.
g) Live capture and sale—where wildlife is captured and sold live to farmers or institutions
wishing to re-stock other areas, or exported for sale in South Africa.

Professional hunter and his client2

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Wildlife species are categorized as “specially protected”, “protected” and “huntable”, based on theirdegree of scarcity. Species from all categories can be hunted under some permits in somecircumstances (Barnett and Patterson, 2006). Safari hunting quotas are established by the Departmentof Wildlife and National Parks, whereas all other wildlife use quotas are issued by regional or
Windhoek offices of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (Gödde, 2008). Quotas are allocatedon the basis of management plans drafted by farmers or conservancies, taking into account wildlife
numbers counted in the previous year and subsequent permits issued, and current estimated wildlife
numbers (Gödde, 2008). MET inspects wildlife numbers on freehold farms every four years, except
for properties encompassed by wildlife-proof fencing, where counts are not conducted (Gödde, 2008).
According to Gödde (2008), quotas usually allow for maximum off-takes of 20% of the populationsof huntable species and 10% of specially protected species, based on numbers provided inmanagement plans.

Trends in wildlife-based land use on freehold land
Enabling legislation turned wildlife from being a burden to landowners into an asset. As in South
Africa and Zimbabwe, land owners started to switch from livestock production to wildlife-based landuse (WBLU) on a large scale. By 2004, wildlife was responsible for the generation of gross economic
outputs of NAD1.5 billion in Namibia [USD177 million], of which 1.02 billion [USD121 million]
were from WBLU on freehold land (Barnes et al., 2009). Ecotourism, followed by hunting tourism,are estimated to be the most significant components economically of WBLU on freehold land,comprising 62.7% and 20.6% of economic output from wildlife, respectively (Barnes et al., 2009).
Attracted by Namibia’s exceptional scenic beauty and diverse wildlife populations, tourist arrivals
have increased rapidly in recent years, growing from 695 211 in 2003 to 928 912 in 2007(www.namibiatourism.com.na). Similarly, the numbers of visiting hunters have increased from 1918
in 1994 to 5845 in 2006, and by 2007, revenues from safari hunting had reached USD44.8 million(Erb, 2004; Bond et al., 2004; Damm, 2005; Lamprechts, 2009; P. Erb, Namibian Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism, pers comm.).
The growth in WBLU resulted in a major increase in the diversity and biomass of wildlife on private
land as farmers began to protect and actively reintroduce wild ungulates (Barnes and de Jager, 1996).
During 1972 and 1992, wildlife diversity, numbers and biomass on freehold land increased by 44%,
70% and 84% respectively (Barnes and de Jager, 1996). Similar increases were observed with the
expansion of WBLU on private land in South Africa and Zimbabwe (Bond et al., 2004). Other
conservation benefits associated with the expansion of WBLU that have been observed in Southern
Africa include: the recovery of populations of threatened and endangered species in some areas(including Bontebok Damaliscus pygargus, White Rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum, Black
Wildebeest Connochaetes gnou, Hartmann’s Mountain Zebra Equus zebra hartmannea and Cape
Mountain Zebra Equus zebra zebra, etc.); the recovery of degraded rangelands due toreduction/removal of pressure from livestock (and resultant reduction in soil erosion andimprovements in water-retention); management plans designed to remove alien plants in some areas(e.g. the Eastern Cape of South Africa); increases in predator populations in some areas (e.g. Cheetahs
Acinonyx jubatus on ranchlands in South Africa, African Wild Dogs Lycaon pictus in Zimbabwean
An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security3

As part of the expansion of
WBLU on freehold land anumber of conservancies
have emerged during recent
years (commencing in
1991).
In Namibia, aconservancy is defined as:“a legally protected area ofa group of bona fide landoccupiers practicing cooperative
management
based on a sustainableutilization
strategy,
promoting conservation ofnaturalresources
andCharacteristic sign board denoting entry to a commercial
conservancy
wildlife, and striving to reinstate the original biodiversity with the basic goal of sharing resources amongst all members” (Conservancies Associationof Namibia [CANAM], www.canam.iway.na). There are 25 commercial conservancies, comprising1008 farms and covering an area of ~43 250 km2. Within conservancies, the consumptive use of
wildlife is typically co-ordinated by the central conservancy, with quotas established on the basis ofannual counts. There are another 50 conservancies occurring on communal land, covering ~119 000 km2(Jones and Weaver, 2007).

Challenges to WBLU in Southern Africa
Despite strong growth during recent decades, the private-land wildlife industry in Southern Africa
faces a number of challenges which threaten its future. These challenges include:a)

Uncertainty among some politicians about the acceptability of using large areas of agriculturalland for wildlife production. The development of WBLU in Southern Africa has beenaccompanied by a marked reduction in livestock numbers on private land. For example, cattle
numbers on Namibian freehold land fell from 1.6 million in 1980 to one million in 2005, theresult in part of the switch by some farmers to WBLU (MAWF, 2007). Such shifts have led to4

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Credit: Cornelis van der Waal

conservancies); effective expansion of protected area networks to include under-represented biomes(e.g. the thicket biome in the Eastern Cape of South Africa); the development of increased capacity
and improved techniques for wildlife management; the provision of wildlife from private ranches forre-stocking of depleted state protected areas (e.g. as is planned for Gonarezhou NP in Zimbabwe); andthe conservation of large areas of natural woodlands and associated benefits relating to carbon
sequestration and watershed protection (Pole 2004; Turpie et al., 2005; Langholz and Kerley 2006;
Marnewick et al., 2007; Carruthers 2008; Child 2008; Cousins 2008; Lindsey et al., 2009).

erroneous concern among some Southern African politicians that WBLU may represent a threat
to food security (du Toit, 2004).
b) Land reform. The independent nations of Southern Africa inherited colonial (and in the case of
Namibia and South Africa, apartheid) land tenure systems where ownership of private land was
skewed greatly in favour of white farmers. Consequently there is an imperative to undertake land
reform to provide access to land ownership for previously disadvantaged groups. With theprocess of land reform, there is the risk that land uses will shift back from WBLU to livestock
production unless specific efforts are made to introduce emerging farmers to wildlife ranching.
In Zimbabwe, for example, the fast-track land reform programme resulted in the conversion of asmuch as 20 000 km2 of game ranch land to livestock production and agriculture (Lindsey et al.,2009).
c) Illegal bushmeat trade. In some parts of Southern Africa, illegal hunting for bushmeat represents
a serious threat to WBLU on private land. In Zimbabwe, and parts of South Africa, snaring forbushmeat imposes significant financial impacts on wildlife ranchers, threatening the viability of
WBLU (Lindsey et al., 2009). The illegal bushmeat trade is emerging as a severe threat towidespread wildlife populations in Africa, owing to food insecurity among rural communities,
high potential earnings from the sale of meat, and weak penal systems which fail to create
deterrents for illegal use (Barnett, 1998; Lindsey et al., 2009).
To address these concerns and threats, there is a need to demonstrate the positive contributions of
WBLU to the economy and to national food security, to integrate the development of WBLU with theland reform process, and to demonstrate or create links between WBLU and food security in areas
where the illegal bushmeat trade is prominent. Consumptive forms of WBLU result in the productionof large quantities of game meat with the potential to contribute significantly to food security. Several
authors have reviewed the potential for and barriers to the generation of income from the export ofgame meat from Namibia (Gödde, 2008; Laubscher, 2007; MET, 2008). However, little effort has
been made to document the scale of meat production on Namibian farmlands, to document how gamemeat is used, or to document the economic and social benefits resulting from game meat production,
which is the focus of this report.
This project forms a component of the BMZ-funded programme with TRAFFIC entitled “Vulnerable
People, Diminishing Wildlife: Addressing priority bushmeat trade, livelihood and food security issues
in Africa”.

METHODS
A structured questionnaire survey was designed and pre-tested thoroughly before use (Appendix I).
Four interviewers were trained in the survey technique. A list of the farmers unions in Namibia (104of them) was obtained from the Namibian Agricultural Union, and a sample of 60 randomly selected
for sampling. The chairperson for each selected farmers union was then contacted and the contact
details for farmers requested. From each of the 60 farmers unions, four farmers were randomly
sampled and contacted via telephone to request an interview. All interviews were conducted in
English (the national language), Afrikaans or Herero during the period July–September 2009.
An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

5

The biomass of wildlife was estimated by assuming that the average mass of individuals within a
species equalled 0.75 of standard female mass, after Coe et al. (1976), and then multiplying thatfigure by respondents’ estimates of the number of individuals of each species present on theirproperties. When estimating meat production from wildlife on each respondent’s property, the mean
dressing percentage (Bothma, 2002) was multiplied by the number of individuals killed. In the caseof safari hunting, biltong hunting, management hunts, shoot-and-sell and own use, all animals killedwere assumed to be adults, whereas for culling, the mean mass for individuals in a population wasused.

Credit: Tiemen Rhebergen

To estimate meat production andrevenue from meat sales on anational scale, the mean
percentage
off-takesofpopulations of each species(based on farmers’ estimates ofwildlife numbers on their farmand numbers of animals thatthey remove via each form of
consumptive
use)
were
calculated. These percentages
were then multiplied against
national population estimates ofeach species on freehold land
(after Barnes et al., 2009) toVehicle used for wildlife harvesting (culling)
provide an estimate of thenumber of individuals of each species removed via each form of use. This value was then multipliedby the mean mass of meat produced by an individual of each species from each form of use (taking
into account the mean gender ratio of the different forms of use as recorded during the survey, tofactor in the different masses of male and female animals). For species for which population
estimates were not available (Kirk’s Dik-dik Madoqua kirkii, Steenbok Raphicerus campestris,
Common Duiker Sylvicapra grimmia, White Rhinoceros, Nyala Tragelaphus angasi, Common
Tsessebe Damaliscus lunatus, Klipspringer Oreotragus oreotragus, Blesbok Damaliscus pygargus
phillipsi), the percentage of total meat production from this sample was calculated and the national
meat production estimate was adjusted upwards accordingly.
When estimating earnings from the sale of meat, warthog meat was assumed not to be sold, except forcases where the species was shot under “shoot-and-sell” permits. The sale of warthog meat is not
permitted unless farmers are in possession of a special permit, to reduce the risk of transmission ofswine fever to domestic pigs (Francois Joubert, directorate of Veterinary Services, pers. comm.,
2010). In cases where farmers sold meat as rations to their workers (in most cases, rations were justgiven, but occasionally extra meat is sold to workers), income generated was excluded from theestimate of earnings from the sale of game meat as the prices are typically greatly subsidized. The
mean proportion of meat sold from various forms of use was calculated, as was the proportion sold in
6

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

each form (i.e. as whole carcasses, unselected cuts, selected cuts, processed meat, etc). The
kilogrammes of meat sold in each form were then multiplied by the mean prices obtained for each.
This provided an estimate of the Namibian dollar earnings per km2 per year from the sale of meat ineach region. To provide an estimate of the national revenues from the sale of game meat, the meanearnings per year per km2 in each region were multiplied by the area of freehold land in each region.

Statistical analyses
In the initial sample, farmers in conservancies were over-represented. When estimating land use,
wildlife and livestock densities, and meat production on a national scale, surveys of farmers inconservancies were randomly selected and removed until the proportion of farms in conservancies
equalled recorded proportions.
Survey data were analysed using multiple logistic
regressions, chi-squares and analyses of variance asappropriate (JMPIN, 2000). Where logistic regressions or
multiple analyses of variance were used, p values were
presented for the whole model. When commencing withmultiple logistic regressions or multiple analyses ofvariance, all variables that might logically be expected toinfluence the dependent variable were included in themodels and then removed following a backwards stepwise
procedure until all variables included were statisticallysignificant (i.e. with a p value of <0.05).

Figure 1
The “small stock” and “large stock”
farming areas used in statistical analyses

Data on rainfall, human densities, estimates of the nearest
distance of farms from towns and national roads andestimates of the land area under commercial farming ineach region were calculated from a Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) database (ConInfo,
www.met.gov.na/dea), using ArcInfo. The “area” of
Namibia was one variable included in several analyses:
land was categorized as falling in the “small stock” or“large stock” farming areas, following Erb (2004), see
Figure 1.

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

7

RESULTS
A sample of 250 farmers was interviewed, including respondents from eight regions (Erongo—n=16;
Hardap—n=20; Karas—n=28; Khomas—n=42; Kunene—n=56; Omaheke—n=23; Oshikoto—n=6;
Otjozondjupa—n=59). Owing to multiple farm ownership and the leasing of additional farms by
respondents or the consolidation of multiple farms (sometimes owned by several individuals) into
single management units, the sample covered 412 farms and 28 038 km2. There are believed to be
3500 commercial farms (or, more accurately, management units, sometimes including multiple farms
combined) in Namibia (Giel Schoombee, Namibian Agricultural Union, pers. comm., 2010) and so
the sample covered 11.8% of the “population”. The refusal rate was 4.8%. Refusal rates of <10% are
not considered to be problematic in terms of non-response bias (Lindner, 2002). Eighty-seven percent (87.1%) of respondents interviewed where white, of which 54.2% were Afrikaans-speaking,
42.1% were German-speaking and the remainder English-speaking. Of the black respondents (12.9%of the sample), the majority (75.0%) were Otjiherero-speaking, the remainder spoke a variety oflanguages including Damara (9.4%), Oshiwambo (6.3%), Tswana (3.1%), Himba (3.1%), or Kavango(3.1%).

Number of farms and farm sizes
Respondents owned (or managed on behalf of owners) an average of 1.51 ± 0.07 and leased an
additional 0.15 ± 0.03 farms. The mean combined size of management units controlled byrespondents was 120 ± 13 km2 and the mean size of individual farms was 69.5 ± 3.03 km2. The sizeof landholdings was larger in the small stock (241 ± 42 km2) than large stock farming area (75.4 ± 4.7km2) (F Ratio 39.9, d.f.=1, p<0.001). Eighty-five per cent of respondents were full-time farmers, theremainder had other jobs.

Land use
Spatial patterns in land uses are presented in Figure 2.

Livestock
Livestock production was the most frequently practised form of land use (92.3% of respondents)(Table 1), and generated the largest mean proportion of respondents’ income (Table 2). Cattle werethe most frequently farmed livestock (93.4% of respondents, mean density where cattle are kept—5.1± 0.36 individuals/km2), followed by sheep (72.7%, 13.6 ± 2.3/km2), and goats (61.6%, 2.20 ± 0.19).
Whether livestock farming was practised or not was related to: wildlife biomass (where livestock
farming occurred, wildlife biomass was lower—1,101 ± 110 kg/km2 c.f. 3,512 ±1,076 kg/km2 where
no livestock were present); the percentage of income from safari hunting —(respondents withlivestock derived a lower proportion of income (12.4 ± 1.4%) from safari hunting than those without
livestock (41.8 ± 9.4%); and percentage of income from ecotourism (respondents with livestock
derived lower proportion (4.2 ± 0.9%) of income from ecotourism, c.f. 28.0 ± 9.5% for respondents
without livestock) (χ2=48.0, d.f.=3, p<0.001, JMPIN, 2000).
8An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Credit: Peter Lindsey

The percentage of income derived from livestock was influenced by the region (the highest
proportions of income from livestock were among farmers from Kunene, Oshikoto, and Otjozondjupa,
Table 2), and by the age of the respondent, older farmers typically deriving a higher proportion ofincome from livestock (Figure 3) (F Ratio=3.69, d.f.=8, p<0.001, JMPIN, 2000).

Cattle on a Namibian commercial farm

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

9Figure 2
Spatial patterns in primary land use (i.e. that accounting for the majority of farmers’ income)on freehold land in Namibia

10

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Wildlife-based land uses
Seventy-five per cent of respondents practised some form of wildlife-based land use (commercial
consumptive or non-consumptive use of wildlife, excluding harvesting of wildlife for their own use).
Approximately 288 000 km2 of freehold land is used for WBLU, and ~32 000 km2 is used exclusively
for wildlife production (i.e. without livestock) (Table 3). Whether WBLU is practised was related to:whether the respondent’s property was part of a conservancy (94.0% of respondents in conservancies
practise WBLU, c.f. 69.4% of respondents not belonging to a conservancy); and wildlife diversity(higher on land of respondents practising WBLU—9.0 ± 0.32 wild ungulate species—than on land of
those not practising WBLU—5.2 ± 0.26 species).
The percentage of income from WBLU was related to the following factors: whether the respondent’s
property was part of a conservancy (conservancy members derived a higher proportion of income[35.3 ± 3.0%] from WBLU than those not part of conservancies [19.1 ± 2.4%]); the number of
employees/km2 (there was a positive relationship between the percentage of income from WBLU andthe number of employees/km2) (see section below on employment); and the race of the respondent(the mean percentage income from WBLU was higher among white respondents than black
respondents (29.6 ± 2.2% c.f. 6.6 ± 1.6%)).

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

11

Table 1
Percentage of farmers engaging in various land use types
Livestockproduction

Ecotourism

Safari hunting

Shoot-and-sell

Wildlife
harvesting

Biltong hunting

Live sales

Management
hunts

Overall

92.3

25.2

35.7

39.9

16.1

23.8

17.3

13.7

Zone
Small stock
Large stock

88.9
93.5

34.1
22.0

44.4
32.5

51.1
35.7

20.0
14.6

22.8
26.7

24.4
14.6

17.8
12.2

RegionErongoHardapKaras
KhomasKuneneOmahekeOshikoto
Otjozondjupa

90.0
90.0
89.3
83.3
100
83.3
100
97.6

20.0
20.0
40.7
29.2
40.7
8.3
33.3
9.76

50.0
30.0
50.0
29.2
14.8
8.3
50.0
48.8

40.0
55.0
46.4
41.7
37.0
8.3
50.0
36.6

0
10.0
25.0
8.3
22.2
0
16.7
22.0

30.0
15.0
28.6
4.2
51.9
8.3
50.0
17.1

0
20.0
25.0
8.3
7.4
0
16.7
31.7

0
15.0
17.9
8.3
11.1
0
33.3
19.5

In conservancy?
Yes
No

89.7
94.0

30.2
23.9

75.9
29.1

41.4
38.1

10.3
15.7

19.0
24.7

30.2
13.4

15.5
11.9

12

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Table 2
Relationships between respondents’ region and whether their property lay within a conservancy, and the percentage of income coming from various
types of land use
Mean % income
from livestock

Mean % income
from ecotourism

Mean % income
from safari
hunting

Mean % income
from shoot-andsell

Mean % income
from wildlife
harvesting

Mean % income
from biltong
hunting

Mean % income
from live sales

Mean % income
from management
hunts

Overall66.9±2.8

6.8±1.69.2±1.6

2.7±0.7

1.0±0.3

1.3±0.3

1.8±0.7

0.2±0.01

Zone
Small stock
Large stock

66.2±5.3
67.1±3.3

7.7±3.4
6.5±1.911.1±3.2
8.6±1.9

5.5±0.8
1.7±0.4

2.4±1.0
0.5±0.2

1.7±0.7
1.0±0.2

3.1±1.9
1.3±0.7

0.2±0.1
0.2±0.1

RegionErongoHardapKaras
KhomasKuneneOmahekeOshikoto
Otjozondjupa

54.2±12.1
73.8±8.2
64.2±6.7
61.7±8.2
79.6±4.3
51.8±13.571.2±12.5
67.1±5.6

0.9±0.9
6.1±5.4
8.3±4.1
14.2±6.6
5.8±2.7
8.3±8.3
13.7±13.3
12.3±2.022.8±12.1
5.8±3.0
14.0±4.7
4.5±2.5
3.0±2.7
1.3±1.3
8.6±6.4
13.7±3.95.2±2.8
7.8±5.3
3.4±1.1
2.8±1.0
1.0±0.4
0.2±0.2
0.7±0.5
1.3±0.40±0
1.1±1.1
3.1±1.5
0.9±0.7
0.3±0.20±0
0.2±0.2
0.7±0.0

2.5±1.3
1.6±0.1
0.8±0.4
0.3±0.3
1.8±0.5
1.7±1.7
3.6±1.9
0.8±0.40±0
0.4±0.3
4.8±3.0
0.2±0.2
0.1±0.10±0
0.1±0.1
3.7±2.00±0
0.2±0.2
0.2±0.1
0.2±0.2
0.2±0.10±0
0±0
0.3±0.2

Conservancy
membership
Yes
No

60.3±3.1
67.6±3.2

7.2±1.6
5.0±1.722.6±2.2
7.5±2.1

3.0±0.7
2.7±0.7

0.3±0.3
1.1±0.4

0.8±0.3
1.4±0.3

1.9±0.5
2.0±0.90.2±0.06
0.3±0.1

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

13

Table 3
Land area used for safari hunting, ecotourism, wildlife-based land uses, and for pure wildlife production
Region *

Total
area

Safari hunting

Ecotourism

Wildlife based
land uses

Pure wildlife(livestock absent)

% of
farms

km2

% of
farms

km2

% of
farms

km2

% of
farms

km2

20.0

4346

80

17 38310.0

2173

Erongo21 72950.0

10 865Hardap78 15630.0

23 44720.0

15 63195

74 248

10.0

7816

Karas

86 76450.0

43 38240.7

35 313100

86 764

10.7

9284

Khomas32 349

29.2

9446

29.2

9446

83.3

26 947

16.7

5402

Kunene26 199

14.8

3877

40.7

10 66344.4

11 63200Omaheke36 690

8.3

3045

8.3

3045

50

18 345

16.7

6127

Omusati

802

14.8

119

40.7

326

44.4

356

0

0

Oshana

550

14.8

81

40.7

224

44.4

244

0

0

Oshikoto

7054

14.8

1044

40.7

2871

44.4

3132

0

0

Otjozondjupa

66 23948.932 391

9.8

6491

73.2

48 487

2.4

1590

Total/average

356 53235.8

127 69729.1

88 35780.7

287 539

9.1

32 392

Note: *Assuming that the percentage in Oshikoto, Oshana and Omusati equal that in Kunene, the nearest region for which density estimates areavailable (averages exclude Oshikoto, Oshana and Omusati).

14

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Figure 3
Relationship between respondent age and the proportion of income derived
from livestock

Ecotourism
Twenty-five per cent (25.2%) of respondents derived income from ecotourism (Table 1). Ecotourism
is practised over ~88 000 km2 of freehold land (Table 3). Whether ecotourism was practised was
related to: the region (the highest proportions of respondents practising ecotourism were in Karas,
Kunene and Khomas); and by wildlife diversity (diversity was higher on the land of respondents who
do practise ecotourism than on those who do not (9.42 ± 0.56 wild ungulate species c.f. 7.9 ± 0.32)(χ2=26.7, d.f.=8, p<0.001).
Mean percentage income from ecotourism across all respondents was 6.8%. The percentage ofincome derived from ecotourism was related to: the area of Namibia (percentage of income from
ecotourism was higher in the small stock than large stock farming area, Table 2); and the ethnicity of
respondents (black farmers derived a mean of 0.006% ± 0.03 of income from ecotourism; Afrikaansspeaking farmers—4.93% ± 0.02; German [or English] speakers—8.8% ± 0.02) (F Ratio =3.76,
d.f.=4, p=0.005). Ranchers conducting ecotourism attracted a mean of 353 ± 99 tourists per year totheir properties and recorded a mean of 725 ±186 bed nights.

Safari hunting
Safari hunting was the second-most widely practised form of WBLU and generated the highest
proportion of farmers’ income from WBLU (Tables 1 and 2). Safari hunting is practised over
~128 000 km2 of freehold land (Table 3). Whether safari hunting was practised was related to:whether respondents were part of a conservancy (69.3% of conservancy members practise safari
hunting c.f. 30.7% of non conservancy members); wildlife diversity (diversity was higher on
properties where safari hunting was practised—11.0 ± 0.38 wild ungulate species c.f. 5.46 ± 0.22);
An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

15and by the percentage of income from ecotourism (where safari hunting was practised, the percentage
of income from ecotourism was 2.8 ± 0.7% c.f. 9.4 ± 0.2% where safari hunting was not practised).
The percentage of income from safari hunting was related to respondent age (younger respondents
tending to derive a higher percentage of income from safari hunting, Figure 4), region (respondents inErongo, Karas and Otjozondjupa deriving the highest percentage of their income from safari hunting,
Table 2), and whether respondents’ properties were within conservancies or not (respondents inconservancies derived a higher percentage of income from safari hunting [22.6 ± 2.5%] than those notpart of conservancies [7.5 ± 1.7%]) Table 2) (F Ratio=14.4, d.f.=2, p<0.001).
Figure 4
Relationship between age and proportion of income derived from safari hunting

Management hunts
Fourteen-per cent (13.7%) of respondents sold management hunts (Table 1). Whether management
hunts were practised was related to: the area of Namibia (17.8% of respondents in the small stock
farming area conduct management hunts, c.f. 12.2% in the large stock area) and wildlife diversity(ranches where management hunts are practised had a mean diversity of 11.8 ± 0.88 wild ungulate
species, c.f. 7.7 ± 0.28 where management hunts are not practised) (χ2=27.8, d.f.=2, p<0.001). There
was a positive relationship between wildlife diversity and the percentage of respondents’ income frommanagement hunts (F Ratio 6.87, d.f.=1, p=0.009).

Shoot-and-sell
Forty per cent (39.9%) of respondents practised shoot-and-sell (Table 1). Whether shoot-and-sell waspractised or not was related to the mean diversity of wild ungulates (wild ungulate diversity was
higher where shoot-and-sell was practised (9.41 ± 0.48 species c.f. 7.56 ±0.34) (χ2=10.1, d.f.=1,

16

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

p<0.001). There were no statistically significant determinants of the proportion of income derived
from shoot-and-sell.

Biltong hunting
Twenty-four per cent (23.8%) of respondents derived income from selling biltong hunts (Table 1).
Whether or not biltong hunting was practised was related to: the percentage of income derived from
ecotourism (where biltong hunting is practised, 1.0 ± 0.3% of income is from ecotourism, c.f. 7.4 ±
1.5% where biltong hunting is not practised); and the region—biltong hunting is most commonly
practised in Kunene, Oshikoto and Erongo) (χ2=56.1, d.f.=1, p<0.001). The proportion of income
from biltong hunting was higher in the small stock area (2.7 ± 0.2%) than in the large stock area (0.9
± 0.2) (F Ratio 9.18, d.f.=1, p<0.001).

Wildlife harvesting (culling)
Sixteen per cent (16.1%) of respondents derived income from wildlife harvesting (Table 1). Whether
or not respondents culled wildlife was related to: wildlife diversity (diversity was higher on land
where respondents culled—8.67 ± 0.92 species, c.f. 8.24 ± 0.30 species where they did not cull); andthe area of Namibia—culling was more common in the small stock area (17.8% of respondents) thanthe large stock area (12.2%) (χ2=17.6, d.f.=2, p<0.001). The percentage of income from wildlife
culling was higher in the small stock (2.4 ± 1.0%) than the large stock area (0.5 ± 0.2%) (F Ratio
8.11, d.f.=1; p=0.005).

Own useNinety-three per cent (92.9%) of respondents used wildlife for their own use. Whether or not
respondents harvested wildlife for their own use was related to: the percentage of income fromlivestock (respondents who shoot for own use are more reliant on livestock for their income (67.0 ±
3.0% of income from livestock) than those who do not (42.8 ± 7.2% income from livestock)); wildlife
biomass (which is higher on land of respondents who do not shoot for own use—3.031 ± 937
kg/km2—than on the land of those who do—1048 ± 73 kg/km2); and whether respondents weremembers of conservancies or not (80.1% of conservancy members shoot for own use, c.f. 93.3% of
non conservancy members) (χ2=27.6, d.f.=3, p<0.001).

Live sales
Seventeen per cent (17.3%) of respondents sold live wild animals (Table 1). The percentage ofincome from live sales was related to: percentage of income from livestock (inverse relationship—thehigher the percentage of income from livestock, the lower the percentage from live sales); thepercentage of income from safari hunting (positive relationship—the higher the percentage of income
from safari hunting, the higher the proportion from live sales); and wildlife diversity (positive
relationship, the higher the diversity, the higher the percentage of income from live sales) (F Ratio
13.9, d.f.=4; p<0.001). Live sales are typically undertaken every three to five years. The mostAn Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

17

commonly sold species among farmers are: Oryx (42.3% of farmers who sell wildlife); Hartebeest
Alcelaphus buselaphus (38.5%); Common Eland Tragelaphus oryx (34.6%); Springbok (30.8%) andBlue Wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus (30.8%).

Guest accommodation
Fifty-three per cent (52.6%) of respondents had guest accommodation on their properties. Guest
accommodation was most commonly used for hunters (74.7%), ecotourism clientele (45.9%),
businesspeople and conferences (16.2%), and friends and family (5.4%).

Employees
Respondents employed a mean of 10.4 ± 1.14 workers, or 0.28 ± 0.12 workers/km2. The number of
employees was related to: the proportion of income derived from livestock (inverse relationship—i.e.
the greater the percentage of income from livestock, the fewer employees, see Figure 5); theproportion of income from wildlife-based land uses (positive relationship—the greater the proportionof income from WBLU, the higher the number of employees, Figure 6); the proportion of income
from ecotourism (positive relationship, Figure 7); the wildlife biomass (positive relationship, Figure8), and the rainfall (employees per km2 increasing with increasing rainfall—in areas with <200 ml ofrain/year, the mean number of employees per km2 was 0.04 ± 0.004; 201-300 ml—0.11 ± 0.01; 301–
400 ml—0.11 ± 0.02; >400 ml—0.17 ± 0.03) (F Ratio 18.1, d.f.=7, p=<0.001). The number of
employees/km2 was greater on farms inside conservancies, but the effect was not statisticallysignificant (farms in conservancies—0.13 ± 0.01 employees/km2, farms not in conservancies—0.10 ±0.01, F Ratio 2.65, d.f. 1, p=0.105). Farmers typically housed an additional 1.46 ± 0.13 family
members per worker, or a total of 25.8 ± 2.1 people (employees and family members) per
management unit (0.46 ± 0.11 people/km2).
Figure 5
Relationship between the proportion of income from livestock and thenumber of employees/km2

18

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Figure 6
Relationship between the proportion of income from wildlife-based land
uses (WBLU) and the number of employees/km2

Figure 7
Relationship between the number of employees/km2 and the proportion of
respondent’s income from ecotourism

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

19

Figure 8
Relationship between the number of employees per km2 and the biomass oflarge (>15kg) wild ungulates

Conservancies
The majority of conservancies occur in the central and northern parts of the freehold farming area
(Figure 9). Whether a respondent’s property was part of a conservancy was related to: the percentage
of income from livestock (mean percentage income from livestock was lower among respondents withland in conservancies); safari hunting (mean percentage income from safari hunting was higher
among ranchers with land in conservancies) (Table 2); rainfall (conservancies were most commonly
located in areas of intermediate rainfall); the distance from main roads (farms part of conservancies
closer to main roads (mean distance—26.4 ± 2.3 km) than farms not part of conservancies—37.4 ±2.6 km); the biomass of wildlife (mean biomass was higher in conservancies—1663 ± 216kg/km2—
than out of conservancies—978 ± 174 kg/km2); livestock biomass (mean biomass was lower inconservancies—2587 ± 173 kg/km2—than outside of conservancies—3377± 884 kg/km2); and therace of respondents: 3.1% of black respondents were members of conservancies c.f. 52.8% of white
respondents (before adjustment of the sample to ensure that the proportion of respondents in thesample equalled that observed in reality) (χ2=105.3, d.f.=8, p<0.001, JMPIN 2000). Conservancy
membership did not affect the diversity of wildlife, nor the presence/absence of large wildlife (i.e.
African Elephants Loxodonta africana, Hippopotamuses Hippopotamus amphibius, rhinoceros
species, or Lions Panthera leo).

20

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Figure 9

Credit: Tiemen Rhebergen

Communal(indark
red/brown)
andcommercial
conserve
ancies(clusters offarms
invariouscolours)inNamibia

Greater Kudu are one of the commonest ungulates on Namibian farmlands
and are a key species for wildlife-based land uses
Figure 9
Communal (in dark red/brown) and commercial
conservancies (cluster of farms in various colours)
in Namibia

Source: CANAM

The most common reasons cited for joining conservancies were: to provide for improved/co-ordinatedwildlife management and to conserve wildlife (Table 4).
An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

21

Table 4
Reasons for joining or staying out of conservancies

Reasons for joining a conservancyn% Reasons for not being part of aconservancyn%

For improved/co-ordinated wildlife
management
To conserve wildlife

45

38.8

No conservancies in the area

50

37.3

40

34.5

11

8.21

To streamline interactions withgovernment/obtaining permits
easier/reduce government interference
For improved wildlife counts
Increases area of land one can hunt on

24

20.7

Not invited into/informed about
conservancies
I’m a livestock farmer/not interested inwildlife

10

7.46

13
12

11.2
10.3

9
8

6.72
5.97

Due to peer pressure

5

4.31

7

5.22

To help control poaching

4

3.45

3

2.24

To improve neighbour relations

4

3.45

2

1.49

Due to fear that government would takeover ownership of wildlife on isolated
farms
Due to a belief that membership of aconservancy would provide protection
from loss of land during land reform

3

2.58

3

2.58

Don’t know/no particular reason
Can’t see the benefit of being part of aconservancy
I have no interest in being part of aconservancy
The conservancy concept is notworking
Co-operating with neighbours isdifficultDuring the surveys, farmers belonging to conservancies frequently voiced dissatisfaction anddisillusionment with conservancies which was not quantitatively captured by the survey. Primaryreasons for such disillusionment included:
1) Frustration over the lack of legal recognition of commercial conservancies
2) The belief that membership of conservancies provided no protection from land restitution3) A fear previously held by some farmers was that government would take over ownership ofwildlife on farms not belonging to conservancies—that did not happen, thus negating one of thereasons farmers joined conservancies
4) A feeling that conservancies only really benefited land owners who conducted safari hunting5) The belief that conservancies did not provide significant benefits for wildlife conservation (i.e.
they facilitated increased off-takes, not improved protection)
6) Problems associated with equitable sharing of the pooled wildlife resource and the failure ofconservancy structures to take into account differential investments in wildlife7) A feeling that the membership fees were not reflected in commensurate service provision by theconservancies
8) Problems associated with internal politics and neighbour relations
9) Dissatisfaction among Afrikaans-speaking members of conservancies over the predominance of
the German language at conservancy meetings

22

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food SecurityIn the Kunene region, some black farmers were under the misconception that they did not qualify forconservancy membership because they did not have wildlife-proof fencing, which they believed to bea prerequisite for membership.

Fencing
Eighty-nine per cent (88.7%) of respondents had livestock-proof fencing on their properties, (of which
28.0% had jackal-proof fencing). Twenty-seven (26.8%) had game fencing around their properties(of which 17.8% indicated they had game fencing designed only to hold non-jumping wildlife
species) and 35.6% indicated that they had only part of their properties encompassed by game
fencing. Only 1.2% of farmers indicated that they had no fencing on their properties. Game fencing
was more common within conservancies than outside and stock-proof (including jackal-proof) fencing
less common (Table 5).
Table 5
Prevalence of various forms of fencing on Namibian commercial farmlands
No fence

Stockproof

Jackalproof

Partialgame-proof

Jumpinggame-proof

Non-jumping
game-proof

Overall
Area
Small stock
Large stock

1.2

88.7

28.0

10.7

26.8

5.4

0
1.6

93.3
86.9

84.4
7.3

0
14.6

22.2
21.1

0
7.3

In conservancy?
Yes
No

2.6
0

76.7
91.0

3.4
32.8

6.0
24.1

38.8
22.3

6.0
6.0

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

23

Credit: Tiemen Rhebergen
Credit: Peter Lindsey

Livestock-proof fencing (designed only to constrain the movement of livestock)

Wildlife-proof fencing (of the type not designed to constrain the movement of predators)

24

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Changes in land use
When respondents farming with livestock were asked if they would ever consider removing livestockand farming purely with wildlife, 21.4% indicated that they would, and the remainder said they would
not. The most frequently cited comments from respondents who indicated that they would consider
such a change were: if the financial viability could be demonstrated, they would make the change(37.5%); because wildlife is more profitable than livestock (18.7%); if funds were provided to assist
with the necessary infrastructure development, they would make the change (12.5%). The mostfrequently cited reasons from respondents for not wishing to switch purely to wildlife ranching were:that wildlife alone is unviable/too risky (43.5%); the start-up costs were too high; because they loved
farming with cattle/were raised farming cattle or were too old to change from cattle (14.3%); because
they considered their property to be too small (11.7%); and the perceived riskiness of farming withwildlife, owing to the frequency of droughts (wildlife, unlike cattle, cannot be moved easily) (7.8%).
The willingness of respondents to shift to remove all livestock and shift to wildlife-based land uses
was influenced by: respondents’ race (30.8% of black respondents were willing to shift, c.f. 20% of
white respondents); proportion of income from ecotourism (respondents willing to remove all
livestock derived 0.08 ± 0.03% of income from ecotourism, c.f. 0.04 ± 0.01% among respondents
unwilling to remove all livestock); proportion of income from safari hunting (respondents willing to
remove all livestock derived 22 ± 5.0% of income from safari hunting, c.f. 11 ± 2.0% among
respondents unwilling to remove all livestock); and respondents’ distance from town (respondents
willing to remove all livestock were 142 ± 20 km from the nearest town, c.f. 192 ± 11.4 km for among
respondents unwilling to remove all livestock).
Farmers with land inside conservancies were asked:“If the conservancy proposed that all farmers switch to purely game farming, remove all internal
fences, and that the conservancy constructed a single fence around the perimeter and reintroduced all
indigenous animals that the law permitted to the area, would you be supportive of such a move and be
willing to include your land?”Seventy-four per cent of respondents indicated that they would not be supportive of such a change,
citing the following reasons: livestock is a safer form of income (59.3%); the conservancy is too
fragmented to enable such a development (24.7%); unwillingness to give up livestock farming(18.5%); the difficulty of working together effectively with neighbours (13.6%); such a form of land
use would not be viable or would be too risky (12.3%). Comments given by respondents who
indicated that they would consider such a change included: if neighbours participated, they would too(23.1%); comments on the improved marketing opportunities that would arise (11.5%); if the financial
viability of such an option could be demonstrated, they would be interested in making the change(11.5%); and comments related to the opportunities for improved wildlife management (7.6%).
The willingness of respondents to form a fully integrated conservancy was related to the proportion ofincome derived from safari hunting: respondents willing to form such a conservancy derived 30 ±An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

25

6.0% of their income from safari hunting, c.f. 14 ± 2.0% for respondents not willing to form such a
conservancy (χ2=7.3, d.f.=1, p<0.001).

Wildlife abundance and diversity
Spatial patterns in the diversity of wild ungulates are presented in Figure 10. The mean diversity ofwild ungulates (plus Ostriches Struthio camelus where present) per management unit was 7.69 ± 0.35
species. Wild ungulate diversity was influenced by: whether respondents’ properties were withinconservancies (mean diversity in conservancies—10.1 ± 0.39 species, out of conservancies—6.72 ±0.36); the proportion of income from livestock (inverse relationship—Figure 11); the proportion ofincome from trophy hunting (positive relationship—Figure 12); age of the respondents (inverse
relationship, Figure 13); distance of respondents’ farms from town (inverse relationship—i.e.
diversity was higher on farms close to town, Figure 14); and the vegetation (Table 6) (F Ratio—11.7,
d.f.=14, p<0.001).
Figure 10
Spatial patterns in the diversity of wild ungulates (i.e. the numberof species, also including Ostriches)

26

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Figure 11
Relationship between the diversity of wild ungulates and the proportion ofincome from livestock

Figure 12
Relationship between the diversity of wild ungulates and the proportion ofincome from safari hunting

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

27

Figure 13
Relationship between the diversity of wild ungulates and respondent age

Figure 14
Relationship between diversity of wild ungulates and the distance of
respondents’ farms to the nearest town

28

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Table 6
Mean number of wild ungulate species occurring on farms in different vegetation
types in Namibia
Vegetation type

Number of wild ungulate species

Thornbush shrublandSouthern Kalahari
Highland shrublandCentral KalahariWestern highlands
Northern Kalahari
Karstveld
Desert/dwarf shrub transition
Dwarf shrub savannah
Dwarf shrub/southern Kalahari transition
Karas dwarf shrubland

6.84±0.65
7.67±2.19
7.94±0.80
7.17±1.03
8.71±1.64
6.83±1.72
8.11±0.73
5.00±?
7.50±3.57
18.0±?
12.5±4.50

Note: For more information on vegetation in Namibia, see Mendelsohn et al., 2002

Mean wild ungulate diversities on a district basis from this study were generally higher than those ofreported by Erb (2004) (F Ratio 2.09, d.f.=1, p=0.158) (Table 7). Conversely, the percentage
occurrence of most (79.2%) species as reported by Erb (2004) was higher than these results indicate(Figure 15), though the difference was not statistically significant (F Ratio 0.1487; d.f.=1; p=0.701).
Greater Kudu, Steenbok, Oryx and Common Warthog are the most widespread wildlife species on
Namibian farms (Figure 15). The percentage occurrence of all wild ungulate species was higher on
farms within conservancies (Tables 8 and 9). Of large predators, Cheetahs were most commonly
present (78.7% of farms), followed by Leopards Panthera pardus (71.9%), Brown Hyaenas Hyaena
brunnea (60.7%), Spotted Hyaenas Crocuta crocuta (27.3%), Lions (8.1%) and African Wild Dogs
(6.1%).
Table 7
Mean diversity of wild ungulates in various districts of Namibia

Karibib
OmaruruOtjiwarongo
Mariental
Windhoek
Luderitz
GobabisOkahandja
Outjo
Maltahöhe
Grootfontein
KamanjabTsumebKeetmanshoop
Karasburg
Bethanie
Otavi
Leonardsville

Present study

Erb (2004)

Present study n

Erb (2004) n

11.4
10.7
10.2
9.6
9.5
9.0
9.0
8.7
8.1
7.5
6.7
6.0
5.0
4.4
4.0
3.7
?
?

5.5
6.4
5.8
4.6
6.9
?
8
6
5.6
4.8
6.3
9.5
9.2
3.8
6
6
6.5
7

10
7
22
9
43
3
20
15
53
11
19
1
4
10
8
7
0
0

20
49
73
7
122
0
49
67
55
12
44
2
5
4
2
2
8
1

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

29

Figure 15
The percentage occurrence of various wildlife species on farms on which safari hunting is
conducted in Namibia according to Erb (2004) and from the results of the present study

Springbok, Oryx, Common Warthog and Greater Kudu are the wildlife species that occur at thehighest densities on Namibian farmlands (Figure 16). According to Barnes (2009), ~621 000
Springbok, 350 000 Oryx, 345 000 Greater Kudu and 174 000 Common Warthog occur oncommercial farmland in Namibia (Table 10). However, extrapolating from the estimate of mean
regional densities from this study (based on respondent estimates of wildlife numbers), populations
could potentially be higher (Table 10).
Figure 16
Mean densities of wildlife species on Namibian commercial farms where each species occurs(individuals/km2)30

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Table 8
The percentage occurrence of various wildlife species on Namibian farmlands
BlesbokCommonDuikerCommonElandAfricanElephant

Giraffe*

Hartebeest

CommonImpala*Impala,Blackfaced*

Greater
Kudu

Lechwe,
Red*

Nyala

OstrichArea
Small stock
Large stock

22.2
25.8

20.5
91.4

13.3
44.5

0
11.4

11.1
34.2

15.6
50.8

4.4
19.2

2.2
9.2

75.0
78.3

0
2.4

0
4.9

28.9
40.3

RegionErongoHardapKaras
KhomasKuneneOmahekeOshikoto
Otjozondjupa

22.2
35.0
14.3
43.5
11.5
33.3
0
26.8

100
33.3
17.9
81.8
88.0
90.9
100
96.8

33.3
10
14.3
39.1
34.6
41.7
83.3
55.0

20.0
0
0
4.2
33.3
0
0
4.9

50.0
10.0
7.1
33.3
29.6
33.3
16.7
41.5

33.3
30.0
7.1
78.3
23.1
58.3
0
63.4

22.2
10.0
0
17.4
11.5
25.0
0
26.8

11.1
0
3.6
4.4
15.4
0
0
12.2

100
80
74.1
100
100
100
100
100

0
0
0
0
0
8.3
0
4.9

10.0
0
0
4.2
0
16.7
0
4.9

55.6
50.0
17.9
60.9
16.0
66.7
0
36.6

In a conservancy?
Yes
29.5
No
22.7

93.3
64.5

45.6
27.3

44.3
18.9

75.9
28.0

24.1
9.1

8.1
6.1

98.2
91.6

2.65
2.27

3.54
3.03

31.8
48.7

Note: On all but one property in Hardap, elephants were recorded as being sighted “occasionally” and so density estimates were not made.
* Common Impala Aepyceros melampus melampus; Black-faced Impala A. m. petersi; Giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis; Red Lechwe Kobus leche leche

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

31

Table 9
The percentage occurrence of various wildlife species on Namibian farmlands, continued
Roan*

Rhino,
Black

Rhino,White

Sable*

Springbok

Tsessebe

CommonWarthog

Waterbuck*Wildebeest,
Black

Area
Small stock
Large stock

0
1.7

0
1.6

0
2.4

0
5.0

100
57.6

0
1.6

28.9
98.2

6.7
19.0

11.1
21.0

RegionErongoHardapKaras
KhomasKuneneOmahekeOshikoto
Otjozondjupa

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.9

10.0
0
0
0
3.7
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.3

0
0
0
0
3.9
16.7
0
7.3

77.8
100
100
96.7
32.0
58.3
0
52.5

0
0
0
0
3.9
0
0
2.4

100
60.0
14.3
100
91.3
100
100
100

10.0
5.0
7.1
29.2
7.7
25.0
0
25.0

In a conservancy?
Yes
3.57
No
0.76

3.54
0

2.65
0.76

5.36
2.27

76.7
65.4

1.8
1.52

95.4
75.0

23.4
9.85

Wildebeest,
Blue

Zebra,
Hartmann’s

Zebra,
Plains*

15.6
26.1

20.0
34.8

8.9
24.4

22.2
15.0
7.1
40.9
7.7
25.0
0
22.0

33.3
25.0
7.1
50.0
11.5
25.0
0
26.8

55.6
25.0
14.3
54.6
34.6
33.3
0
27.5

22.2
20.0
0
40.9
7.7
33.3
0
29.3

26.1
15.9

26.1
15.9

47.8
28.2

29.7
12.9

* Roan Antelope Hippotragus equines; Sable Antelope Hippotragus niger; Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus; Plains Zebra Equus quagga

32

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Table 10
Wildlife population estimates for freehold land, based on mean densities for each species derived from farmers’ estimates of population sizes, relative
to those of Barnes (2009)
ErongoHardapKaras

KhomasKuneneOmahekeOtjozondjupa

Oshikoto/Oshana/Omusati

Total

BarnesRatio

332 946
111 764
60 96237 51535 1702345
22 66517 97615 631
7034
6253
1563
3908
1563
0
0
0
0

239 470
32 97029 500
2 603
3471
781
868
1041
11 366
0
781
347
0
434
0
0
0
0

71 491
83 46052 08278 93154 0237117
17 468
11 6468087
8411
10 675
4205
4432
0
0
0
0
0

14 40936 15554 75630 129
5764
8646
9 956
5764
4391
2358
1834
1310
576
2201
157
79
629
0

25 68341 09341 09372 27939 258
7705
1834
6971
7705
6971
8439
8806
2201
972
73
0
0
0

35 769119 230
141 089
139 765
38 41956 303
13 91029 14519 20933 12015 43412 254
7949
7286
1987
795
66
331

4623
11 59917 567
9666
1849
2774
3194
1849
1409
756
588
420
185
706
50
25
202
0

762 635
502 328449 199423 472
186 428
89 79881 19575 69669 32061 75745 95928 94919 686
13 488
2268
899
897
331

621 561350 092
345 801174 115
122 805
37 21655 52016 62336 33615 442?
4475
25 421
3370
1233
1188
162
1090

1.23
1.43
1.30
2.43
1.52
2.41
1.46
4.55
1.91
4.00

Sable Antelope
Lechwe ***Tsessebe
Roan Antelope

38 24366 05752 15052 5858474
4129
11 299
1304
1521
3107
1956
43
435
326
0
0
0
0

6.47
0.77
4.00
1.84
0.76
5.54
0.30

Total

241 628657 295

323 631412 027

179 112271 083

672 063

57 4642 814 303

1 812 450

2.47

Springbok
Oryx
Greater Kudu
Common Warthog
Hartebeest
Common ElandHartmann’s Zebra
Blue Wildebeest
OstrichImpala Common*
Black Wildebeest

WaterbuckPlains Zebra
Impala, Black faced**

Notes: Assuming an area of 356 533 km2 of freehold land (Mendelsohn 2006) with the proportion of freehold farmland in each region matching that presented in the ConInfo database (www.met.gov.na/dea)
Assuming that wildlife densities in Oshikoto, Oshana and Omusati equal those in Kunene, the nearest region for which density estimates are available. * Aepyceros melampus melampus; ** A. m.petersi *** Kobus sp.

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

33

Wildlife and livestock biomass
The biomass of livestock (mean: 2251 ± 140 kg/km2) was higher than that of wild ungulates (andOstriches) (936 ±84.1 kg/km2) (F Ratio 64.0, d.f.= 1, p<0.001). Wildlife biomass comprised 29.4%of the total on freehold farms. The wildlife biomass on respondents’ properties was related to: theproportion of income derived from livestock (inverse relationship, Figure 17); safari hunting (positive
relationship, Figure 18) and ecotourism (positive relationship, Figure 19); livestock biomass(positive relationship, Figure 20); wildlife diversity (positive relationship); and vegetation (Table 11)(F Ratio 45.0, d.f.=15, p<0.001). Livestock biomass varied by region (Table 12) and the proportionof income derived from safari hunting (inverse relationship) (F Ratio 7.72, d.f.=8, p<0.001). Spatial
patterns in wildlife and livestock biomass are presented in Figures 21 and 22.
Figure 17
Relationship between wildlife biomass and the proportion of
respondents’ income from livestock

Figure 18
Relationship between wildlife biomass and the proportion of
respondents’ income from safari hunting

34

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Figure 19
Relationship between wildlife biomass and the proportion of respondents’income from ecotourism

Figure 20
Relationship between the biomass of wildlife and the biomass of livestock

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

35

Table 11
Relationship between vegetation type and the biomass of wild ungulates

Wildlife biomass (kg/km2)

Vegetation typeNorthern Kalahari
Thornbush shrubland
Highland shrublandSouthern Kalahari
Karstveld
Western highlands
Central Kalahari
Dwarf shrub savanna
Desert/dwarf shrub transition
Karas dwarf shrublandDwarf shrub/southern Kalahari transition

1741 ± 444
1638 ± 316
1092 ± 155
1048 ± 321
913 ± 240882 ± 138549 ± 161
523 ± 109391 ± 111
172 ± 28140 ± 65

Table 12
Livestock and wildlife biomass by region

RegionKaras
HardapOmahekeOtjozondjupa
KhomasErongoKunene36

Livestock biomass (kg/km2)

Wildlife biomass (kg/km2)

Ratio

957 ± 1411
1858 ± 1670
3144 ± 602
2410 ± 267
2909 ± 329
1971 ± 563
2432 ± 267

185 ± 22.5
515 ± 84.2
783 ± 224
1531 ± 219
1136 ± 175
1346 ± 182
888 ± 281

5.17
3.61
4.02
1.57
2.56
1.46
2.74

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Figure 21
Spatial patterns in wildlife biomass in Namibia

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

37

Figure 22
Spatial patterns in livestock biomass in Namibia

38

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Wildlife population trends
Fifty-eight per cent of (57.6%) respondents considered wildlife populations to be increasing on theirland, 23.7% felt wildlife populations were stable, and 18.6% felt that they were declining. There wasa positive relationship between the percentage of income from safari hunting and trends in wildlife
populations (the percentage of income from safari hunting was higher on properties with stable orincreasing wildlife populations—18.7 ± 2.8%—than on properties with declining populations (1.50 ±
0.76%) (χ2=12.1, d.f.=4, p<0.001)). Wildlife populations were more commonly stable or increasing
on farms within conservancies (87.9%) than on properties outside conservancies (75.0%), though thedifference was not quite statistically significant (χ2=3.3, d.f.=1, p=0.068). The severity of poaching
did not influence wildlife population trends (χ2=0.22, d.f.=1, p=0.631): see below for discussion ofpoaching. The most common explanations provided for increasing wildlife populations were:favourable rainfall (35.3%); good management (26.4%); conservative wildlife harvest (19.1%); theinstalment of artificial water points (10.3%); and incentives for wildlife conservation through benefits
from safari hunting (8.8%). The most common reasons provided for declining wildlife populations
were: excessive harvesting (50.0%); drought (13.6%); poaching (9.1%); culling by livestock farmers
to reduce competition for grazing (4.5%); and excessive numbers of predators (4.5%).

Meat production
The majority of game meat produced on Namibian farmlands is from safari hunting, followed byshooting for own use and shoot-and-sell (Tables 13 and 14). Relative to the situation in 1997 (Erb2004), a greater proportion of animals are removed via safari hunting, live sales, night culls, biltong
hunting and management hunts, and a lower proportion for farmers’ own use (Table 13). Off-takes asproportions of the populations of Oryx, Greater Kudu, Springbok and Hartebeest appear to be higher
in 2009 than 1997 (Table 14) and are higher than those estimated by Brown (2007) (presented in
MAWF, 2008), though well below intrinsic rates of increase (Table 16).

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

39

Table 13
Percentage of wildlife meat produced from various sources

Safarihunting

Own useShootand-sell

Biltong
hunting

Wildlife
harvestManagement
hunts

36.5

22.5

19.2

12.7

7.3

1.9

Small stock

13.6

15.6

22.1

27.2

18.2

3.4

Large stock

46.2

25.4

17.9

6.6

2.6

1.3

Erongo

42.2

33.6

6.4

17.8

0.0

0.0

Hardap

26.4

15.5

21.1

14.7

18.9

3.3

Karas

2.5

16.4

22.2

39.5

15.5

3.9

Khomas

55.3

21.9

16.3

3.5

0.5

2.4

Kunene

17.6

71.0

11.4

0

0

0

Omaheke

48.3

28.4

2.6

13.2

7.5

0.0

Otjozondjupa

48.9

14.8

26.3

5.1

3.7

1.1

Yes

52.1

22.4

14.9

6.1

2.8

1.6

No

31.4

21.5

19.9

16.5

9.4

1.3

Wildlife
harvestOverall
Area

RegionIn a conservancy?

Table 14Game meat production (kg/km2) from various sourcesAll

67.7±6.8

Overall

Safarihunting21.9±3.9

Own
use

Shootand-sell

Biltong
hunting21.1±3.0

13.9±2.6

6.5±1.5

Management
hunts

4.1±1.2

1.0±0.5

Area
Small stock

38.8±5.9

4.4±1.97.7±3.97.8±2.3

10.1±2.97.7±2.3

0.9±0.39

Large stock

78.3±8.928.4±5.3

26.0±4.0

16.1±3.4

5.1±1.8

2.8±1.4

1.0±0.7

Erongo91.2±2830.9±9.7

33.6±127.7±7.7

19.0±160±00±0Hardap51.3±1115.2±5.2

10.1±2.3

8.9±3.97.4±2.7

8.6±0.5

1.1±0.4Karas

34.3±60.6±3.1

6.7±1.5

7.1±2.7

12.6±3.5

6.2±1.4

1.1±0.1

Khomas

94.0±1846.4±14.4

23.0±4.7

18.9±6.3

5.7±3.1

0.4±0.4

3.6±3.5

Kunene49.5±268.9±7.934.4±156.2±3.7

0±0

0±0

0±0

Omaheke68.5±1823.2±11.5

28.1±8.9

3.2±2.2

3.8±3.810.3±6.3

0±0

Otjozondjupa
In aconservancy?

94.9±1535.7±10.7

21.4±4.728.9±8.7

5.3±3.3

5.2±3.3

0.7±0.7

RegionYes
No

40

112.0±10.5

53.6±6.3

27.2±4.6

18.7±3.6

7.3±3.0

1.9±1.0

1.3±0.78

55.9±5.5

14.9±3.1

16.6±1.812.4±2.8

6.5±1.4

4.9±1.5

0.4±0.16

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Table 15
Proportions of the total off-takes of key meat-producing species in 1997 and 2009

Safarihunting

Own
use

Shootand-sell

Live
sale

Biltong
hunting

Wildlife Management
harvest
hunts

Total

Proportion of
populations used

Oryx

0.19

0.46

0.16

0.09

0.10

0.00

0.00

1.00

Large
stock area
0.11

Springbok

0.09

0.40

0.21

0.04

0.17

0.09

0.00

1.00

0.04

0.16

Hartebeest
Greater
Kudu

0.42

0.28

0.08

0.22

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.06

0.04

0.14

0.62

0.12

0.00

0.12

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.08

0.12

Average

0.21

0.44

0.14

0.09

0.10

0.02

0.00

Oryx

0.20

0.21

0.21

0.15

0.13

0.08

0.02

1.00

0.14

0.14

Springbok

0.06

0.12

0.13

0.19

0.20

0.29

0.03

1.00

0.15

0.18

Hartebeest
Greater
Kudu

0.47

0.08

0.16

0.21

0.02

0.07

0

1.00

0.09

0.14

0.22

0.35

0.15

0.12

0.11

0.05

0.002

1.00

0.09

0.15

Average

0.24

0.19

0.16

0.17

0.12

0.12

0.01

1997 *

Small
stock area
0.11

2009

*Adapted from Erb (2004), removing animals shot as “donations” from calculations

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

41

Table 16
Percentage off-takes of various species from various forms of consumptiveuse (safari hunting, own use, shoot-and-sell, management hunts, biltong
hunting, wildlife harvesting and live capture and sale)This study
Impala, Common
Springbok
Wildebeest, Blue
Oryx
Zebra, Plains
Common Eland
WaterbuckHartebeest
Greater Kudu
Common Warthog
Zebra, Hartmann’s
Sable Antelope
Giraffe
Impala, Black-faced

22.5
17.9
17.1
14.3
10.6
9.9
9.7
9.4
9
8.3
8.2
7.6
4.3
2

% off-takes* Brown, 2007** Intrinsic rates of increase

8.7
6.8

4.6
3
2.6

38.1
40.9
23.1
21.9
18.8
16.5
23.1
26.8
24.4
34.4
19.8
21.9
13.3
38

*Presented in MAWF (2008)**The intrinsic growth rate (rm) of each population was calculated using 1.5W-0.36 (Caughley and Krebs, 1983)
where W is the standard female weight of each prey item (Bothma et al., 2002).

Game meat production/km2 was related to: wildlife biomass (positive relationship, Figure 23);
wildlife diversity (positive relationship, Figure 24); and livestock biomass (positive relationship,
Figure 25) (F Ratio 48.9, d.f.=3, p<0.001). Meat production was higher on farms in conservancies
than those not part of conservancies (mean kg meat production/km2) 110.8 ± 10.5 kg/km2/year) or not(mean 55.2 ± 5.5 kg/km2/year), but the difference was not statistically significant (F Ratio 0.13,
d.f.=1, p=0.1272). Spatial patterns in game meat production are depicted in Figure 26.
Figure 23
Relationship between annual game meat production and thebiomass of wild ungulates

42

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Figure 24
Relationship between game meat production and wild ungulate diversity

Figure 25
Relationship between game meat production and livestock biomass

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

43

Figure 26
Spatial patterns in game meat production

44

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

The wildlife species that are harvested to produce most meat are Oryx, Greater Kudu, and Springbok(Table 17). Extrapolating to the whole country from the sample of respondents, based on population
estimates of wildlife on freehold lands, ~16 000 t of game meat are produced on commercial farmlands(Table 17). Extrapolation based on the amount of freehold land available increases the estimate ofgame meat production on freehold land to ~23 000 t (Table 18). By contrast, 93 045 t of meat fromdomestic stock are produced in Namibia annually (through formal production primarily on freehold
land, but including some produced on communal land), of which 80 901 t are exported (W. Schutz,
Meat Board of Namibia, pers. comm., January 2010).
Table 17
Meat production on a national scale following extrapolation based on mean
proportional off-takes and population estimates for wildlife on freehold land

Present study

Oryx
Greater Kudu
Springbok
Common ElandHartebeest
Zebra,
Hartmann’s
Common Warthog
Wildebeest, Blue
Giraffe
OstrichZebra, Plains
Impala, Common
Waterbuck
Sable Antelope
Impala, Black faced
Other species**% ofpopulations Populations*
used

Meat
produced% of meat

0.14
0.09
0.18
0.1
0.09

350 092
345 801
621 561
34 743
122 805

5 993 803
3 477 249
2 210 013
1066 053
842 772

37.8
21.9
13.9
6.7
5.3

0.08

55 520718 593

4.5

0.08
0.17
0.04
0.07
0.11
0.23
0.1
0.08

173 866
16 6235769
36 3367303
14 9804475
902

559 702350 133
159 051
148 585
141 386
116 31063 993
9029

3.5
2.2
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.1

0.02

1870

1367

0.0

58 675
1 792 646 15 916 710

0.4*From Barnes et al., 2009**Black Wildebeest, Nyala, Tsessebe, White Rhinoceros, Klipspringer, Kirk’s Dik-dik, Common Duiker, Blesbok

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

45

Table 18
Estimated amount of game meat produced on commercial farmlands in Namibia from various sources based on mean meatproduction per km2 for various forms of wildlife use (following extrapolation from the results of this survey)

Otjozondjupa
HardapKhomasKaras
OmahekeErongoKuneneOshikoto**
Omusati**Oshana**Area offarms*

Safarihunting

Biltong
hunting

Wildlife
harvestShootand-sellManagement
hunts

Own useTotal% of total

66 23978 15632 34986 76436 69021 72926 1997054
802
550
356 532

2 364 738
1 187 976
1 500 985
52 059851 204
671 430
233 172
62 7787135
4894
6 936 372

351 068
578 357
184 388
1 093 232
139 421412 85400002 759 320

344 444672 144
12 940537 940377 905000
001 945 373

1 914 312
695 591
611 393616 028
117 407167 314162 434
43 7334971
3410
4 336 593

46 36785 972
116 456
95 441000000344 236

1 417 518
789 379744 023581 322
1 030 984
730 099901 247
242 648
27 57818 9186 483 716

6 438 446
4 009 420
3 170 184
2 976 021
2 516 923
1 981 697
1 296 853
349 159
39 68427 22222 805 609

28.2
17.6
13.9
13.0
11.0
8.7
5.7
1.5
0.2
0.1
100

*Based on an estimate of the total area of freehold land made by Mendelsohn (2006) (which excludes re-settlement farms) and using the proportional breakdown of farms in each region as
derived from the ConInfo database (www.met.gov.na/dea). ** Assuming that meat production values in these regions equalled those in Kunene, the nearest region with available data

46

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

How game meat is used
The most common use of game meat was to sell it to other butcheries, to give to workers as rations, oruse for personal consumption by farmers and their families (Table 19). When game meat was sold,
64.6 ± 3.77% was in the form of whole carcasses, 22.5 ± 3.3% as unselected cuts (e.g. in weighed
packets of meat of no particular cut), 6.8 ± 19% as processed meat (e.g. biltong, droëwors [driedsausage], sausage, etc.), 5.4 ± 1.6% as selected cuts and 0.74 ± 0.67 in other forms (Table 20).
Table 19
The percentage of game meat from various sources used in different ways by farmers

Safarihunting

Biltong
hunting

Wildlife
harvestShoot- Management
and-sellhunts

Own Overall
use%

Sell to other butcheries

45.9

5.0

49.7

78.5

42.5

0.6

37.0

Rations

26.0

1.7

0.0

3.6

23.0

56.5

23.5

Personal use

13.9

1.7

0.0

0.2

1.3

37.1

13.7

Taken by biltong hunters

0.0

90.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

11.5

Sell privately

5.7

0.0

16.7

16.2

11.4

0.6

6.8

Taken by culling team

6.0

0.0

0.0

0.2

2.9

4.7

3.3

Use to feed guests

0.0

0.0

33.6

0.0

0.0

0.0

2.4

Donate/sell to communities

2.5

1.7

0.0

1.3

19.4

0.1

1.7

Total

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Table 20
Forms of game meat sold and corresponding prices

Whole carcasses
Unselected cuts
Selected cuts
Processed meat
Other

% of meat sold

Mean price
NAD/kg

USD price

64.6 ± 3.77%
22.5 ± 3.3%
5.4 ± 1.6%
6.8 ± 19%0.74 ± 0.67%

15.7 ± 0.21
17.4 ± 0.74
31.2 ± 3.7
80.4 ± 12.9
40.2 ± 12.8

1.86
2.06
3.70
9.53
4.76

Sixty per cent (59.8%) of respondents sold game meat. Game meat sold was derived from thefollowing forms of harvest: shoot-and-sell (41.2%); safari hunting (40.8%); harvest (culling) ofwildlife (15.3%); management hunts (2.1%) and own use (0.2%). Whether respondents sold gamemeat or not was related to: livestock biomass—livestock biomass was lower on land of respondents
who sold game meat (2237 ± 160 kg/km2) than on the land of respondents who did not sell game meat
(3270 ± 648 kg/km2); and the diversity of wild ungulates (diversity was higher where respondents didsell game meat—9.61 ± 0.39 species—than where they did not—5.98 ± 0.28 species) (χ2=54.2,
d.f.=2, p<0.001). The quantity of game meat sold was related to: wild ungulate diversity (positive

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

47

relationship: Figure 27) and the proportion of respondents’ income that was derived from livestock(inverse relationship: Figure 28) (F Ratio 21.5, d.f.=2, p<0.001).
Figure 27
Relationship between the amount of game meat sold per year and the diversityof wild ungulates

Figure 28
Relationship between the amount of game meat sold and the proportion of
respondents’ income from livestock

The price of meat varies, depending on the form in which it is sold, with un-butchered carcasses
fetching the lowest prices (Table 20). Sixty-eight per cent (67.6%) of respondents felt that the priceof meat varied by species (Table 21) and 36.0% felt that the price obtained for game meat varied

48

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

seasonally (74.1% of whom considered prices to be lower during the hunting season and 8.6% ofwhom considered prices to be higher during the hunting season).
Table 21
Variation in price of meat obtained by farmers among
wildlife species (actual NAD value depends on the form
in which the meat is sold)

Deviation from overall mean
price/kg
Common ElandSpringbok
Oryx
Greater Kudu
Zebra
GiraffeCommon Warthog+14.1 ± 2.6%
+9.8 ± 3.1%
+1.1 ± 1.3%
-0.21 ± 0.6%
-43.6 ± 2.0%
-44.6 ± 3.4%
-45.6 ± 3.8%

Mean annual earnings from the sale of game meat ranged from NAD100 to NAD977/km2 (USD11.8–
USD116 at mean 2008 rates), depending on the region, extrapolating from which an estimated~NAD200 million (USD23.8 million at mean 2008 rates) is generated annually from the sale of gamemeat on freehold land in Namibia (Table 22).
Table 22
Gross income from meat sales on commercial farmlands in Namibia

RegionArea offarms

Mean
NAD/km2

Total NAD

Total USD

Otjozondjupa
HardapKhomasOmahekeErongoKaras
KuneneOshikoto *Omusati *Oshana *Average/total

66 23978 15632 34936 69021 72986 76426 1997054
802
550
356 532977 ± 239
598 ± 316
879 ± 267692 ± 524
783 ± 355
104 ± 168257 ± 62
257
257
257
640 ± 125

64 715 503
46 737 288
28 434 771
25 389 480
17 013 807
9 023 456
6 733 143
1 812 878
206 114141 350200 207 790

7 667 714
5 537 593
3 369 049
3 008 232
2 015 854
1 069 130797 766
214 796
24 421
16 74823 721 302* Values from Kunene were used for Oshana and Omusati (because farmers from those regions were not sampled) and for Oshikoto(because the sample size of farmers from that region was low and thus potentially misleading

Based on estimates of the production of meat from the harvest of Common Eland, Hartebeest, impala
Aepyceros spp., Greater Kudu, Oryx and Springbok via wildlife harvesting and shoot-and-sell, a
potential ~5500 t of game meat could be exported (Table 23).

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

49

Table 23
Current production of meat that is potentially suitable for export

Otjozondjupa
HardapKaras
KhomasOmahekeErongoKuneneOshikoto **Omusati **Oshana **Total

Area offarms

Potential meat forexport (kg/km2) *66 23978 15686 76432 34936 69021 72926 1997054
802
550
356 532

27.1 ± 4116.2 ± 5.7
13.2 ± 3.2
16.1 ± 5.7
12.2 ± 10.6
6.4 ± 6.4
5.1 ± 2
12.7
12.7
12.7

Meat produced
1 795 077
1 266 127
1 145 285
520 819447 618
139 066
133 615
35 9754090
2805
5 490 477

*Including meat produced from culling and shoot-and-sell of Common Eland, Hartebeest, impala, Greater Kudu, Oryx, Springbok andHartmann’s Zebra** Data were not available for these regions and so values were assumed to equal those in the nearest region, Kunene

The prices of game meat in stores were found to be generally higher than prices of meat fromlivestock (Table 24). Processed game meat (biltong and droëwors) is sold for NAD120–150/kg(USD14.2–17.8 at mean 2008 rates) in the shops (or NAD84–NAD105 [USD10.0–12.4] given thatmeat loses ~30% of its mass during the drying process when biltong is made) (D. Museler, Hartlief
meat processing company, pers. comm., 2010).
Table 24
Prices of meat (NAD) (Farmers Meat Market, Windhoek, February 2010)

Whole carcass

FilletRump

Sirloin/loin

21.5–28.4*
20.0–33.4*
22.8
30.2
30.2
?

84.9
?
46.8
?
100.0
46.0

52.0
?
?
?
70.0
?

54.0
?
27.0–34.0
100.0
70.0
25.0

Beef
Sheep
Pork
Springbok
Large game
Zebra

*Depending on the grade of the meat

Export of game meat
In 2005, 11 214 Springbok were slaughtered for export (MET, 2008). Assuming that Springbok of allages were culled during harvesting, and assuming a mean mass of 27.7 kg for all individuals in a
Springbok population and a dressing percentage of 56% (15.5 kg of meat per Springbok), then ~173 817 kg
50

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

of meat was produced through harvesting for export. Given the putative meat production
estimates of 16–23 000 t from this study, Springbok meat exported would account for 0.8–1.1% ofgame meat produced, or 3.2% of the potential game meat available for export (5500 t).
Latest estimates suggest that ~85 t of Springbok meat are exported to the European Union (EU)annually (D. Museler, Hartlief meat processing company, pers. comm., 2010). In addition, permits
were allocated for the export of ~160 t of game meat to South Africa during 2006 (Laubscher, 2007).
However in reality, quantities exported to South Africa are likely to be much higher due to theprevalence of smuggling of game meat (D. Museler, Hartlief meat processing company, pers. comm.,
2010). Export of game meat to South Africa is attractive because the individuals involved would
avoid Namibian value-added tax (VAT) and gain access to a larger market and elevated prices (e.g.
biltong prices are 21.1–36.8% higher in South Africa than Namibia). A recent survey during 2009indicated that approximately 60 t of game meat passed through the border during a single month,suggesting that hundreds of tonnes of game meat may be exported to South Africa per year
(D. Museler, Hartlief meat processing company, pers. comm., 2010). Assuming that 60 t per month
was typical, then ~720 t would be exported to South Africa per year (or 805 t exported in total,
including that sent to the EU), approximating to ~3.0-5.0% of game meat produced (depending on
how one estimates total game meat production). These estimates suggest that more game meat fromfreehold land remains in Namibia than meat formally produced from domestic stock on freehold land:
15 200–22 200 t c.f. 12 143 t (80 901 t of the 93 045 t of meat produced from domestic stock in
Namibia are exported).

Factors limiting the profitability of game meat production
When asked if there were factors that limited the profitability of game meat production on farmlands,
72.5% of respondents answered in the affirmative. The most commonly identified factors were:insufficient wildlife populations; the difficulty and cost associated with harvesting wildlife; and a lackof/the cost of infrastructure for cooling or processing game meat (Table 25).
When asked if government regulations limited the profitability of game meat production, only 32.8%
answered in the affirmative, the most common explanations being: a restrictive permitting system;
limits imposed on the seasons in which hunting is permitted (6.8%); and restrictions on the export ofmeat.
The most frequently suggested means of enhancing the profitability of game meat production were to
improve the marketing of game meat and to develop new markets for export (Table 26). Respondents
were asked: “Would you be willing to participate in commercial game cropping enterprises if bettersystems were developed to export game meat to EU markets?” Seventy-three per cent (73.4%)
responded in the affirmative. The most frequently cited reasons for wishing not to participate in sucha scheme were: insufficient wildlife numbers (21.0%); a desire to conserve wildlife rather than killmore (12.9%); a lack of interest (9.7%); and because such off-take would affect safari hunting
adversely (8.1%).

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

51

Table 25
Factors limiting the profitability of game meat production% of respondents
identifying limiting factors

Factors limiting profitability of game meat production
Wildlife population sizes not sufficient

26.8

Harvesting wildlife is time consuming

13.4

Lack/cost of facilities required for cooling/processing meat

12.1

Difficulty associated with obtaining permits

9.4

Preference for conserving rather than harvesting for meat

7.4

Game meat demand is too low

6.7

Harvesting wildlife is difficult

6.7

Prices obtained for game meat are too low

6.0

Export issues (excessive regulation, lack of access to markets) are difficult to manage

4.7

Drought

4.7

Cost of transport/distance of markets

4.7

Game meat production is unprofitable

3.4

Lack of trained labour

2.7

Too many permits are issued and so wildlife populations suffer due to over-harvesting

2.0

Oversupply of game meat at certain times of year

2.0

Bush encroachment

2.0

Farm too small

2.0

Farm is too far from markets

2.0

Cost/time processing meat

2.0

Table 26
The most commonly suggested means of enhancing the profitability of gamemeat production
Suggestions% of respondents

Improve marketing of game meat

49.5

Develop export to Europe

38.1

Improve price paid to farmers for game meat

32.0

Process meat to add value

15.5

Develop new export markets

9.3

Cut out middlemen

8.2

If I develop facilities for meat storage/processing

8.2

Improve hygiene of meat handling

6.2

More government assistance

5.2

Less government interference in use of wildlife on private land

4.1

More professional culling

3.1

Develop game fences

3.1

52

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Game meat rations
Farm workers receive more ration meat from wild ungulates than from domestic stock (3.82 ± 0.34 kg
c.f. 2.11 ± 0.42 kg) (F Ratio 8.1, d.f.=1, p=0.005). There are an estimated 22 855 employees working
on commercial farmland in Namibia (Giel Schoombee, Namibian Agricultural Union, pers. comm.,
2010). Applying the mean estimate of rations from game meat allocated to workers for the wholecountry, ~4500 t of meat are used to feed workers annually, compared to ~2500 t of meat fromdomestic stock. Assuming that the mean number of dependents (1.94 individuals per worker)
recorded in this survey applies throughout the freehold farming areas, 33 342 workers and theirdependents potentially benefit from game meat rations.

Illegal wildlife use: poaching
Fifty-six per cent of respondents considered poaching to be not serious at all, 25.5% consideredpoaching to be moderately serious, and 17.8% felt that it was a very serious problem on their land.
The severity of poaching was related to whether a respondent’s land was part of a conservancy (insideconservancies, 25.9%, 23.2% and 50.9% considered poaching to be very serious, moderately serious,and not serious at all, respectively, c.f. 10.7%, 27.5% and 50.9%, respectively, outside conservancies)(χ2=5.7, d.f.=1, p=0.017). The severity of poaching was not related to the region, rainfall, thedistance of respondents’ land to the nearest settlements, human density, the proportion of income
from wildlife or livestock, or the biomass or diversity of wildlife (χ2=10.7, d.f.=10, p=0.380).
Fifty-nine per cent of respondents had recorded poaching incidents during the last year. Respondents
experiencing poaching recorded a mean of 10.2 ± 1.33 poaching incidents per year and lost a mean of
20.6 ± 2.07 animals/year (0.35 ± 0.06 animals/km2). Greater Kudu and Oryx were the species mostcommonly affected by poaching (Table 27), resulting in a mean annual loss of 1.3 ± 0.5% and 3.5 ±
1.0% of populations, respectively. Spatial patterns in the severity of poaching are depicted in Figure 29.
Table 27
Species most affected by poaching/rustling% of farms with poaching /rustling
reporting losses of the species

Mean losses/km2/year

Wildlife
Greater Kudu
Oryx
Common Warthog
Hartebeest
Hartmann’s Zebra
Springbok
Steenbok

52.4%
45.0%
37.5%
10.0%
6.2%
3.9%
3.1%

0.11 ± 0.03
0.20 ± 0.03
0.10 ± 0.015
0.03 ± 0.004
0.09 ± 0.03
0.046 ± 0.009
0.11 ± 0.05

LivestockCattleSheep
Goats
Horses

35.1%
15.6%
6.5%
0.6%

0.06 ± 0.02
0.72 ± 0.37
0.28 ± 0.19
0.07 ± ?

Species

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

53

Fifty per cent of respondents recorded livestock rustling on their properties and recorded a mean of
4.7 ± 0.6 incidents/year. Cattle were the livestock most frequently affected, though more sheep andgoats/km2/year were stolen (Table 27). Approximately 0.4 ± 0.1% of cattle, 0.5 ± 0.1% of sheep and
0.2 ± 0.001% of goat populations are stolen annually.
Figure 29
Spatial patterns in the severity of wildlife poaching in Namibia

The most common method of poaching was shooting (45.5% of poaching incidents, including 38.9%
shooting from main roads passing farms and 6.9% shooting from within the farm); snaring (34.7%)
54

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Credit: Aaron Priceand poaching with dogs (20.0%). Whether or not the respondent’s land was part of a conservancy had
a bearing on the poaching method observed: shooting was more prevalent in conservancies (51.3% ofpoaching incidents were shooting incidents, c.f. 36.0% outside conservancies), whereas snaring(31.3% c.f. 40.0%) and poaching with dogs (16.5% c.f. 24.0%) were more common outsideconservancies. The method of poaching was also related to the diversity of wild ungulate species:
wild ungulate diversity was lowest where shooting was the most common form of poaching (8.20 ±0.45 species), and was next-lowest where snaring was the most common form (9.43 ± 0.71 species)
and highest where dog poaching was commonest (10.9 ± 1.05) (χ2=14.3, d.f.=2, p<0.001).

Snares removed from a Namibian farm

Respondents considered most poachers to come from towns and cities (50.5%), but also to include
people from neighbouring farms (17.5%), people from communal lands or resettlement farms (11.5%)
and their own workers (8.0%). Most respondents (65.5%) felt that poachers sold the meat that theyobtained, whereas 20.0% felt that they typically consumed it, and 14.5% felt that they used some andsold some.
In cases where respondents were aware of the outcome of court cases involving wildlife poachers they
had caught (n=51 respondents), they reported that poachers had most often been released without
punishment or fined (Table 28). Punishments were generally harsher for livestock thieves(Table 27). More respondents felt that the legal system governing stock theft was sufficient thanthought the legal system governing wildlife poaching was sufficient (38.7% c.f. 20.0%) (χ2=13.8,
d.f.=1, p<0.001). Reasons provided by respondents who considered the legal system for wildlife
poaching to be insufficient included: punishments being insufficiently severe (26.4%); poor law
enforcement (20.0%); the low cost of bail for wildlife poaching, resulting in poachers escaping

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

55

Credit: Aaron Price
Credit: Aaron Price

Metal foot-trap confiscated from poachers on a Namibian farm

Spears confiscated from poachers on a Namibian farmpunishment (18.6%); poor investigative work by the police (15.7%); involvement of the police inpoaching (8.6%). Reasons provided by respondents for believing that the legal system governing
livestock theft was inadequate included: poor law enforcement by the police (27.2%); cheap bail56

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

resulting in stock thieves escaping (25.0%); poor investigative work by the police (25.0%);
insufficient penalties (23.0%) and poor application of the law (18.4%).
Table 28
Punishments handed out to wildlife poachers and cattle rustlers in cases where the outcome ofcourt cases known by respondents (n=48 and n=39)

Punishments for wildlife poachers% of cases
Gaol terms
Fines
Community service
Released/case notprocessed

Mean severity ± S.E.

Punishments for livestock thieves% of cases

Mean severity ± S.E.

20.8 10.1 ± 6.4 months
31.9 NAD5267 ± 1756
047.5 42.0 ± 5.8 months
5.0 NAD975 ± 525
2.5 1 month

52.1

55.0

Note: In a minority of cases, poachers received multiple punishments (e.g. a gaol term plus a fine), which is why the columns do not add up
to 100%.

The most commonly suggested means of reducing poaching were through: more security and antipoaching patrols (25.1%); through better support for wildlife poaching from the police (16.1%);
through improvement of the penal system governing poaching (9.0%); and through the instalment of
more roadblocks on national roads (6.6%).

DISCUSSION
Land use
Seventy-five per cent of commercial farmers now practise WBLU, which generates a mean of 23% of
their income. Barnes (2009) estimated that wildlife-viewing was the most economically significant
component of WBLU on freehold land in 2004, contributing 62.7% of economic output. However,according to the results of this survey, safari hunting is the most important form of WBLU on
freehold land, being practised by a larger percentage of farmers, and generating a larger proportion of
their income than ecotourism. That said, it is important to note that this study may haveunderestimated the contribution of ecotourism: farms practising large-scale ecotourism are localized(and so may have been missed in this survey), but generate significant revenues (J. Barnes,
independent resource economist, pers. comm., 2010). After safari hunting, ecotourism was the mostimportant form of WBLU identified by this study, followed by shoot-and-sell. Wildlife culling,
management hunts and biltong hunting were found to be less significant forms of WBLU and more
restricted geographically, occurring primarily in the south.
As part of the expansion of WBLU in Namibia, 25 conservancies have emerged on freehold land,
incorporating 1008 farms and ~43 250 km2. WBLU is more prevalent within conservancies, livestock
biomass is lower, wildlife biomass is higher and the percentage occurrence of wild ungulates istypically higher than on farms not part of conservancies. Safari hunting is a particularly prevalent
form of land use within conservancies.
An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

57

Livestock farming is the most widespread form of land use on freehold farms in Namibia, andcomprises the majority of income for most farmers. Beef production represents the primary form of
livestock production, though small stock is also significant, particularly in the south. According to theMeat Board, 71 942 t of beef and 21 103 t from small stock in Namibia are produced annually in
Namibia, from which 84% and 97% are exported, respectively. The livestock industry on freehold
land contributed NAD1.97 billion [USD233 million at mean 2008 rates] to Gross National Income(GNI) in 2009 (GNI, Barnes et al., in prep). Livestock numbers have declined significantly on
freehold land in recent years: during 1970 and 2001, cattle numbers and small stock numbers declinedby 49% and 41% respectively (Barnes and Jones, 2009), though by the mid-1990s output had notchanged significantly, due to improved herd management (Lange et al., 1997; Erb, 2004). Declining
livestock populations are due to declining range quality caused by over-grazing (capacity has declined
by 20–90% in some areas) (Bester, 1999 in Erb, 2004), and due to the rise of game farming as analternative (MAWF, 2007; Barnes and Jones, 2009).
Wildlife and tourism contributed ~NAD1.4 billion (USD166 million at mean 2008 rates) to GNI in
Namibia in 2009 (or NAD1.8 billion if all natural resources are taken into account [USD213 million])(Barnes et al., in prep.). This estimate is likely to be conservative, as the extent of the economic
contribution of game meat production was not known prior to this study, which estimated that
NAD200 million [USD23.7 million] was generated annually from game meat production (notincluding value-addition from export), compared to previous estimates of NAD4.5 million/year[USD533 175] (Barnes, 2009).
The economic contribution of wildlife and tourism on freehold land is rapidly approaching that oflivestock (despite the policy environment favouring livestock and prejudicing against wildlife
ranching, and despite the stunted development of WBLU on freehold land discussed below). With
continued growth in tourist and hunter arrivals likely following the end of the recent global economic
downturn, the economic contribution of wildlife will probably increase further in future. Prior to thedownturn, from 2004 to 2007, tourist visitation to Namibia increased by 24%(www.namibiatourism.com.na) and the value of the safari hunting industry increased by 57.1%(~USD28.5 million to USD44.8 million) (Damm, 2005; Lamprechts, 2009). Furthermore, WBLU is
more frequently practised by younger farmers, indicating that its prevalence will increase with time.
By contrast, earnings from livestock are projected to decline significantly in the coming decades due
to global warming (Barnes et al., in prep). Though WBLU may also be affected, projected long-term
reductions in revenues are 60% lower than the predicted losses to the livestock industry due to climatechange (Barnes et al., in prep).

Stunted development of wildlife ranching on freehold land
Despite ongoing growth in the wildlife industry, Namibian farmers have clearly not embraced WBLU
to its full potential, or nearly as fully as their counterparts in former-cattle farming areas of South
Africa and Zimbabwe. Most Namibian farmers (>90%) retain livestock, whereas by 2001 more thanhalf of ranchers in the Limpopo Valley, Central Lowveld and Zululand areas of South Africa were58

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Credit: C. Havemannfarming only with wildlife (Lindsey unpublished data). Similarly, in Zimbabwe (prior to land reform)
at least seven large conservancies developed from which cattle were removed entirely (Bubi Valley,
Bubiana, Gwayi River, Midlands, Chiredzi River and Savé Valley). Namibian conservancies arepoorly developed, lacking perimeter fencing and lacking most of the high-value species. WBLU on
freehold land in Namibia is dominated by low-end safari hunting (and other low-value forms of
consumptive wildlife use), due primarily to the general absence of large, high-value species (“biggame”). These factors are due in part to the fact that user-rights over wildlife have not been devolved
as far as they were in South Africa or Zimbabwe, due to veterinary restrictions, due to lack ofdevelopment of fully integrated conservancies, and due to lack of effective organization of, or vision
within the wildlife industry. These factors are discussed in more detail in the section on increasing
the food security and development value of WBLU, below.

Mixed wildlife and livestock farms are the norm in Namibia, contrasting with the wildlife-onlyranches common in South Africa and Zimbabwe

Wildlife population trends on freehold land
In keeping with suggestions by other authors, wildlife populations appear to be increasing on freehold
land in most areas (Erb, 2004; Gödde, 2008). The percentage of mammal biomass comprised bywildlife has increased from 8% in 1972, to 18% in 1992 and 29% presently (Barnes and de Jager,
1996; Saltz et al., 2004). During this survey, ranchers provided estimates of the numbers of wildlife
on their land. Though these data must clearly be treated with caution, they suggest that the abundanceof wildlife on freehold land is potentially higher for some species than suggested by other authors(Erb, 2004; Barnes, 2009). Furthermore, estimates of wild ungulate diversity from this study (which
are likely to be reliable—ranchers’ knowledge of the presence/absence of species on their properties
should be accurate) suggest that the diversity of wild ungulates on freehold land has also increased
during the last five years (Erb, 2004).

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

59

Wildlife diversity and biomass were positively correlated with income from safari hunting, and thenumber of species was typically higher on farms of younger respondents, and those living nearer
towns, possibly due to higher potential returns from tourism on such properties. Wildlife biomass is
positively correlated with livestock biomass (indicating that land that is good for livestock is also
good for wildlife), but negatively correlated with income from livestock (indicating a degree of noncompatibility between livestock farming and WBLU). Wildlife biomass is ~58.4% lower thanlivestock biomass on private land. During this survey, farmers most commonly attributed increasing
wildlife populations to favourable rainfall, good management, conservative wildlife harvests and theprovision of artificial water-points. Other authors have also noted the key role of falling livestock
populations, the importation of wildlife from South Africa and the continued suppression of predator
populations on freehold land (Erb, 2004) (e.g. Lions only occur on 8.1% of freehold farms and wild
dogs on 6.1%). In some areas, farmers felt that wildlife populations were declining, primarily due toexcessive harvesting. Elevated levels of off-take are likely to be encouraged by the rapidly increasing
game meat prices (the price for game meat obtained by farmers has increased by 45% during the last
2-3 years). Excessive off-takes are most likely to occur where wildlife harvests by adjacent farmers
are not co-ordinated (especially given the relative rarity of wildlife-proof fencing on Namibian farms).
Correspondingly, declining populations were more common outside conservancies.

Game meat production
Significant quantities of game meat are produced on Namibian freehold farms, and considerably morethan was previously recognized. For example, Laubscher et al., (2007) estimated that 4300 t of gamemeat were produced in Namibia annually during the period 2001–2005, compared to estimates fromthis study that 16–23 000 t are produced per year. The largest single source of meat is that produced(as a by-product) from safari hunting, followed by that obtained through hunting for farmers own use.
Meat resulting from animals killed under shoot-and-sell and wildlife culling permits represents a
relatively small proportion of the total (26.4%). The proportion of meat produced from all forms ofoff-take (except for own use) is increasing (relative to that reported by Erb [2004]), reflecting thehigh-value wildlife for safari hunting and game meat for sale. Off-takes as a proportion of species
populations appear to be increasing (though they still appear to be well within sustainable limits).
Oryx, Greater Kudu, and Springbok are the species producing most meat on freehold farms.

The sale of game meat and economic value of game meat production
Farmers typically sell their game meat to other butcheries, through their own butcheries or throughprivate sales at their properties. Farmers most commonly sell game meat in the form of wholecarcasses or unselected cuts of meat. The price of meat appears to have increased significantly inrecent years, from ~NAD12/kg two or three years ago [USD1.42 at mean 2008 rates], to NAD17.4/kg
presently [USD2.06]. The current mean price obtained by farmers for unprocessed meat
(NAD17.4/kg) is 13.4% lower than that paid for beef (NAD20.5 [USD2.43]) and 17.0% lower thanthat for sheep (NAD21.0 [USD2.49]) (mean values for 2009 from the Meat Board of Namibia).
Prices paid to farmers for meat from some species, notably Common Eland and Springbok (14.1%
and 9.8% higher than other species) approximate more closely to the value of meat from domestic
stock. Furthermore, farmers obtain better prices for selected cuts of game meat (mean price obtained:
60

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Credit: Tiemen Rhebergen

NAD31.2/kg [USD3.70]) and for processed game meat products such as biltong and droëwors (meanprice obtained: NAD80.4/kg [USD9.43]). Though farmers are paid less for game meat than for meatfrom domestic stock, prices in the shops are generally higher for game meat than for meat fromdomestic stock (by up to 33.7% for whole carcasses, and 15–46% for selected cuts).

Droëwors, often produced from game meat

The value of game meat is enhanced significantly through export to South Africa, and particularly to
the EU. Latest estimates suggest that ~85 t of Springbok meat are exported to the EU annually(D. Museler, Hartlief meat processing company, pers. comm., 2010). The price obtained for meat bycompanies distributing to the EU is approximately NAD80 [USD9.48], almost five times the prices
paid to the farmers. In addition, approximately 720 t of game meat may be exported to South Africa
per year (or 805 t exported in total including that sent to the EU), approximating to ~3.0–5.0% ofgame meat produced (depending on the estimates of total game meat production).

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

61

Contribution of game meat to rural food security
Game meat from freehold farms is an increasingly high-value product which is not readily accessible
at low prices by the rural poor. This lack of accessibility is exacerbated by the fact that most of
Namibia’s rural population occurs in the far northern part of the country, a long distance from most of
the freehold farming areas. Game meat from communal conservancies has greater potential forcontributing to rural food security, especially those located north of the veterinary control line.
Wildlife populations on communal conservancies are increasing rapidly in many areas and with theprevalence of consumptive wildlife use in such areas (Weaver and Petersen, 2008), large quantities ofgame meat are likely to be produced. The transport of game meat from north to south across theveterinary control line is generally not permitted (DVS, 2007). Consequently, game meat from
communal conservancies in the north cannot be sold in the major urban markets in Namibia, or sold to
key foreign markets. Game meat from communal conservancies in the north is thus not likely to
attract such high prices as that from freehold areas and will be likely to be more affordable andaccessible for the nearby rural communities. Research into the scale of game meat production oncommunal conservancies and its economic and social value is required.
Game meat from freehold land does contribute significantly to food security, as highlighted by thefact that larger quantities of meat from wildlife remain in Namibia than from domestic stock, because
the majority of the latter is exported. Game meat produced on freehold land contributes most clearly
to food security through its importance as a source of rations for farm workers. Farmers provide
workers with an average of 3.8 kg of game meat as rations per week, which is 1.8 times greater than
the quantity of domestic animal meat allocated as rations. Extrapolating this estimate to the estimateof the number of workers in freehold land (22 855), then ~4500 t of game meat are used by farmers tofeed staff annually. Game meat rations potentially benefit >33 000 people, if one assumes thatworkers’ dependents receive some of the meat. Rations are particularly important in the light of thefact that farm workers are earners of among the lowest cash wages in Namibia (LEAD, 2005). The
food security benefit provided through rations is unlikely to be threatened by the rising value of gamemeat because meat from lower meat-value species (such as Common Warthog, Plains Zebra Equus
quagga, Hartmann’s Mountain Zebra, Giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis and Waterbuck Kobus
ellipsiprymnus) and damaged meat from body-shots during safari hunting is always likely to beavailable for allocation to workers.
Rural food security benefits could be enhanced through the provision of affordable supplies of gamemeat to informal settlements and communal lands within or near commercial farms. In some areas,
farms adjacent to such settlements experience poaching. The illegal trade in bushmeat from poaching
could potentially be countered through the provision of legal supplies of game meat, as is currently
being attempted in Savé Valley Conservancy in Zimbabwe (Lindsey et al., 2009). The affordabilityof such supplies could be ensured by focussing supply on meat from lower meat-value species, orfrom meat damaged aesthetically during safari hunting. Poaching is not, however, a particularly
serious problem in most freehold farming areas in Namibia, presumably due to the low humanpopulation densities. The lack of severity of poaching on most farms is reflected by the fact that mostranchers do not employ anti-poaching staff, contrasting with the situation on Zimbabwean game62

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

ranches (Lindsey et al., 2007). Where it does occur, the majority of poaching on Namibian farms is
conducted by individuals shooting from vehicles along public roads passing farms. Clearly, to afford
firearms and vehicles, such individuals are food-secure, indicating that the motives are likely to be theobtaining of meat for sale, rather than for subsistence. Such poaching can be expected to increase inprevalence as the value of game meat increases. To limit such escalation, in Namibia as in various
other Southern African nations, there is a need for adjustment of the penal structure such thatpunishments for illegal hunting reflect the value of the resource being affected (Barnett, 1998;
Lindsey et al., 2009).

Enhancing the contribution of WBLU to food security and social
development
Due to the high value of game meat and the distance between freehold farms and the bulk of
Namibia’s rural population, there is a limit to which WBLU contributes directly to rural food-security.
However, there is significant scope for WBLU to contribute to national food security indirectly,
through creation of employment (WBLU creates more employment per unit area than livestock
farming, and evidence from South Africa suggests that the quality of employment [e.g. salaries,
training, working conditions] associated with WBLU is higher than that associated with livestock
farms (Langholz and Kerley 2006)), through the generation of foreign currency revenues, and byproviding an entry point for emerging black farmers into the potentially lucrative tourism industry.
However, at present, several factors limit the profitability of WBLU and the extent to which thesecontributions are provided:
1. Failure to exploit potential for export of meat products
There is significant potential to increase foreign currency earnings from game meat through the valueaddition associated with exporting to European and other overseas markets. At present, only 6.1% of
potentially available Springbok meat and none of the potentially available high-quality meat fromother species is exported to the EU. Several factors limit the potential for the export of game meat,
including (Erb, 2004; Gödde, 2008):
•
•
•
•
•

Consistency of supply is prevented by the limitation of some forms of harvest to specificseasons.
Lack of facilities for the storage of meat (and thus to deal with the surge in production during
the hunting season).
Wildlife culling is difficult and costly, especially in some types of terrain.
The absence of EU-approved facilities for processing large game species (at the moment
export to the EU is limited to Springbok).
There is only one abattoir facility accredited for exporting Springbok meat to the EU (theFarmers Meat Market Abattoir in Mariental in the south) so export of game meat to the EU
does not meet demand. Game meat is often exported to South Africa, and then sometimes reexported from there to the EU, resulting in loss of revenue for Namibia.

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

63•

Lack of awareness in target markets of the health advantages of game meat (as opposed to thehormone-manipulated venison production of some countries).

If these limitations were overcome, then a potential maximum of ~1400 t of Springbok meat and 4100 tof meat from Hartebeest, Oryx, Common Eland, impala and Greater Kudu could be exported
annually. Given a value of NAD80/kg, this meat could generate theoretical gross earnings ofNAD440 million/year [USD52 million], assuming that markets exist for such large quantities of meat.
2. Veterinary restrictions preventing the reintroduction of buffaloes Syncerus caffer
Considerable attention has been granted to the factors limiting game meat production and/or the
potential for export of game meat from Namibia overseas (Gödde, 2008; Laubscher, 2007; MET,2008). However, surprisingly little attention has been given to other (potentially more significant)factors currently limiting earnings from WBLU. One such factor is the veterinary restrictions whichfavour livestock production and preclude fully developed WBLU.
Figure 30
Pre-rinderpest range of buffalo in Namibia and potential
densities, based on rainfallDuetoveterinary
controls
implemented to prevent the transfer
of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD)from wildlife to livestock, farmers
are not permitted to reintroduce
buffaloes (including FMD-free
individuals) south of the veterinary
cordon (DVS, 2007; MAWF,
2007). Buffaloes are the singlemost
importantspeciesforgenerating revenues from safari
hunting as they command hightrophy fees and can also be used tosell hunting packages (Martin2008).
For example, in the
Kwando region of Caprivi, 34% ofsafari hunting income is derived
from buffaloes (Martin, 2006) andin Botswana, safari hunting
revenues could be more thandoubled if the quotas of buffaloes(and other dangerous game species)
were expanded to fulfil the potential of available populations (Martin, 2008). Historically, buffaloes
occurred widely in the northern and north-eastern sections of Namibia in areas with >250mm ofrainfall, including large areas of what is now freehold farmland (Figure 30) (Martin, 2005).
Source: Martin, 2008.

64

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Given that the economic output of wildlife on freehold land is likely already to exceed that oflivestock and given the potentially major increases in revenues if the reintroduction of buffaloes werepermitted, the wisdom of promoting the livestock industry at the expense of the wildlife industry
through stringent veterinary controls is questionable. That WBLU creates more employment thanlivestock production emphasizes this point. A change in veterinary restrictions should be considered
to permit the reintroduction of buffaloes on freehold land. The need for strict veterinary control
measures is deeply entrenched in various government ministries in Namibia, as it is in other Southern
African nations. Consequently, before any changes in veterinary control strategies would beconsidered, an assessment of the potential economic impacts of alternative approaches would be
required. A study is required in which the potential earnings from livestock and WBLU on freehold
land in Namibia are compared under the following scenarios:a) The status quo whereby buffalo reintroductions on freehold land are prohibited.
b) The scenario whereby the reintroduction of FMD-free buffaloes is permitted.
c) The scenario where FMD-endemic zones are created in areas where WBLU has a clear
comparative advantage over livestock production on freehold land, where the reintroductionof FMD-infected buffaloes (which are much cheaper to purchase) is permitted.
d) The scenario where FMD-exclusion zones are abandoned except for islands set aside forlivestock production.
e) The scenario whereby the strategy of FMD-exclusion zones is abandoned completely infavour of a commodity-based trading approach (i.e. where meat processed in a manner provento provide minimal risk of transmitting FMD (e.g. through removal of bones and lymph
nodes)) is considered acceptable for export (Thomson et al., 2004). Under such a scenario,
restrictions on the reintroduction of buffaloes on freehold land would be greatly reduced oreven removed completely.
3. Failure to reintroduce other large high-value species
In addition to buffaloes, other large (and high-value) wildlife species are rare on freehold land in
Namibia, severely limiting potential earnings from ecotourism and safari hunting. Most farmers areable to offer similar, low-value hunting or wildlife-viewing experiences involving antelopes.
Elephants, rhinoceros species, and Lions occur on a small fraction of freehold farms. In South Africa,
game ranchers able to advertise the “big five” (Lions, African Elephants, Leopards, Hippopotamusesand rhinoceros species) are able to charge more than double the amount for ecotourism experiences
than those lacking such species (Lindsey et al., 2009). The profitability of Namibia’s safari hunting
industry is similarly compromised by the lack of high-value dangerous game species on freehold land.
Namibia and Botswana generate similar revenues from safari hunting even though Namibia attracts>15 times more visiting hunters than Botswana (5363 c.f. 350 in 2004, Debbie Peak, Botswana
Wildlife Management Association, pers. comm., 2010; Damm, 2005). Most hunts in Namibia are
low-value hunts involving primarily antelope species, whereas a significant proportion of those in
Botswana involve high-value dangerous game (Humavindu and Barnes, 2003).

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security65

4. Failure to develop fully-integrated conservancies
A key reason for the rarity of reintroductions of large (and high-value) wildlife species on Namibian
freehold farms is the failure of fully integrated conservancies of sufficient size to develop. In several
areas of Zimbabwe and South Africa, several large (up to 1000 km2 in South Africa, and 3500 km2 in
Zimbabwe) conservancies have developed where all livestock and internal fencing has been removed,
and all indigenous mammal species reintroduced, within an all-encompassing perimeter wildlife-proof
fence. Fully integrated conservancies confer a number of clear economic, ecological and social
benefits (see Box 1 for a summary, below). In such conservancies, land values and earnings aremarkedly higher than when livestock farming was the primary land use (Lindsey et al., 2009). In
South Africa, for example, land values of properties with the “big five” are up to six times greaterthan equivalent land lacking those species (Falkena, 2003).
Namibian conservancies are considerably less well developed and are not cohesive units because not
all farms within their boundaries are members. Furthermore, livestock fencing and some wildlifeproof fencing exists within conservancies and livestock farming remains the primary land use. The
only meaningful difference between land within and outside Namibian conservancies is that wildlife
counts and safari hunting off-takes by neighbouring farmers are co-ordinated. Though wildlife
biomass and diversity is somewhat higher within conservancies, key species required to fulfil thepotential of WBLU are missing from most of them. Furthermore, there is increasing disillusionment
among farmers in conservancies in Namibia owing to the lack of legal recognition of conservancies
by the government, due to concerns over the systems in place for sharing of pooled wildlife
populations, and due to the fact that their primary function appears to be promoting safari hunting
rather than conservation. Without an overhaul of the structure of conservancies and lobbying for legal
recognition, there is a danger that the process of their development will stall or even reverse.
Two aspects of the Namibian legislative framework are largely responsible for the fact that WBLU
has not developed to the same extent as in Zimbabwe and South Africa, and for the failure of fully
integrated conservancies to develop (http://www.nnf.org.na/RARESPECIES/InfoSys/wildlife
Landuse/devolveFarms.htm). Firstly, user-rights over wildlife have not been devolved to landowners
to the extent that they have been in Zimbabwe and South Africa. Landowners are still required toapply for permits to use wildlife on their land, reducing the freedom with which the resource can be
exploited. Secondly, landowners with properties surrounded by game fencing are given more
complete user-rights over “huntable-game” than those whose land is not fenced. Such legislation is
likely to promote the break-up of freehold land into fenced pockets and mitigate against thedevelopment of large, co-managed, fully integrated and more profitable conservancies.
There is a need for adjustment of the legislation in Namibia to provide incentives for the formation of
fully integrated conservancies and to discourage the break-up of land into fenced pockets, to avoid theecological problems associated with such trends in South Africa (Lindsey et al., 2009). A key
incentive for the formation of fully integrated conservancies would be provided if user-rights were
granted to landowners within conservancies following submission of an acceptable management plan,
while retaining current restrictions on user-rights for farms not part of conservancies.
66

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Box 1: Advantages of fully-integrated private conservancies
Defined as multi-owner blocks of land with all internal fences removed, with an all-encompassing
perimeter boundary fence (extracted from Lindsey et al., 2009, and with input from C. Brown, Namibia
Nature Foundation, pers. comm., 2010)
Economic advantages
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Larger areas permit the reintroduction of the full range of indigenous mammal species, including
high-value “big-game” species
When “big-game” species are reintroduced, land use tends to shift from the high-off-take, lowvalue forms of wildlife use typical of isolated ranches (and commercial conservancies in Namibia
at present), to low off-take, high-value safari hunting, and ecotourism
Income from low-off-take safari hunting and ecotourism is much less dependent on rainfall thanthat from livestock or high off-take consumptive use of wildlife, reducing risk
Large areas are less susceptible to drought as wildlife can move to exploit patchy primary
productivity resulting from spatially variable rainfall
With the shift in land use, a higher proportion of income comes in the form of foreignexchange
The value of land in fully integrated conservancies with the full range of mammal species
present typically increases markedly
Large co-managed areas will benefit from economies of scale whereby less infrastructure andmanagement effort per km2 is required
Co-managed areas may provide a critical mass of capital to permit significant investments intourism infrastructure, or wildlife for reintroduction
Co-managed areas (particularly ones demonstrating clear ecological and social benefits) arelikely to attract donor funds to assist with start-up costs

Ecological advantages
•

•
•
•
•

Professionally developed management plans (coupled with group accountability) are likely to
reduce arbitrary and environmentally damaging management decisions which are sometimes
observed on ranchlands (e.g. persecution of predators, reintroduction of exotic or extra-limital
species, genetic manipulation of wildlife, over-stocking, over-harvesting, etc)
Larger areas permit the re-establishment of intact guilds of indigenous species, and improve
prospects for conserving threatened and endangered species
As land use shifts to low-off-take safari hunting and ecotourism, predators become valuable tolandowners and are more tolerated
The presence of predators reduces stocking densities and the prevalence of ecologicaldegradation associated with over-stocking of wildlife (which is a widespread problem on
Namibian freehold land at present)
Large areas increase ecological resilience and reduce the risk of catastrophic die-offs during
droughts

Social benefits•••

As land uses shift to high-end safari hunting and ecotourism, and away from livestock and lowvalue consumptive wildlife use, the quality and quantity of employment opportunities will
increase
Conservancies are potentially important vehicles for land reform:o Conservancies provide the appropriate institutional scale to interact effectively withgovernment and communities
o Due to centralized management, and economies of scale, conservancies remove two
key barriers to the entry of emerging farmers into WBLU—namely, lack of expertise
related to wildlife management, and lack of start up capitalo Conservancies provide an opportunity to create a shareholding structure based on
wildlife (or land) resources which indigenous entrepreneurs (or government orNGOs on behalf of emerging farmers) can be encouraged to invest ino Conservancies can be easily expanded to incorporate communal land or land
belonging to emerging commercial farmers
Conservancies provide a critical mass of capacity, and are likely to attract a convergence ofexpertise from the private sector, NGOs and government

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

67

There is a need for research into alternative structures for freehold conservancies in Namibia,
including investigation into the profitability of fully integrated wildlife-only designs. Presently there
is reluctance among Namibian farmers to venture into wildlife only land uses or fully integrated
conservancies because of a belief that a dual land use system is more profitable, and less risky. Such a
concern is logical: there probably is increased risk associated with shifting from a mixed system to apure-wildlife system based on antelope production which relies on high-off-takes for biltong hunting,meat production and low-value safari hunting. However, where high-value wildlife species arereintroduced, land use tends to shift from high off-take and low-value safari and biltong hunting to
low off-take (high-value) safari hunting and ecotourism (Lindsey et al., 2009). Under such land uses,
potential earnings are markedly higher, and income is de-coupled from rainfall to some extent,
reducing risk (Price-Waterhouse, 1994). Furthermore, if intact predator guilds are restored, thestocking rates of wild ungulates would likely be reduced, reducing the risk of catastrophic die-offs in
the event of drought (Lindsey et al., 2009).
A detailed assessment of the potential profitability of various potential conservancy structures isrequired, taking into account risk factors such as rainfall, variable tourist arrivals, exchange rate
fluctuations and variable prices for livestock products. Possible scenarios that should be compared
include, inter alia:a) Fully integrated conservancy structures where all livestock and all internal fencing areremoved, a single perimeter fence is constructed, and the full complement of mammal fauna
is reintroduced (including the scenarios where buffalo reintroductions are and are notpermitted).
b) The retention of livestock, but the development of a perimeter game fence and re-stocking
with the full diversity of herbivore species (including scenarios with and without African
Elephants, and with and without predators—looking at the potential costs of livestock losses
and increased husbandry).
c) The status quo – typical conservancy structures in place at present on Namibian farmland.
Research is also required to document successful collaborative management agreements developed byprivate conservancies elsewhere in Southern Africa, to identify means of:a) Ensuring equitable access among members to pooled wildlife resources.
b) Accounting for differential investments in wildlife among members prior to conservancy
formation.
Efforts should then be made to raise awareness among farmers of the potential economic andecological benefits associated with fully integrated conservancies and of models for effective
management of pooled wildlife resources.

68

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

5. The risk of WBLU declining in prevalence with land reform
There is currently inadequate participation of black farmers in WBLU, despite a recent initiative by
the MET to provide breeding stock of wildlife on loan to emerging farmers(http://www.namibian.com.na/index.php?id=28&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=8285&no_cache=1).
Lack of engagement in WBLU by black farmers may be due to lack of awareness of the potential
benefits from the industry, lack of the necessary capital or expertise, and possibly the failure of the
Ministry of Lands and Resettlement to create opportunities for them to engage in wildlife-ranching.
During this survey, black farmers demonstrated a clear interest in engaging in WBLU, but without
active efforts to facilitate their integration into the industry, a passive drift from WBLU to livestockbased land uses is likely as land reform proceeds. Greater integration of black farmers into WBLU
would increase the political sustainability of and social benefits arising from the wildlife industry on
freehold land. Such integration could be promoted during the farm acquisition and re-allocation
process if the Ministry of Lands and Resettlement identified farms with significant wildlife
populations as “game ranches” and allocated such properties to emerging farmers with a particularinterest in WBLU.
There is a particularly pronounced under-representation of black farmers in commercial
conservancies. The failure of commercial conservancies to integrate effectively with emerging
farmers has created a perception among some sectors of government that conservancies represent abarrier to land reform. Such a perception is likely to ensure that changes in the legislation favouring
the development of conservancies are not forthcoming. Conservancies could play an important role in
the integration of emerging farmers in WBLU and in doing so could increase the likelihood ofreceiving government recognition and support. Due to the centralization of management inconservancies and economies of scale associated with infrastructure, lack of expertise and funding
would be reduced as barriers to the entry of black farmers into WBLU in conservancies. In addition,in areas where commercial conservancies occur adjacent to communal land or re-settlement farms,
they could provide opportunities for such communities to engage in WBLU by extending theconservancy boundaries to encompass community land (as is currently being attempted at Savé Valley
Conservancy in Zimbabwe, for example) (Lindsey et al., 2008). Active efforts are required on thepart of commercial conservancies to demonstrate to government a commitment to integrating withemerging farmers and facilitating their entry into WBLU. Such efforts would significantly improve
the prospects of being granted a legislative environment favourable to the development andprofitability of conservancies, and of WBLU in general.

Conclusions
WBLU is increasing in prevalence on freehold land in Namibia. As a result, increasing quantities ofgame meat are being produced, partly as a by-product of hunting tourism and partly throughpurposeful harvesting of wildlife specifically for meat. Consequently there is potential for game meatfrom freehold land to make a significant contribution to rural food-security. However, this potential islimited by the distance between the source of game meat on freehold land and most of the highAn Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

69

population density communal lands (situated in the far north) and also due to the high and increasing
price of game meat. Game meat contributes most directly to food security by acting as the primarysource of meat that is provided to farm workers as rations. Furthermore, WBLU can however
contribute significantly to food security on a national level through the provision of employment andthe generation of foreign currency. WBLU creates more employment opportunities per unit area thanlivestock-based land use, and foreign currency revenues from WBLU on freehold land are increasing
rapidly due to increased tourist and tourist hunter visits. Presently though, the earnings from WBLU
in Namibia are stifled by veterinary restrictions which prevent the reintroduction of buffaloes, by
failure of farming communities to form fully integrated conservancies or to reintroduce the high-value
species necessary for the most profitable forms of hunting and photographic tourism. Furthermore,
future growth in WBLU on freehold land is threatened by failure to integrate emerging farmers in the
wildlife industry.
Research is urgently required to assess the economic and financial efficiency of current veterinary
control strategies, to develop templates for the formation of fully integrated conservancies, and todevelop means for integrating emerging farmers in the development of WBLU.

RECOMMENDATIONSSteps required to increase the economic and social contributions of WBLU
•

•
•

•

•

70

The reintroduction of the full range of indigenous mammal fauna should be promoted where
possible on freehold land, including large, high-value species (which are currently largely
absent). Government could assist this process by providing conducive legislation (i.e.
encouraging the formation of fully integrated conservancies, revising veterinary control
strategies) and providing founder animals sourced from protected areas.
Alternative veterinary control strategies should be explored that would permit thereintroduction of buffaloes to some areas under certain conditions.
The reintroduction of FMD-free buffaloes on freehold should be permitted, and consideration
should be given to creating wildlife-production (and regulated FMD-endemic) zones in areas
where WBLU has clear comparative economic/financial advantages over livestock
production, to permit the reintroduction of FMD-buffaloes (which are much cheaper and more
affordable than FMD-free individuals).
The EU and World Organisation for Animal Health should be lobbied to accept commoditybased trading, to remove or reduce the need for costly veterinary restrictions based on themaintenance of disease-free zones, which restrict the development of WBLU.
Changes in legislation should be made to promote the development of fully-integrated
conservancies (i.e. with all internal fencing removed) in which the full complement ofindigenous mammals is reintroduced (e.g. by devolving full user-rights over wildlife toconservancies following the submission of an acceptable management plan, while retaining
current permit requirements for farms not part of conservancies).

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

•
•

•

•

•

•

Legislation should be changed to discourage the break-up of freehold land through theconstruction of high game fencing around individual farms.
Steps should be taken to organize formal representation for the wildlife industry to protect theinterests of wildlife ranchers and to lobby for policies conducive to profitable WBLU andagainst policies that are prejudicial toward the industry.
The development of WBLU should be integrated with the process of land reform: emerging
farmers should be encouraged and assisted to become involved in wildlife-ranching (e.g.
through the provision of extension services and founder populations of wildlife forreintroduction) and some areas should be earmarked and reserved for WBLU following thetransfer of land to emerging farmers.
Commercial conservancies should be seen as a vehicle for the integration of emerging farmers
into WBLU (by using the economies of scale and centralized management to make it easierfor new entrants to break into the industry). Active efforts are required from conservancies toassist emerging farmers to join and to participate in WBLU.
Conservancies should consider forming corporate structures whereby wildlife and tourism
assets are converted to shares which are available for purchase by investors. The purchase ofsuch shares for/by emerging farmers/investors should form an alternative strategy forachieving land reform, in addition to the acquisition of land.
Efforts should be made to increase income generated from game meat production through thedevelopment of export markets, the development of infrastructure necessary to process highquality game meat, and measures to improve the consistency of supply of game meat toabattoirs.

The following research is required to promote increased understanding of the role of
WBLU and to promote elevated productivity
•
•

•

•

•

An assessment of the scale and food-security contribution of game meat production incommunal areas.
An in-depth financial and economic analysis of the pros and cons of various potential
alternative veterinary control strategies and scenarios to explore the advisability or otherwiseof various possible options for buffalo reintroductions on freehold land.
A financial and economic analysis of the comparative profitability of various land use options
in various scenarios in Namibia, including mixed livestock/wildlife production systems, purewildlife systems, current conservancy models and more integrated conservancy systems (i.e.
those lacking internal fencing and where the full range of indigenous species have been
reintroduced).
A review of co-management systems, conservancy constitutions and systems in place in
Namibia, South Africa, Zimbabwe and Kenya to identify those that are most effective,
profitable and which yield the greatest gains for conservation and social development.
An assessment of wildlife movement and migration patterns on freehold land to prevent
disruption through inappropriately placed fence lines.

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

71

REFERENCES
Barnes, J. (2001). Economic returns and allocation of resources in the wildlife sector of Botswana.
South African Journal of Wildlife Research 31: 141–153.
Barnes, J. and De Jager, J. (1996). Economic and financial incentives for wildlife use on private land
in Namibia and the implications for policy. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 26: 37-46.
Barnes, J., MacGregor, J. and Weaver, C. (2001). Economic analysis of community wildlife use
initiatives in Namibia. DEA Research Discussion Paper, number 42. Ministry of Environment andTourism, Windhoek.
Barnes, J. and Jones, B. (2009). Game ranching in Namibia. In: B. Child, H. Suich and A. Spenceley(eds.) Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation in southern Africa. Earthscan, London.
Barnes, J., Lange, G., Nhuleipo, O., Muteyauli, Katoma, P., Amupolo, H., Lindeque, P., Erb, P.
(2009). Preliminary valuation of the wildlife stocks in Namibia: wildlife asset accounts. Ministryof Environment and Tourism report, 9 pp.
Barnett, R. (1998). Food for Thought: The Utilisation of Wild Meat in Eastern and Southern
Africa. Traffic East/Southern Africa. Nairobi.
Barnett, R. and Patterson, C. (2006). Sport Hunting in the Southern African Development Community(SADC) Region: An overview. TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa. Johannesburg, South Africa.
Bester, F.V. (1999). Major problem – bush species and densities in Namibia. Agricola:1–3
Bishi, A., Kamwi, J. (2007). Veterinary Science, Transboundary Animal Diseases and Markets:
Pathways for Policy in Southern Africa-The Namibian Component. Directory of Veterinary
Services report, 59 pp.
Bond, I., Child, B., de la Harpe, D., Jones, B., Barnes, J. and Anderson, H. (2004). Private-land
contribution to conservation in South Africa. In: B. Child (Ed.), Parks in transition, pp 29–62.
Earthscan, UK.
Bothma, J.d.P., Van Rooyen, N. and du Toit, J.G. (2002). Antelope and other smaller herbivores. In:
J. Du Bothma (ed), Game Ranch Management, pp. 149–175. Van Schaik Publishers, Pretoria.
Carruthers, J. 2008. “Wilding the farm or farming the wild?” The evolution of scientific gameranching in South Africa from the 1960s to the present. Transactions of the Royal Society of South
Africa, 63: 160–181.
Caughley, G. and Krebs, C. (1983). Are big animals simply little mammals writ large? Oecologia 59:
7–17.
Child, B. (2008). Private conservation in southern Africa: practice and emerging principles. In B.
Child, H. Such and A. Spencely (Eds), Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation insouthern Africa, Earthscan, London.
Coe, M., Cumming, D. and Phillipson, J. (1976). Biomass and production of large African herbivores
in relation to rainfall and primary production. Oecologia, 22: 341–354.
Cousins, J., Sadler, J. and Evans, J. (2008). Exploring the Role of Private Wildlife Ranching as aConservation Tool in South Africa: Stakeholder Perspectives. Ecology and Society, 8. URL:
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol13/iss2/art43/.
Damm, G., (2005). Hunting in Namibia in 2004: a summary. African Indaba 3: 4–5.

72

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

DVS (2007). Veterinary Science, Transboundary Animal Diseases and Markets: Pathways for Policyin Southern Africa-The Namibian Component. Republic of Namibia, Ministry of Agriculture
Water and Forestry, Directorate of Veterinary Services, report, 59 pp.
Erb, P. (2004). Consumptive wildlife utilization as a land use in Namibia. MBA, University of
Stellenbosch, 132 ppp.
Falkena, H. (2003). Game ranch profitability in South Africa. Rivonia: The SA Financial Sector
Forum.
Gödde, T. (2008). Analysis of the Namibian game meat sector: potentials and constraints for the
supply of exports markets. Draft report prepared for the Namibian game meat task team, 29 pp.
Humavindu, M. N., Barnes, J.I. (2003). Trophy hunting in the Namibian economy: an assessment.
South African Journal of Wildlife Research 33: 65–70.
JMPIN (2000). JMPIN Version 4.0.2. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute.
Jones, B. and Weaver, C. (2008). CBNRM in Namibia: growth, trends, lessons and constraints. In B.
Child, H. Suich, and A. Spenceley (Eds.), Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation insouthern Africa, Earthscan, London.
Lamprechts, M. (2009). Trophy Hunting in Namibia from the 1960s to the Present Day. Namibian
Professional Hunting Association report.
Lange,G-M.; Barnes,J.I. and Motinga,D.J. (1997). Cattle numbers, biomass, productivity, and landdegradation in the commercial farming sector of Namibia, 1915–1995. Research Discussion
Paper, Directorate Environmental Affairs. Available at: http://www.deamet.gov.na/data/
publications/pub_all.htm
Laubscher, J., Jooste, A., Mbai, S., Idsardi, E.(2007). Market study for goat products and venison.
Meat Board of Namibia report, 149 pp.
Langholz, G. and Kerley, G. (2006). Combining conersvation and development on private lands: anassessment of ecotourism-based private game reserves in the Eastern Cape. Centre for African
Conservation Ecology, Report No. 56. Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth.
LEAD (2005). Our land we farm: an analysis of the Namibian commercial agricultural land reform
process. Land, Environment and Development (LEAD) Project report, 74 pp.
Lindner, J. (2002). Handling non response error in the Journal of International Agricultural Extension
Education. Fall 9: 55–60.
Lindsey, P.A., du Toit, R. Pole, A. and Romañach, S. (2008). Savé Valley Conservancy: a large scale
African experiment in cooperative wildlife management. In B. Child, H. Such and A. Spencely(Eds), Evolution and innovation in wildlife conservation in southern Africa, Earthscan, London.
Lindsey, P. Roulet, P. and Romañach, S. (2007). Economic and conservation significance of thetrophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation 134: 455–469.
Lindsey, P.A. Romañach, S. and Davies-Mostert, H. 2009. The importance of conservancies forenhancing the conservation value of game ranch land in southern Africa. Journal of Zoology 277:
99–105.
Lindsey, P., Romañach, S., Tambling, C., Chartier, K., Matema, S., Mupamhadzi, I., Matema, C. andMuvengwi, J. (2009). The illegal meat trade affecting wildlife-based land use in the South East
Lowveld of Zimbabwe: drivers, impacts and potential solutions. PARSEL Project thematic bulletin
series, Harare, Zimbabwe.

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

73Marnewick, K., Beckhelling, A., Cilliers, D., Lane, E., Mills, M.G.L., Herring, K., Caldwell, P., Hall,
R. and Meintjes, S. (2007). The status of the Cheetah in South Africa. In: Breitenmoser, C. andDurant, S. (Eds). The Status and Conservation Needs of the Cheetah in Southern Africa. Cat News
Special Edition, December 2007.
Martin, R. (2004). The Influence of Veterinary Control Fences on Certain Wild Large Mammal
Species in the Caprivi, Namibia. In S. Osofsky (Ed.), Conservation and development interventions
at the wildlife/livestock interface: implications for wildlife, livestock and human health. Gland,
IUCN, 27–40.
Martin R. (2006). The Mudumu North Complex: Wildlife Co-Management in the Kwando Area of
the Caprivi. A Study for the Ministry of Environment and Tourism and the Management
Committee of the Mudumu North Complex facilitated by the Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF),
Integrated Community-based Ecosystem Management and the French Global Environment
Facility, 106 pp.
Martin, R. (2008). Review of Safari Hunting in Botswana. Financial and economic assessment.
Botswana Wildlife Management Association report, 48 pp.
MAWF (2008). Value addition in Namibia. Report by the Ministry of Agriculture, water and forestry
in collaboration with the Namibia manufacturing association.
Mendelsohn, J. (2006). Farming systems in Namibia. Namibian National Farmers Union report, 82 pp.
Mendelsohn, J., Jarvis, A., Roberts, C., Robertson, T. (2002). Atlas of Namibia: A portrait of the land
and its people. David Phillip Publishers, Cape Town.
MET (2008). Marketing of Namibian game meat. Ministry of Environment and Tourism report, 8 pp.
Murombedzi, J. (2003). Pre-colonial and colonial conservation practices in southern Africa and theirlegacy today. IUCN report, available from http://dss.ucsd.edu/_ccgibson/docs/ Murombedzi%20%20Pre-colonial%20and%20Colonial%20Origins.pdf.
Pole, A., Gordon, I., and Gorman, M. (2004). African wild dogs test the survival of the fittest
paradigm. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B, 270, DOI 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0011.
Price Waterhouse (1994). The Lowveld Conservancies: New Opportunities for Productive andsustainable land use. Published by Save Valley, Bubiana and Chiredzi conservancies, Harare.
Stuart, C. and Stuart, T. (1991). Field guide to the mammals of southern Africa. Struik publishers,
Cape Town.
du Toit, (2004). Review of wildlife issues associated with land reform in Zimbabwe. WWF SARPO
Occasional Paper, Number 10.
Thomson, G. (2008). A short overview of regional positions on foot-and-mouth disease control insouthern Africa. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton. Unpublished report, 24 pp.
Turpie, J., Lange, G., Martin, R., Davies, R. and Barnes, J. (2005). Namibia’s protected areas: Theireconomic worth and the feasibility of their financing. DEA discussion paper, number 73.
Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Windhoek.
Weaver, C. and Petersen, T. (2008). Namibia’s communal area conservancies. In Best Practices in
Sustainable Hunting, CIC—International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation, FAO,
available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/aj114e/aj114e00.HTM.

74

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

APPENDIX 1: Namibia Game Meat Questionnaire
Interviewer..................................Date.....................................................
Background
1. Region....................................GPS/Map point...............................................
2. District.....................................
3. How much land do you own?
Number of farms..............................Size...............................
Farm name.........................Farm number.......................................
Farm name.........................Farm number.......................................
Farm name.........................Farm number.......................................
Farm name.........................Farm number.......................................
Farm name.........................Farm number.......................................
4. How much land do you lease?
Number of farms..............................Size...............................
Farm name.........................Farm number.......................................
Farm name.........................Farm number.......................................
Farm name.........................Farm number.......................................
Farm name.........................Farm number.......................................
Farm name.........................Farm number.......................................
5. Is (are) the farms part of a conservancy?
□ Yes, conservancy name......................conservancy size.....................
□ No...............................................................................................................
6. Why did you become part of the conservancy?
.............................................................................................................
7. Why are you not part of a conservancy?
............................................................................................................
8. Do you have fencing around your property(ies)?
□ No□ Yes, what type.....................................................

Land uses
9. Do you live on the farm?

□ Yes

□ No

10. Are you a full time farmer, or do you have another job or income generating activity?
□ Full-time farmer□ Part-time farmer, also work as.............................................

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security7511. What land uses do you practice on your properties, and what proportion of the ranch income dothey generate in an average year? (Is this for OWNED □ or LEASED land. □ or all land ownedor leased □)Land use

Tick if yes

Agriculture
Livestock production
Photographic ecotourism
Trophy hunting
Biltong hunting
Shoot-and-sell
Cropping / harvesting of game for meat (with culling team)Management hunts (non trophy tourist hunts)
Own useLive game sales
Other, please specify....

□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□

Proportion ofranch income

12. If any of the following forms of wildlife use are not conducted, please explain why you do notpractice them?
Land use
Livestock
Photographic ecotourism
Trophy hunting
Biltong hunting
Shoot-and-sell (sale of meat)
Cropping / harvesting of game for meat (with culling team)Management hunts (non trophy tourist hunts)
Live game sales

13. How many employees do you have on the land that you own and/or lease?
(Is this for OWNED □ or LEASED land. □ or all land owned or leased □).......................................................................................................
14. How many people live on the properties that you own and/or lease (employees and families,
and dependents) (not including the farmers own family)(Is this for OWNED □ or LEASED land. □ or all land owned or leased □).......................................................................................................
15. If the farmer has livestock: Would you consider removing all livestock and farming with justgame in future?
□ Yes, because..........................................................................
□ No, because............................................................................
For farmers in conservancies:
16. If the conservancy proposed that all farmers switch to purely game farming, remove allinternal fences, and that the conservancy constructed a single fence around the perimeter andreintroduced all indigenous animals that the law permitted to the area, would you be
supportive of such a move and be willing to include your land?
□ Yes, because........................................□ No, because.............................................
17. Do you have guest accommodation on the farm? □ Yes
76

□ No

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

18. If so, how many beds (NOT ROOMS) do you have?
.........................................................................
19. If you do have guest accommodation, what type of client is it used for?
□ Tourists □ Hunters □ Conferences □ Business meetings □ Other
20. If you are involved in ecotourism, approximately how many tourists visit your property perannum on average?
.........................................................................
21. How many ecotourism bed nights to you have on average?
Wildlife
22. Please estimate the approximate population sizes of each of the following species on yourproperty (PREDATORS JUST ASK PRESENCE ABSENCE)(Is this for OWNED □ or LEASED land. □ or all land owned or leased □)Specify number of farms and land area..........................................................................
Species
Blesbok
African ElephantCommon ElandCommon Duiker
Giraffe
Hartebeest
Impala (Common)
Impala (Black-faced)
Greater Kudu
Oryx
OstrichRoan Antelope
Sable Antelope
Springbok
Steenbok
Tsessebe
Common Warthog
WaterbuckWildebeest, Black
Wildebeest, Blue
Zebra, Hartmann's
Zebra, Plains
Other (specify)
Cheetahs
Hyaena, Brown
Hyaena, Spotted
Leopards
Lions
Wild dogs
CattleSheep
Goats
HorsesDonkeys

Population size on your property

23. What is your basis for the above population estimations?
.........................................................................................................................................
An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

7724. Do you think that wildlife populations in your area have been increasing, staying stable ordecreasing during the last five years?
□ Increasing □ Staying stable □ Declining. Why?...........................................................
25. Approximately how many animals of the following species are killed / extracted per year fromyour property through the means listed below?
(Is this for OWNED □ or LEASED land. □ or all land owned or leased □)Specify number of farms and land area..........................................................................
Trophyhunting
M
F

Species

Biltong
hunting
M F

GameharvestingM
F

Shoot-andsell
M FManagement
hunts
M
F

Own useM

Live saleF

M

F

BlesbokCommon Duiker
African ElephantCommon ElandGiraffe
Hartebeest
Impala (Common)
Impala (Blackfaced)
Greater Kudu
Oryx
OstrichSpringbok
Steenbok
Common Warthog
WaterbuckWildebeest, Black
Wildebeest, Blue
Zebra, Hartmann's
Zebra, Plains
Other (specify)

26. For any of the above forms of wildlife use do you kill animals that are not adults? If so, please
specify the proportion of the total killed that are not adult for each use type ...........................
Meat Production
27. What do you do with meat from the following sources (provide %s)
SpeciesTrophyhuntingGameharvesting

Biltong

Shoot-andsell

Management
hunts

Use at own guest accommodation
Personal consumption(you or family)
Give as farm worker rations
Sell as farm worker rations
Give to local communities
Sell to local communities
Sell processed meat through your own
butcherySell unprocessed meat through your own
butcherySell to other butchery
Sell to culling team
Other, please specify...

78

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

Own
use

28. How much GAME meat do you give to workers per week on average during the year?
....................................................................
29. How much meat from DOMESTIC animals do you give to workers per week on averageduring the year?
....................................................................
30. What proportion of your meat is sold/disposed of in the following formats, and what price doyou get for each category?
%

Price

Carcasses
Unselected cuts (wet/frozen)
Selected cuts (e.g. rump, sirloin, etc)
Processed (biltong / droëwors)
Other

31. Is there a price difference between meat sold from different sources (e.g. trophy hunting,shoot-and-sell, culling, management hunts)?
Price
Trophy hunting /management hunts
Shoot-and-sellCulling

32. Does the price of meat vary by season? If so please provide examples and make sure theyspecify the source of the meat – e.g. if it is from trophy hunted animals, or shoot-and-sell, or
culled animals (WRITE in NAD values)□ No □ Yes Examples........................................................................
33. If the price varies by season, what proportions do you sell at the different prices?
...............................................................................................................
34. Does the price of meat vary by species? If so, please provide examples (and make sure theyspecify the source of the meat – e.g. if it is from trophy hunted animals, or from shoot-and-sell,or culled animals (WRITE NAD values)□ No □ Yes Examples......................................................................
35. What factors presently limit your ability to generate income from selling game meat from thevarious forms of meat utilization?
...............................................................................................................
36. Are there any government regulations that affect the profitability of game meat production?
□ No □ Yes, if so, which ones and how...............................................................
37. Do you have any suggestions on what could be done to enhance the profitability of selling
game meat? .............................................................................................................................
38. Would you be willing to participate in commercial game cropping enterprises if better systems
were developed to export game meat to EU markets?
□ No, why not...............................................................................
□ Yes, if so, how...........................................................................
An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

7939. Do you think that game meat currently contributes significantly to food security in Namibia?
□ No, why not...............................................................................
□ Yes, if so, how...........................................................................
Poaching
40. How serious is poaching as a threat to the financial viability of wildlife-based land uses on
your property?
□ Not serious at all □ Moderately serious □ Very serious
41. How many separate poaching incidents have you recorded on your property during the last 12
months? ....................................................................
42. How many incidents of domestic stock rustling have you recorded on your property during thelast 12 months? ....................................................................
43. How many animals do you know of that were lost from your property to poaching / rustling
during the last 12 months?
Species

Lost to poaching

Blesbok
African ElephantCommon ElandGiraffe
Hartebeest
ImpalaGreater Kudu
Oryx
OstrichSpringbok
Common Warthog
WaterbuckWildebeest, Black
Wildebeest, Blue
Zebra, Hartmann's
Zebra, Plains
Other (specify)
CattleSheep
HorsesDonkeys

44. What proportion of poaching on your property is conducted with the following methods?
Method% of poaching incidents

Snaring
Hunting with dogs
Shooting on farm
Shooting from road passing the farm
Other, please specify

45. Where do you think most GAME poachers who hunt on your property come from?.......
46. What do you think GAME poachers who hunt on your property do with the meat they obtain?
.............................................................................................................................

80

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

47. How do you think the incidence of GAME poaching on your property could be reduced?
.......................................................................................................
48. Do you consider the legal / penal structures governing GAME poaching in Namibia to be
sufficient and appropriate?
□ Yes, because...............................................................; □ No, because.........................
49. Do you consider the legal / penal structures governing STOCK rustling in Namibia to be
sufficient and appropriate?
□ Yes, because...............................................................................................................
□ No, because................................................................................................................
50. If you have caught GAME poachers before, what kind of punishments have they received forthe offence? .......................................................................................................
51. If you have caught STOCK rustlers before, what kind of punishments have they received forthe offence? .......................................................................................................
Predators
52. Given the choice, which of the following predator species would you choose to have occurringon your property?
Species

Prefer to have or notJackals Canis mesomelas
Caracals Caracal caracal
Cheetahs
Leopards
Brown Hyaenas
Spotted Hyaenas
Wild dogs
Lions

□ Yes
□ Yes
□ Yes
□ Yes
□ Yes
□ Yes
□ Yes
□ Yes

Reason

□ No
□ No
□ No
□ No
□ No
□ No
□ No
□ No

53. What do you estimate the annual financial impact of each predator species to be on livestock
production and game on your property? (for livestock: give dollar figure; for impact on game:
give rank, i.e. ‘worst’, ‘second’, ‘third’ etc.
Species

Livestock impact (dollar figure)Game impact (RANK)

Jackals
Caracals
Cheetahs
Leopards
Brown Hyaenas
Spotted Hyaenas
Wild dogs
Lions

Background information
54. Age (estimate).....................................................................
55. Highest level of education...................................................
56. Mother tongue language......................................................

An Analysis of Game Meat Production and Wildlife-based Land Uses on Freehold Land in Namibia: Links with Food Security

81TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works to ensurethat trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservationof nature.

The Executive Director

Regional Director

TRAFFIC International

TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa

219a Huntingdon Road

P.O. Box CY 1409

Cambridge CB3 0DL

Causeway, Harare

UK

Zimbabwe

Telephone: (44) 1223 277427

Telephone: (263) 4 252 533

Fax: (44) 1223 277237

Fax: (263) 4 703 902

Email: traffic@traffic.org

Email: traffic@wwfsarpo.org

JULY 2011

For further information contact: