Content uploaded by P. A. Lindsey
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by P. A. Lindsey
Content may be subject to copyright.
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
Benefits of wildlife-based land uses on private
lands in Namibia and limitations affecting
their development
P. A. LINDSEY,C.P.HAVEMANN,R.M.LINES,A.E.PRICE,T.A.RETIEF
T. RHEBERGEN,C.VAN DER WAAL andS. S. ROMAÑACH
Abstract Legislative changes during the 1960s–1970s
granted user rights over wildlife to landowners in southern
Africa, resulting in a shift from livestock farming to wildlife-
based land uses. Few comprehensive assessments of such
land uses on private land in southern Africa have been
conducted and the associated benefits are not always
acknowledged by politicians. Nonetheless, wildlife-based
land uses are growing in prevalence on private land. In
Namibia wildlife-based land use occurs over c. 287,000 km
2
.
Employment is positively related to income from ecotour-
ism and negatively related to income from livestock. While
87% of meat from livestock is exported $95% of venison
from wildlife-based land uses remains within the country,
contributing to food security. Wildlife populations are
increasing with expansion of wildlife-based land uses, and
private farms contain 21–33 times more wildlife than in
protected areas. Because of the popularity of wildlife-based
land uses among younger farmers, increasing tourist arrivals
and projected impacts of climate change on livestock
production, the economic output of wildlife-based land
uses will probably soon exceed that of livestock. However,
existing policies favour livestock production and are
prejudiced against wildlife-based land uses by prohibiting
reintroductions of buffalo Syncerus caffer, a key species for
tourism and safari hunting, and through subsidies that
artificially inflate the profitability of livestock production.
Returns from wildlife-based land uses are also limited by the
failure to reintroduce other charismatic species, failure to
develop fully-integrated conservancies and to integrate
black farmers sufficiently.
Keywords Ecotourism, fencing, Namibia, private land,
transfrontier, trophy hunting, wildlife
This paper contains supplementary material that can be
found online at http://journals.cambridge.org
Introduction
Wildlife management in southern Africa has evolved
through three stages (Child, 2009). With white
settlement wildlife populations were decimated by unregu-
lated hunting and habitat fragmentation (MacKenzie, 1988).
Declines were exacerbated by outbreaks of bovine pleuro-
pneumonia and rinderpest (Bond et al., 2004). A protec-
tionist phase followed in which colonial administrations
established legislation that centralized control over wildlife
and limited commercial use, making wildlife on farmlands a
burden for landowners (MacKenzie, 1988; Murombedzi,
2003). Wildlife populations continued to wane because of
illegal hunting, persecution by landowners, state-sponsored
hunting to remove tsetse flyGlossina spp. hosts, and con-
struction of veterinary fences (Child & Riney, 1987;Taylor&
Martin, 1987; Bond et al., 2004). Negative wildlife population
trends improved following legislative changes during the
1960s and 1970s that enabled landowners to utilize wildlife
on their land (Bond et al., 2004).
During the 1980s there was a rising demand for tourism
and safari hunting, providing incentives for landowners
to begin wildlife ranching (Bond et al., 2004). Recurrent
droughts, declining range productivity because of over-
stocking with livestock and declining state subsidies
for livestock production hastened the shift to wildlife
ranching (Jansen et al., 1992; Child, 2000; Carruthers, 2008).
Predictions that wildlife could produce more meat than
livestock (Dasmann & Mossman, 1961) were not borne out
because of the costs of harvesting wildlife, veterinary
restrictions and lack of support infrastructure. Rather, the
comparative advantage of wildlife lay in multiple values
from ecotourism, safari hunting, meat and hides (Child,
2000; Carruthers, 2008). Wildlife ranching spread rapidly
across semi-arid private lands in southern Africa. There
are now at least 9,000 wildlife ranches in South Africa,
P.A. LINDSEY*(Corresponding author), C.P. HAVEMANN and T.A. RETIEF
Mammal Research Institute, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield,
Pretoria, 0028, South Africa. E-mail palindsey@gmail.com
R.M. LINES Namibia Nature Foundation, Windhoek, Namibia
A.E. PRICE Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality in Lincoln,
Nebraska, USA
T. RHEBERGEN Department of Plant Production Systems, Wageningen
University, The Netherlands
C. VAN DER WAAL Vanderwaal & Associates Agri-ecological Services, Omaruru,
Namibia
S.S. ROMAÑACH African Wildlife Conservation Fund, Doral, USA
*Also at: TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Harare, Zimbabwe, and Panthera,
New York, USA
Received 13 January 2011. Revision requested 6April 2011.
Accepted 26 May 2011.
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53 doi:10.1017/S0030605311001049
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
covering c. 205,000 km
2
(Falkena, 2003; NAMC, 2006). In
Zimbabwe there were 27,000 km
2
of wildlife ranches prior to
so-called land reform (Bond et al., 2004) and in Namibia
there were 400 registered hunting farms by 2001 (Krug,
2001).
A growing body of evidence suggests that wildlife-based
land uses confer several ecological and socio-economic
benefits compared to livestock farming in semi-arid areas
(Price-Waterhouse, 1994; Langholz & Kerley, 2006). For
example, wildlife-based land use has resulted in the
restoration of degraded rangelands in some areas and
stimulated recoveries of wildlife populations, including
threatened species (Barnes & de Jager, 1996; Bothma et al.,
2009; Child, 2009). In semi-arid areas wildlife-based
land use is commonly more profitable than livestock,
generates more foreign currency, and is less susceptible to
drought (Price-Waterhouse, 1994; Sims-Castley et al.,
2005). Wildlife-based land uses contribute to food security
through employment, foreign currency and venison (Price-
Waterhouse, 1994; Langholz & Kerley, 2006).
Few studies have examined the economic, social and
conservation impacts of wildlife ranching on private land in
southern Africa, despite the scale of the industry. Lack of
data and a perception that the primary beneficiaries of
wildlife-based land uses are white landowners have meant
that wildlife ranching is not always fully supported by
governments (Duffy, 2000). Some politicians believe that
wildlife ranches threaten food security (du Toit, 2004) and
others perceive wildlife ranching as an attempt by white
landowners to avoid land reform (Gibson, 1999). Current
policies artificially inflate the profitability of livestock
farming and suppress that of wildlife ranching through
veterinary restrictions on wildlife reintroductions (Scoones
& Wolmer, 2008; Albertson, 2010). Without intervention to
raise awareness among politicians of the benefits of wildlife-
based land uses there is a risk that land reform will cause a
reversion to livestock in areas best suited for wildlife.
Southern Africa inherited skewed land ownership from
colonial governments and the transfer of land from white to
black farmers is a political imperative. There is therefore a
need for research into the scale and impacts of wildlife
ranching in southern Africa to guide land-use planning,
veterinary policies and land reform. Here we provide an
assessment of wildlife ranching in Namibia.
Legislative basis for wildlife ranching in Namibia
Several forms of consumptive utilization of wildlife are
allowed on Namibian farmlands with appropriate permits,
including: shoot-and-sell (shooting of animals for meat
to sell), safari hunting (sale of guided hunts mainly to
foreign hunters), management hunts (sale of guided hunts
targeting non-trophy animals), biltong hunting (mainly
local hunters sold the right to shoot animals for meat),
wildlife harvesting (wildlife is culled by specialized teams to
produce venison), shooting for own use, and capture and
sale of live wildlife (Gödde, 2008). Consumptive wildlife use
is governed by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism
via Nature Conservation Ordinance No. 4of 1975. This
legislation was amended with the Nature Conservation
Amendment Act of 1996, which conferred similar user
rights to residents of communal land conservancies (Barnett
& Patterson, 2006). A Parks and Wildlife Management Bill
is being drafted but is not yet operational (Laubscher et al.,
2007). Permits for consumptive use are allocated by the
Ministry of Environment and Tourism following sub-
mission of management plans by farmers and field
inspections/wildlife counts (Gödde, 2008). Twenty-five
conservancies have developed in which multiple land-
owners manage wildlife cooperatively (comprising 1,008
farms and c. 43,250 km
2
; Ministry of Environment and
Tourism, pers. comm., 2010).
Methods
A structured, pre-tested questionnaire was used to gather
quantitative data on land-use, wildlife, employment and
venison production (Appendix). Sixty of the 81 member
associations of the Namibian Agricultural Union (NAU)
were randomly selected. From each association four farmers
were randomly sampled and interviewed in person. If
respondents were not reachable, alternatives were randomly
selected. Interviews were conducted in English, Afrikaans
or Herero by four interviewers. Farmers were informed
that the survey was part of a university study on wildlife-
based land uses in Namibia and that the results would be
anonymous. The interviewers were provided with training
in survey techniques and observed multiple pre-tests of the
survey and conducted several supervised practice surveys
before commencing data collection.
Two hundred and fifty farmers were interviewed
(sample distribution is depicted in Fig. 1). Because of
multiple farm-ownership/lease-holding the sample covered
412 farms (28,038 km
2
). There are 3,500 commercial farms in
Namibia (Giel Schoombee, NAU, pers. comm., 2010). The
margin of error with this sample size is 4.9% (i.e. 95%
confidence interval). Refusal rate was 4.8%, which is unlikely
to introduce non-response bias (Lindner, 2002).
Estimates of wildlife populations and wildlife biomass
on freehold farms were made by multiplying mean values
per km
2
from our sample in each region by the area
of farmland in each region. Wildlife biomass was estimated
by multiplying the mean mass of individuals of a species
(0.75 of standard female mass; Hayward et al., 2006)by
respondents’estimates of populations of those species on
their properties. When estimating venison production mean
dressing percentages were multiplied by the number of
individuals reported utilized each year (Bothma & du Toit,
42 P. A. Lindsey et al.
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
2009). All animals utilized were assumed to be adults
(sex ratios of harvests were provided by farmers), except for
culling, for which 0.75 of standard female mass was used.
To estimate meat production on a national scale two
methods were used. (1) Mean percentage offtake of popu-
lations of each species in each region were calculated and
multiplied by population estimates for each region (after
Barnes et al., 2009). These values were then multiplied by the
mean meat yield from an individual of each species via each
form of utilization. For small antelopes for which population
estimates were not available the percentage of total meat
production from the sample that they comprised was
calculated, and the national meat production estimate
adjusted upwards by the same proportion. (2) Meat pro-
duction was also calculated based on available land, by multi-
plying the mean meat production per km
2
from all forms of
use in each region by the area of farmlands in each region.
Estimates of venison produced per km
2
in each region
were multiplied by mean prices (from the survey) to
calculate earnings from meat. Warthog Phacochoerus
africanus meat was assumed not to be sold, except where
the species was shot under shoot-and-sell permits, as the
sale of meat from the species is restricted (F. Joubert,
Directorate of Veterinary Services, pers. comm., 2010).
Survey data were analysed using multiple logistic re-
gressions, χ
2
tests and analyses of variance (JMPIN, 2000).
When commencing with multiple logistic regressions or
analyses of variance all variables expected to influence the
dependent variable were included in the models and
removed following a backwards stepwise procedure until
all remaining variables were statistically significant. To
analyse percentage income from different land uses we
categorized income data as 0–25% income, 26–50% and
.50%.
Data on vegetation, mean annual rainfall, human
densities, distances from towns/national roads of each
farm in the sample, and estimates of the area of freehold
farms in each region were calculated or derived from
km
20°S
24°S
12°E 16°E 20°E
South Africa
Botswana
–20
–24
FIG. 1 Spatial patterns in primary
land use (i.e. that accounting for the
majority of farmers’income) on
freehold land in Namibia (categorized
as either consumptive wildlife
utilization, ecotourism or livestock),
and the line denoting the boundary
between the small-stock area (to the
south) and large-stock area (to the
north).
Benefits of wildlife-based land uses 43
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
NACSO (2010), using ArcInfo v. 9.3(ESRI, Redlands, USA).
Land was categorized as falling in the ‘small-stock’or ‘large-
stock’farming areas, following Erb (2004).
Results
Interviewees
Eighty-seven percent (87.1%) of respondents interviewed
were white, of which 54.2% were Afrikaans-speaking, 42.1%
were German-speaking and the remainder English-
speaking. Thirteen percent of farmers were black (of
which 74.0% were Herero and 9.2% Damara). Of farmers
in commercial conservancies, only 0.86% were black.
Land use
Livestock production was the most common land use
(92.3% of respondents) and generated the largest mean
proportion of respondents’income (66.9%; Figs 1&2).
Cattle were the most widespread livestock (93.4%of
respondents; mean density where kept 5.1±SE 0.36 km
−2
),
followed by sheep (72.7%, 13.6±SE 2.3km
−2
), and goats
(61.6%, 2.20 ±SE 0.19 km
−2
). Percentage income from live-
stock was influenced by region (highest in Kunene, 79.5%,
and Otjozondjupa, 67.1%, and lowest in Erongo, 54.2%) and
by age of respondent (higher among older farmers; F
Ratio 53.69,df58,P,0.001; JMPIN, 2000).
Seventy-five percent of respondents practised commer-
cial wildlife-based land uses (Fig. 2). Wildlife-based land
uses are practised over c. 287,000 km
2
and exclusively over
c. 32,000 km
2
(Table 1). Whether or not wildlife-based land
uses are practised was related to conservancy membership
(94.0% of respondents in conservancies cf. 69.4% outside),
and wildlife diversity (9.0±SE 0.32 wild ungulate species
where wildlife-based land use is practised cf. 5.2±SE 0.26).
Percentage of income from wildlife-based land uses was
higher among conservancy members (35.3%cf.19.1% among
non-members) and was higher among whites than blacks
(29.6% cf. 6.6%).
The commonest forms of wildlife-based land uses were
shoot-and-sell, safari hunting and ecotourism (Fig. 2). Safari
hunting (9.2%), ecotourism (6.8%) shoot-and-sell (2.7%),
live sales (1.8%) and biltong hunting (1.3%) generated most
income from wildlife-based land uses (Table 1). Percentage
of income from safari hunting was greater among younger
ranchers and among conservancy members (22.6% cf. 7.5%;
F Ratio 511.5,df52,P,0.001). Percentage income from
ecotourism was higher in the small-stock than large-stock
area (7.7% cf. 6.4%).
Twenty-one percent (21.4%) of farmers would consider
removing all livestock and practising only wildlife-based
land uses in the future. Willingness of respondents to make
such a change was influenced by race (30.8% of blacks were
willing cf. 20% of whites), proportion of income from
ecotourism (willing respondents derived 8% of income from
ecotourism cf. 4% among unwilling respondents), pro-
portion of income from safari hunting (willing respondents
derived 22% of income from safari hunting cf. 11% among
unwilling respondents), and respondents’distance from a
town (willing respondents were nearer towns 142 ±SE 20 km
cf. 192 ±SE 11.4km; χ
2
5152,df5158,P,0.001). Most
farms have stock-proof fencing, even in conservancies
(Table 2). Game-proof fencing is relatively uncommon
(Table 2).
Wildlife populations
Wildlife populations on freehold land may be larger than
previously recognized (Barnes et al., 2009;Table 3). Wild
ungulate diversity was higher in conservancies (10.1±SE
0.39 species per farm cf. 6.72 ±SE 0.36), positively related to
income from safari hunting (ranchers obtaining with 0–25%
of their income from safari hunting had 5.4±SE 0.2species,
those earning 26–50% had 10.8±SE 4.4species, and those
deriving .50% had 12.4±SE 0.8species), negatively related
to income from livestock (ranchers obtaining 0–25% of in-
come from livestock had 10.3±SE 1.2species, those earning
26–50% had 10.8±SE 0.65 species, and those deriving
.50% had 7.0±SE 0.3species), negatively related to farmer
age, and influenced by vegetation (F Ratio 518.9,df515,
P,0.001). Wildlife diversity was highest in thorn-bush
shrub-land (11.6±SE 0.9species) and southern Kalahari
(10.3±SE 1.3), and lowest in Karas dwarf shrub-land
% of farmers
FIG. 2 Percentage of farmers interviewed who were engaged in
various land-use forms (wildlife cropping refers to the large-scale
culling of wildlife to produce meat for sale, the shooting often
done at night, and differs from shoot-and-sell which typically
involves the more selected removal of one individual at a time).
44 P. A. Lindsey et al.
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
(4.4±SE 0.5). Four of the so-called big five (buffalo Syncerus
caffer, lion Panthera leo, elephant Loxodonta africana and
rhinoceros Diceros bicornis) were rare on farms whereas the
leopard Panthera pardus was not (Fig. 3). Springbok
Antidorcas marsupialis, oryx Oryx gazella, kudu
Tragelaphus strepsiceros and warthog were the most
abundant species on farmlands (Table 3).
Livestock biomass (mean 2,251 ±SE 140 kg km
−2
)was
higher than wild ungulate (and ostrich Struthio camelus)
biomass (936 ±SE 84.1kg km
−2
; F Ratio 564.0,df51,
P,0.001). Livestock production on freehold land con-
tributed NAD 1.97 billion (USD 235 million at mean 2009
rates) to gross national income (GNI) in 2009, compared to
at least USD 166 million from wildlife and tourism (Barnes
et al., 2010). Wildlife biomass is thus more efficient at
generating revenue than livestock. Wildlife, which com-
prises 29.4% of mammalian biomass, generates 41.5% of the
revenue from livestock, wildlife and tourism combined, or
1.41% revenue per 1% biomass, whereas livestock generates
0.83% revenue per 1% biomass.
Wildlife biomass was negatively related to income from
livestock (ranchers earning 0–25% of income from livestock
had 2,712 ±SE 900 kg of wildlife biomass km
−2
, those
deriving 26–50% had 1,516 ±SE 137 kg km
−2
, and those
deriving .50% had 911 ±SE 136 kg km
−2
), positively related
to income from safari hunting (ranchers deriving 0–25%of
income from safari hunting had 973 ±SE 256 kg of wildlife
biomass km
−2
, those deriving 26–50% had 1,369 ±SE 108 kg
km
−2
, and those deriving .50%2,179 ±258 kg km
−2
), and
positively related to income from ecotourism (ranchers
deriving 0–25% from ecotourism had 1,129 ±123 kg of wild-
life biomass km
−2
, those deriving 26–50% had 1,137 ±SE
166 kg km
−2
, and those deriving .50% had 2,849 ±1,324 kg
km
−2
), and was positively related to wildlife diversity
(F Ratio 569.9,df58,P,0.001). Some ranchers have
significant wildlife populations and yet generate little or no
income from wildlife-based land uses, suggesting that the
resource is underutilized in some areas.
Fifty-eight percent (57.6%) of respondents thought
wildlife populations were increasing on their land, 23.7%
thought they were stable, and 18.6% thought they were
declining. Percentage of income from safari hunting was
higher on properties with stable or increasing wildlife popu-
lations (18.7±SE 2.8%) than where wildlife was declining
(1.50 ±SE 0.76%; χ
2
512.1,df54,P,0.001). Wildlife was
more commonly stable or increasing inside (87.9%) than
outside conservancies (75.0%; χ
2
53.3,df51,P50.068).
Explanations for increasing wildlife populations included
favourable rainfall (35.3%; rainfall was generally above
average during 2000–2009; Namibian Ministry of Works
and Transport, 2011), good management (26.4%), conserva-
tive harvests (19.1%, Table 4), artificial water-points (10.3%),
and incentives for conservation through safari hunting
(8.8%). Explanations for declining wildlife populations
TABLE 1 Total area, percentage (and area), and mean % income generated from each land use, of farms practising safari hunting, ecotourism, any wildlife-based land uses (i.e. safari hunting,
ecotourism, shoot-and-sell, biltong hunting, management hunts, cropping, live sales), wildlife only and livestock only, in 10 regions of Namibia.
Region Total area (km
2
)
% of farms with safari
hunting (km
2
), mean
% of income
% of farms with
ecotourism (km
2
),
mean % of income
% of farms with any
wildlife-based land uses
excluding own-use (km
2
),
mean % of income
% of farms with
wildlife-based land
uses only (km
2
)
% of farms with
livestock only (km
2
)
Erongo 21,729 50.0 (10,865), 22.8 20.0 (4,346), 0.9 80.0 (17,383), 33.4 10.0 (2,173) 20.0 (4,346)
Hardap 78,156 30.0 (23,447), 5.8 20.0 (15,631), 6.1 95.0 (74,248), 22.6 10.0 (7,816) 5.0 (3,908)
Karas 86,764 50.0 (43,382), 13.9 40.7 (35,313), 8.3 100 (86,764), 34.6 10.7 (9,284) 0 (0)
Khomas 32,349 29.1 (9,414), 4.5 29.2 (9,446), 14.1 83.0 (26,850), 25.0 16.7 (5,402) 17.0 (5,499)
Kunene 26,199 15.0 (3,930), 3.0 40.7 (10,663), 5.8 44.4 (11,632), 12.3 0 (0) 55.6 (14,555)
Omaheke 36,690 8.0 (2,935), 1.3 8.3 (3,056), 8.3 50.0 (18,345), 14.8 16.7 (6,127) 50.0 (18,345)
Omusati 802 15.0 (120), ? 40.6 (326), ? 44.4 (356), ? ? (?) 55.6 (446)
Oshana 550 15.1 (83), ? 40.7 (224), ? 44.4 (244), ? ? (?) 55.6 (306)
Oshikoto 7,054 15.0 (1,058), 8.6 40.7 (2,871), 13.7 44.4 (3,132), 27.2 0 (0) 55.6 (3,919)
Otjozondjupa 66,239 49.0 (32,457), 13.7 9.8 (6,491), 2.9 72.5 (48,023), 23.5 2.4 (1,590) 27.5 (18,216)
Total/% 356,532 35.8 (127,691), 9.2 24.8 (88,368), 6.8 80.5 (286,977), 23.6 9.1 (32,391) 19.5 (69,539)
Benefits of wildlife-based land uses 45
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
among the 18.6% of ranches reporting such trends included
excessive utilization (50.0%), drought (13.6%), poaching
(9.1%), and persecution by livestock farmers (4.5%).
Meat production
An annual mean of 67.7±SE 6.8kg of venison was
produced per km
2
on farmland. Safari hunting generated
the highest quantity of venison (21.9±SE 3.9kg km
−2
),
followed by shooting for own use (21.1±SE 3.0kg km
−2
),
shoot-and-sell (13.9±SE 2.6kg km
−2
) and biltong hunting
(6.5±SE 1.5kg km
−2
). Most venison was from oryx, kudu
and springbok (Table 4). Typical harvests of wildlife on
Namibian farms were well within intrinsic rates of increase
for those species (Table 4). Venison production per km
2
was
related positively to wildlife biomass, wildlife diversity and
livestock biomass (F Ratio 548.9,df53,P,0.001).
Between 15,917 t (extrapolated from mean utilization of
available wildlife populations) and 24,952 t (extrapolated
from mean production per km
2
to available land area) of
venison are produced on freehold farms per year (Tables 4
&5). In contrast, 93,045 t of meat from domestic stock are
produced in Namibia (including communal land) annually,
of which 86.9% is exported (W. Schutz, Namibian Meat
Board, pers. comm., 2010). Approximately 805 t of venison
are exported from Namibia each year (including 85 tto
Europe, 160 t exported legally to South Africa, and a tentative
estimate of 720 t smuggled to South Africa; Laubscher, 2007;
D. Museler, pers. comm., 2010). These exports correspond to
3.0–5.0% of venison produced on freehold land, so more
venison than meat from livestock on freehold land remains in
Namibia (15,200–22,200 t cf. 12,100 t).
Venison is typically sold to butcheries (37.0%), used for
workers’rations (23.5%), or personal consumption (13.7%).
Sixty-five percent (64.6%) is sold as whole carcasses, 22.5%
as unselected cuts, 6.8% as processed meat and 5.4%as
selected cuts. Prices obtained by farmers for unprocessed
venison increased from c. USD 1.42 kg
−1
in 2006/2007,
to USD 2.07 kg
−1
in 2009 but remains lower than the beef
(USD 2.44) and sheep price (USD 2.50; mean 2009
Namibian Meat Board values). Prices of meat from eland
Tragelaphus oryx and springbok were 14.1and 9.8% higher
than other wildlife species. Farmers obtained higher prices
for selected cuts (USD 3.71 kg
−1
) and processed venison
(USD 9.47 kg
−1
).
Annual earnings from venison sales were USD 12.4–
116.0km
2
depending on the region; extrapolating from
this USD 23.8million was generated annually from meat
sales on freehold land. Including meat obtained from
harvesting/culling and shoot-and-sell from eland, hartebe-
est Alcelaphus buselaphus, impala, oryx, kudu, springbok
and Hartmann’s mountain zebra Equus zebra (species
likely to be most marketable) c. 4,100 t of venison could be
exported annually from farmland, which could generate a
potential annual return of USD 34.6million, assuming a
price of USD 9.47 kg
−1
and that a market exists for that
quantity of venison.
Farm workers receive more venison as rations (3.82 ±SE
0.34 kg week
−1
) than meat from livestock (2.11 ±SE 0.42 kg
week
−1
; F Ratio 58.1,df51,P50.005). There are
c. 22,855 workers on commercial farmland in Namibia
(Giel Schoombee, pers. comm., 2010) and, extrapolating
from our sample, c. 4,500 t of meat are used to feed workers
annually compared to c. 2,500 t of meat from livestock.
Venison rations probably benefit.33,000 workers and
their dependants on freehold farms.
Employment
Respondents employed 9.91 ±SE 0.94 workers per manage-
ment unit (farm or multiple adjacent farms managed by one
person or company), or 0.22 ±SE 0.08 workers km
−2
.
Farmers housed an additional 1.94 ±SE 0.11 family members
per worker, or a total of 26.4±SE 1.9people per manage-
ment unit (0.41 ±SE 0.09 people km
−2
). Employment
was positively related to income from ecotourism (farmers
earning 0–25% of income from ecotourism employed
0.10 ±SE 0.01 people km
−2
, those deriving 25–50%
employed 0.09 ±SE 0.01 km
−2
and those deriving .50%
employed 0.31 ±SE 0.09 km
−2
), and negatively related to
income from livestock (farmers deriving 0–25% of income
from livestock employed 0.24 ±SE 0.03 people km
−2
, those
TABLE 2 Percentage occurrence of various forms of fencing on Namibian commercial farmlands.
No
fence
Stock
proof
Jackal
proof
Partial
game
proof
Jumping
game
proof
Non-
jumping
game proof
Overall area 1.2 88.7 28.0 10.7 26.8 5.4
Small stock 0 93.3 84.4 0 22.2 0
Large stock 1.6 86.9 7.3 14.6 21.1 7.3
In conservancy?
Yes 2.6 76.7 3.4 6.0 38.8 6.0
No 0 91.0 32.8 24.1 22.3 6.0
46 P. A. Lindsey et al.
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
TABLE 3 Estimates of wildlife populations on freehold land, by region and overall, based on mean densities of each species derived from farmers’estimates of population sizes, and the estimates
of Barnes et al. (2009), ordered by total population.
Erongo Hardap Karas Khomas Kunene Omaheke Otjozondjupa
Oshikoto/
Oshana/
Omusati
1
Total
2
Barnes
et al. (2009)
Springbok Antidorcas marsupialis 38,243 332,946 239,470 71,491 14,409 25,683 35,769 4,623 762,634 621,561
Oryx Oryx gazella 66,057 111,764 32,970 83,460 36,155 41,093 119,230 11,599 502,328 350,092
Kudu Tragelaphus strepsiceros 52,150 60,962 29,500 52,082 54,756 41,093 141,089 17,567 449,199 345,801
Warthog Phacochoerus africanus 52,585 37,515 2,603 78,931 30,129 72,279 139,765 9,666 423,473 174,115
Hartebeest Alcelaphus buselaphus 8,474 35,170 3,471 54,023 5,764 39,258 38,419 1,849 186,428 122,805
Eland Tragelaphus oryx 4,129 2,345 781 7,117 8,646 7,705 56,303 2,774 89,800 37,216
Hartmann’s zebra Equus zebra 11,299 22,665 868 17,468 9,956 1,834 13,910 3,194 81,194 55,520
Blue wildebeest Connochaetes taurinus 1,304 17,976 1,041 11,646 5,764 6,971 29,145 1,849 75,696 16,623
Ostrich Struthio camelus 1,521 15,631 11,366 8,087 4,391 7,705 19,209 1,409 69,319 36,336
Common impala Aepyceros melampus 3,107 7,034 0 8,411 2,358 6,971 33,120 756 61,757 15,442
Black wildebeest Connochaetes gnu 1,956 6,253 781 10,675 1,834 8,439 15,434 588 45,959 ?
Waterbuck Kobus ellipsiprymnus 43 1,563 347 4,205 1,310 8,806 12,254 420 28,949 4,475
GiraffeGiraffa camelopardalis 2,162 977 71 981 3,151 5,635 9,731 1,011 23,719 5,769
Plains zebra Equus quagga 435 3,908 0 4,432 576 2,201 7,949 185 19,686 25,421
Black-faced impala Aepyceros melampus petersi 326 1,563 434 0 2,201 972 7,286 706 13,488 3,370
Sable Hippotragus niger 0 0 0 0 157 73 1,987 50 2,268 1,233
Lechwe Kobus leche 0 0 0 0 79 0 795 25 899 1,188
Tsessebe Damaliscus lunatus 0 0 0 0 629 0 66 202 897 162
Roan Hippotragus equinus 0 0 0 0 0 0 331 0 331 1,090
Total 243,791 658,272 323,703 413,009 182,265 276,718 681,792 58,473 2,838,023 1,818,219
1
Assuming that wildlife densities in Oshikoto, Oshana and Omusati equal those in Kunene, the nearest region for which density estimates are available
2
Assuming an area of 356,533 km
2
of freehold land (Mendelsohn, 2006)
Benefits of wildlife-based land uses 47
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
deriving 25–50% employed 0.14 ±SE 0.02 km
−2
and those
deriving .50% employed 0.08 ±SE 0.01 km
−2
;F
Ratio 512.3,df53,P,0.001).
Discussion
The veracity of our findings is dependent on the reliability of
the answers provided by respondents. Because of the care
taken when explaining the purpose of the study to re-
spondents, linguistic matching of respondents and inter-
viewers, and the anonymous and non-contentious nature of
the survey, respondents were willing to participate and we
believe the data provided are reliable. Wildlife-based land
use is practised by 75% of Namibian farmers (according to
our data), and is increasing in prevalence (Barnes & Jones,
2009). Safari hunting is a more commonly practised form of
wildlife-based land use on freehold land than ecotourism
(and generates a higher mean percentage of farmers’
earnings), contrasting with the findings of Barnes et al.
(2009). Our study may have underestimated the contri-
bution of ecotourism: farms practising large-scale ecotour-
ism can generate high revenues but are probably clustered
spatially and may be underrepresented in our survey (J.
Barnes, pers. comm., 2010).
Livestock farming is the most widespread land-use and
generates the majority of income for most farmers.
However, livestock numbers have declined on freehold
land in recent years because of range degradation (including
bush encroachment) caused by overgrazing and the rise of
wildlife-based land uses (de Klerk, 2004; Barnes & Jones,
2009), although improved herd management has main-
tained output (Erb, 2004). Wildlife production is probably
less affected by bush encroachment (many species are
browsers) and, as long as stocking rates are not excessive,
replacement of livestock with wildlife should stimulate
gradual rangeland recovery (Child, 2009).
Economic role of wildlife-based land uses
Wildlife and tourism on freehold land contributed USD 166
million to GNI in Namibia in 2009 (or USD 213 million, if all
natural resources are taken into account), compared to USD
235 million from livestock (Barnes et al., 2010). These
estimates are conservative, as the economic value of venison
(USD 23.8million per year, excluding export earnings) is
higher than previously thought (USD 532,544; Barnes et al.,
2009). The economic contribution of wildlife and tourism
on freehold land may already exceed that of livestock despite
policies and subsidies favouring the latter. With continued
growth in tourist and hunter arrivals likely, the economic
contribution of wildlife will probably increase further. The
trophy hunting industry increased in value from USD 28.5
to 44.8million during 2004–2007 (Lamprechts, 2009) and
international tourist arrivals in Namibia are predicted to
increase by 5.7% per annum over the next 10 years (WTTC,
2012). Wildlife-based land uses are popular among younger
farmers and earnings from wildlife are projected to be 60%
less affected by climate change than those from livestock
(Barnes et al., 2010).
Social benefits of wildlife-based land uses
Employment on Namibian farmlands is related positively to
income from ecotourism but negatively to income from
Cheetah
Kudu
Warthog
Duiker
Leopard
Springbok
Brown hyaena
Hartebeest
Ostrich
Hartmann’s zebra
Eland
Giraffe
Spotted hyaena
Blesbok
Plains zebra
Black wildebeest
Blue wildebeest
Waterbuck
Impala
Elephant
Lion
Black-faced impala
Wild dog
Sable
Nyala
Red lechwe
Roan
Black rhino
White rhino
Tsessebe
% occurrence
100
Conservancy
Non-conservancy
80
60
40
20
0
FIG. 3 Percentage occurrence of large
wild mammals on Namibian farmlands
within and outside of conservancies.
48 P. A. Lindsey et al.
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
livestock, in keeping with findings from Zimbabwe (Price-
Waterhouse, 1994) and South Africa (Langholz & Kerley,
2006). In the Eastern Cape the switch to wildlife-based land
uses increased employment by 4.5times, wage bills by 32
times and conferred improved working conditions for
employees (Langholz & Kerley, 2006). Such improvements
are crucial as farm workers earn among the lowest wages
(LEAD, 2005). Wildlife-based land uses also confer social
benefits through protein provision. More venison is
produced on Namibian farms than previously recognized
(16,000–23,000 cf. 4,300 t, Laubscher et al., 2007) and acts as
a key food source for workers and their families.
Ecological significance of wildlife-based land uses
The area of farmland used for wildlife-based land uses is
more than twice as large as the protected area network
(c. 287,000 cf. 114,079 km
2
, Cumming, 2004). Although the
primary objective of wildlife ranches is typically profit they
nonetheless confer biodiversity gains. For example, 82,000
Hartmann’s mountain zebras and 13,500 black-faced
impalas Aepyceros melampus petersi live on Namibian
farmlands, and cheetahs Acinonyx jubatus are present on
71.2% of farms (our data). Populations of most wildlife
species are increasing on farmlands and the proportion of
mammalian biomass comprised by wildlife increased from
8%in1972 to 29%in2009 (Barnes & de Jager, 1996). Wildlife
numbers on commercial farms (1.8–2.8million) exceed
those in protected areas (c. 121,000) and community conser-
vancies (150,000–200,000; Barnes et al., 2009; C. Weaver,
WWF–Namibia, pers. comm.). Wildlife abundance on
freehold land may also be higher than previous estimates.
Our extrapolations of wildlife numbers require caution as
they rely on farmers’estimates. However, the Ministry of
Environment and Tourism (and conservancies) conduct
regular wildlife counts and most farmers probably have a
reasonable impression of their wildlife populations.
There are, however, a number of conservation problems
on Namibian farmlands, including continued intolerance
towards predators (Marker et al., 2003). Lions and wild dogs
Lycaon pictus occur on ,10% of farms, suggesting that
lethal control is preventing them from recovering. Ranchers
may persecute predators to protect their investment in
valuable extralimital wildlife species. In addition, the
increasing prevalence of game-proof fencing can interrupt
natural processes such as migration, reduce the ability of
ungulates to utilize patchy primary productivity (Fryxell &
Sinclair, 1988) and increase the risk of localized overstocking
(Lindsey et al., 2009). Finally, although wild ungulate
populations are thriving in most areas, there are negative
trends in some groups of farms. Such trends are possibly
because of excessive harvesting related to high venison
prices and are most common outside conservancies, where
harvests are not coordinated.
Lack of development of wildlife ranching in Namibia
Despite expansion of wildlife-based land uses in Namibia it
has not yet been embraced as fully by farmers as in South
Africa or, as formerly, in Zimbabwe. Most Namibian
TABLE 4 Game meat production on Namibian freehold farms, the percentage of meat produced in each region, offtake as a proportion of
populations and intrinsic rates of increase for each species by comparison, ordered by estimate of meat produced.
Conservative estimate
of meat produced (kg)
1
% of meat
Offtake as a %
of populations
2
Intrinsic rates
of increase
Oryx 5,993,803 37.7 14.3 21.9
Kudu 3,477,249 21.8 9 24.4
Springbok 2,210,013 13.9 17.9 40.9
Eland 1,066,053 6.7 9.9 16.5
Hartebeest 842,772 5.3 9.4 26.8
Hartmann’s zebra 718,593 4.5 8.2 19.8
Warthog 559,702 3.5 8.3 34.4
Blue wildebeest 350,133 2.2 17.1 23.1
Other species
3
207,260 1.3
Giraffe 159,051 1.0 4.3 13.3
Plains zebra 141,386 0.9 10.6 18.8
Common impala 116,310 0.7 22.5 38.1
Waterbuck 63,993 0.4 9.7 23.1
Sable antelope 9,029 0.1 7.6 21.9
Black-faced impala 1,367 0.0 2 38.1
Total 15,916,714 100
1
Extrapolating from population estimates made by Barnes et al. (2009); this is conservative as our estimates of wildlife populations are considerably higher
2
Calculated as the total number of animals of each species harvested on the ranches surveyed as a percentage of the populations of those species estimated by
the ranchers
3
Black wildebeest, nyala Tragelaphus angasi, tsessebe, white rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum, klipspringer Oreotragus oreotragus, dik dik, grey duiker
Sylvicapra grimmia, blesbok Damaliscus pygargus, ostrich
Benefits of wildlife-based land uses 49
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
farmers (.90%) retain livestock whereas by 2001 .50%of
ranchers in several semi-arid parts of South Africa and
Zimbabwe had removed all livestock (Lindsey et al., 2009).
Six factors in particular undermine the development and
value of wildlife-based land uses in Namibia.
Inadequate devolution of user rights over wildlife In
Namibia user-rights over wildlife were not devolved as far
to landowners as in Zimbabwe and South Africa (NNF,
2010). Landowners in Namibia are required to apply for
permits to hunt wildlife, reducing management flexibility
and profitability, increasing transaction time and costs, and
impinging on farmers’autonomy, thus creating disincen-
tives for wildlife-based land uses (NNF, 2010). The permit
system and seasonal restrictions on hunting also limit
venison exports (Gödde, 2008).
Veterinary restrictions A veterinary cordon across northern
Namibia controls the spread of foot-and-mouth disease to
retain access to export markets for beef. Most freehold farms
occur south of the cordon in the foot-and-mouth disease
free zone, where the reintroduction of buffalo is prohibited
(including individuals free of foot-and-mouth disease; DVS,
2007). The buffalo is a key species for safari hunting because
it commands high trophy fees (USD 6,400 cf. ,USD 1,000
for most antelopes) and is used to sell hunting packages
(buffaloes generate c. USD 14,000 in daily rates per hunt
cf. c. USD 4,000 for antelope hunts; P. Lindsey, unpubl. data).
Buffaloes generate 4.1–49.0% of income from safari hunting
depending on the country (Lindsey et al., 2012). Historically,
the buffalo occurred in most areas with .250 mm of
rainfall, including much of what is now farmlands (Martin,
2004). Costs of veterinary restrictions are borne by the state
but the benefits are enjoyed by individual farmers,
artificially inflating the profitability of livestock (Scoones
&Wolmer,2008). Nonetheless, the profitability of com-
mercial livestock production is low across much of southern
Africa (Jansen et al., 1992; McLaughlin, 2010) and is
projected to decline (Barnes et al., 2009). Long-term access
to European markets for beef is not guaranteed, the costs of
maintaining veterinary restrictions are increasing and the
efficacy of control measures for foot-and-mouth disease is
declining (Scoones & Wolmer, 2008; Thomson, 2008). The
wisdom of continued subsidization of the livestock industry
at the expense of wildlife-based land uses is thus question-
able. At the very least provision should be made for the
reintroduction of certified disease-free buffalo on wildlife
ranches in the freehold farming area. Alternatively, several
different approaches to veterinary control could be
considered to allow for the unfettered development of
wildlife-based land uses in certain areas. For example, foot-
and-mouth disease-infected zones could be expanded, or
veterinary disease control could be compartmentalized, to
allow for the creation of wildlife production zones in areas of
particularly suitable habitat. Lastly, commodity-based trade
TABLE 5 Estimated amount of game meat produced on commercial farmlands in Namibia, by region, from various forms of wildlife utilization, and overall, based on mean meat production
per km
2
for various forms of wildlife utilization, ordered by total.
Region Area of farms (km
2
)
1
Safari hunting (kg) Biltong hunting (kg) Wildlife harvest (kg) Shoot-and-sell (kg) Management hunts (kg) Own use (kg) Total (kg)
Otjozondjupa 66,239 2,510,464 351,068 364,315 1,655,979 46,367 1,397,646 6,325,840
Hardap 78,156 1,187,976 578,357 672,144 695,591 85,972 789,379 4,009,420
Khomas 32,349 1,643,320 278,200 6,470 595,218 80,872 705,204 3,309,284
Omaheke 36,690 1,717,084 172,442 198,125 62,373 0 865,880 3,015,904
Karas 86,764 52,059 1,093,232 537,940 616,028 95,441 581,322 2,976,021
Erongo 21,729 793,114 256,404 0 465,004 0 880,030 2,394,551
Kunene 26,199 974,604 112,656 31,439 382,506 2,620 707,374 2,211,199
Oshikoto
2
7,054 262,398 30,331 8,464 102,984 705 190,450 595,334
Omusati
2
802 29,823 3,447 962 11,705 80 21,646 67,663
Oshana
2
550 20,457 2,365 660 8,029 55 14,848 46,414
Total 356,532 9,191,839 2,878,502 1,820,519 4,595,417 312,113 6,153,779 24,951,630
1
Based on an estimate of the total area of freehold land (which excludes resettlement farms) and using the proportional breakdown of farms in each region (Mendelsohn, 2006)
2
Assuming that meat production values in these regions equals those in Kunene, the nearest region with available data
50 P. A. Lindsey et al.
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
could be considered (Scoones & Wolmer, 2008). Through
commodity-based trading meat processed in a manner
proven to provide minimal risk of transmitting foot-and-
mouth disease would be acceptable for export (Thomson,
2008). If accepted by the International Organization for
Animal Health and the EU, commodity-based trading
would provide scope for reintroduction of buffalo on
freehold land while permitting continued export of beef
(Cumming, 2010).
Failure to reintroduce other high-value species Because of the
shortage of so-called big game on freehold land most
farmers offer similar, low-value hunting/tourism products
involving antelopes. In South Africa ranchers with the big
five charge more than double for ecotourism than individ-
uals lacking these species (Lindsey et al., 2009). Namibia and
Botswana generate similar revenues from safari hunting
even though Namibia attracts 4,000–6,000 annually com-
pared to the 500 that visit Botswana (Martin, 2008; NAPHA,
pers. comm.), because of the shortage of high-value species
on Namibian farms (Humavindu & Barnes, 2003).
Failure to develop fully integrated conservancies A key reason
for the absence of the largest species on farmlands is the
failure of landowners to cooperate to form fully integrated
conservancies. In Zimbabwe and South Africa large
conservancies have developed in which all livestock and
internal fencing has been removed, and all indigenous
mammal species reintroduced (Lindsey et al., 2009). By
contrast, Namibian conservancies lack key species, are
fractured because not all farms within their boundaries are
members, and typically retain livestock and internal fencing.
Fully integrated conservancies would facilitate higher-end
ecotourism and safari hunting and would confer a variety of
social and ecological benefits (Lindsey et al., 2009). At
present, however, the Namibian government does not
formally recognize private conservancies and the permit
system discourages their formation. Landowners with
properties surrounded by game fencing are granted longer
hunting seasons and more complete user rights over wildlife
than those without fencing (including within conservancies;
Gödde, 2008). This situation should be reversed.
Failure to integrate development of wildlife-based land uses
with land reform As currently practised in Namibia land
reform may cause a shift from wildlife-based land uses to
livestock because of a lack of the necessary experience,
expertise and start-up capital among many emerging
farmers, and inadequate efforts by government to promote
their integration into wildlife ranching. Government could
identify suitable farms as wildlife ranches and purchase
them for allocation to interested emerging farmers, whom
our data suggest may be numerous. Promoting the
development of fully integrated conservancies could also
assist land reform. The economies of scale and centralized
management in conservancies would remove key barriers
for entry into wildlife-based land uses for emerging farmers.
Conservancies could be structured as corporate entities to
allow investment by emerging farmers, creating alternative
avenues for achieving land reform that would allow for the
retention of existing capital and capacity. Proactive efforts
by commercial conservancies to facilitate the integration of
black farmers may improve prospects of being granted a
favourable legislative environment.
Failure to exploit export markets for venison The economic
value of wildlife-based land uses has been limited by failure
to exploit potential export markets for venison, because of
inconsistent meat supplies, lack of facilities to store venison,
a shortage of EU-approved abattoirs, and lack of awareness
among target markets of the health qualities of venison
(Gödde, 2008).
Similar constraints limit the value of wildlife ranching
elsewhere in southern Africa and our recommendations
have regional applicability. Wildlife is outcompeting live-
stock throughout semi-arid areas of southern Africa, despite
policies favouring the latter. A more level legislative environ-
ment would allow the full potential of wildlife-based land
uses to be harnessed and could generate significant
economic, social and conservation benefits.
Acknowledgements
We thank TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa and Tom
Milliken for instigating this project and the German
Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Develop-
ment and African Wildlife Conservation Fund for funding,
the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Namibian
Agricultural Union, Namibian Professional Hunters
Association, Conservancies Association of Namibia,
WWF–Namibia, Annetjie du Preez, Harrald Marggraff,
Almut Kronsbein, Danica Shaw, Laurie Marker, Chris
Weaver, Jon Barnes, Uapii Kazahe, Sakkie Van Der Merwe
and Wilfried Pack and all the farmers interviewed.
References
ALBERTSON,A.(2010) The Scott Wilson ‘fencing impacts’report: ten
years on. In A Review of the Environmental, Social and Economic
Impacts of Game and Veterinary Fencing in Africa with Particular
Reference to the GLTFCA and KAZA TFCA (eds K. Ferguson &
J. Hanks), pp. 58–73. University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.
BARNES, J., ALBERTS,M.&MACGREGOR,J.(2010)An Economic
Valuation of the Impact of Climate Change on Agricultural and
Natural Resource Land Uses in Namibia. Unpublished Paper for
Environmental Economics Programme, International Institute of
Environment and Development, London, UK.
BARNES,J.&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.
Benefits of wildlife-based land uses 51
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
BARNES,J.&JONES,B.(2009) Game ranching in Namibia.
In Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife Conservation in
Southern Africa (eds B. Child, H. Suich & A. Spenceley), pp. 113–126.
Earthscan, London, UK.
BARNES, J., LANGE, G., NHULEIPO, O., MUTEYAULI, P., KATO MA,P.,
AMUPOLO, H. et al. (2009)Preliminary Valuation of the Wildlife
Stocks in Namibia: Wildlife Asset Accounts. Ministry of
Environment and Tourism Report, Windhoek, Namibia.
BARNETT,R.&PATTERSON,C.(2006)Sport Hunting in the Southern
African Development Community (SADC) Region: An Overview.
TRAFFIC East/Southern Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.
BOND, I., CHILD, B., DE LA HARPE, D., JONES, B., B ARNES,J.&
ANDERSON,H.(2004) Private-land contribution to conservation in
South Africa. In Parks in Transition (ed. B. Child), pp. 29–62.
Earthscan, London, UK.
BOTHMA,J.DU P. & DUTOIT, J.G. (2009)Game Ranch Management.
Van Schaik, Pretoria, South Africa.
BOTHMA, J., SUICH,H.&SPENCELEY,A.(2009) Extensive
wildlife production on private land in South Africa. In
Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife Conservation in Southern
Africa (eds B. Child, H. Such & A. Spenceley), pp. 147–163.
Earthscan, London, UK.
CARRUTHERS,J.(2008)“Wilding the farm or farming the wild”?
The evolution of scientific game ranching in South Africa from the
1960s to the present. Transactions of the Royal Society of South
Africa,63,160–181.
CHILD,B.(2000) Making wildlife pay: converting wildlife’s
comparative advantage into real incentives for having wildlife in
African savannas. In Wildlife Conservation by Sustainable Use
(eds H. Prins, J. Grootenhuis & T. Dolan), pp. 335–388. Kluwer,
Wageningen, The Netherlands.
CHILD,B.(2009) Private conservation in southern Africa: practice and
emerging principles. In Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife
Conservation in Southern Africa (eds B. Child, H. Suich &
A. Spencely), pp. 103–112. Earthscan, London, UK.
CHILD,G.&RINEY,T.(1987) Tsetse control hunting in Zimbabwe,
1919–1958.Zambezia, XIV, 11–71.
CUMMING,D.(2004) Performance of parks in a century of change.
In Parks in Transition (ed. B. Child), pp. 105–124. Earthscan,
London, UK.
CUMMING,D.(2010) Linkages, wildlife corridors and shortfalls in the
KAZA TFCA. In A Review of the Environmental, Social and
Economic Impacts of Game and Veterinary Fencing in
Africa with Particular Reference to the GLTFCA and KAZA TFCA
(eds K. Ferguson & J. Hanks), pp. 119–125. University of Pretoria,
Pretoria, South Africa.
DASMANN, R.F. & MOSSMAN, A.S. (1961) Commercial use of game
animals on a Rhodesian ranch. Wildlife,3,7–14.
DE KLERK, J.N. (2004)Bush Encroachment in Namibia. Ministry of
Environment and Tourism, John Meinert Printing, Windhoek,
Namibia.
DUFFY,R.(2000)Killing for Conservation: Wildlife Policy in
Zimbabwe. James Currey, Oxford, UK.
DU TOIT,R.(2004)Review of Wildlife Issues Associated with Land
Reform in Zimbabwe. WWF–SARPO Occasional Paper, Number 10,
Harare, Zimbabwe.
DVS (2007)Veterinary Science, Transboundary Animal Diseases and
Markets. Unpublished Report. Namibian Ministry of Agriculture,
Directorate of Veterinary Services, Windhoek, Namibia.
ERB,P.(2004)Consumptive wildlife utilization as a land use in
Namibia. MBA thesis. University of Stellenbosch, Stellenbosch,
South Africa.
FALKENA,H.(2003)Game Ranch Profitability in South Africa. The SA
Financial Sector Forum, Rivonia, South Africa.
FRYXELL,J.&SINCLAIR,A.(1988) Causes and consequences of
migration by large herbivores. Trends in Ecology & Evolution,3,
237–241.
GIBSON,C.(1999)Politicians and Poachers: The Political Economy
of Wildlife Policy in Africa. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
GÖDDE,T.(2008)Analysis of the Namibian Game Meat Sector:
Potentials and Constraints for the Supply of Exports Markets.
Namibian Game Meat Task Team Report. Windhoek, Namibia.
HAYWARD, M., HENSCHEL, P., O’BRIEN, J., HOFMEYR, M., BALME,G.
&K
ERLEY,G.(2006) Prey preferences of the leopard. Journal of
Zoology,270,298–313.
HUMAVINDU,M.&BARNES,J.(2003) Trophy hunting in the
Namibian economy: an assessment. South African Journal of
Wildlife Research,33,65–70.
JANSEN, D., BOND,I.&CHILD,B.(1992)Cattle, Wildlife, Both or
Neither? WWF multispecies project, project paper number 27,
Harare, Zimbabwe.
JMPIN (2000)JMPIN Version 4.0.2. SAS Institute, Cary, USA.
KRUG,W.(2001)Private Supply of Protected Land in Southern Africa.
World Bank/OECD International Workshop on Market Creation
for Biodiversity Products and Services, Paris, France.
LAMPRECHTS,M.(2009)Trophy Hunting in Namibia from the 1960sto
the Present Day. Namibian Professional Hunting Association
Report, Windhoek, Namibia.
LANGHOLZ,G.&KERLEY,G.(2006)Combining Conservation
and Development on Private Lands: An Assessment of
Ecotourism-Based Private Game Reserves in the Eastern Cape.
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University Report, Port Elizabeth,
South Africa.
LAUBSCHER, J., JOOSTE, A., MBAI,S.&IDSARDI,E.(2007)Market
Study for Goat Products and Venison. Meat Board of Namibia
Report, Windhoek, Namibia.
LEAD (2005)Our Land We Farm: An Analysis of the Namibian
Commercial Agricultural Land Reform Process. Land, Environment
and Development Project Report. Legal Assistance Centre,
Windhoek, Namibia.
LINDNER,J.(2002) Handling nonresponse error in the
Journal of International Agricultural Extension Education. Fall,9,
55–60.
LINDSEY, P.A., ROMAÑACH,S.&DAVIE S-MOSTERT,H.(2009)
The importance of conservancies for enhancing the conservation
value of game ranch land in southern Africa. Journal of Zoology,277,
99–105.
LINDSEY, P.A., BALME, G.A., BOOTH, V.A. & MIDLANE,N.(2012)
The significance of African lions for the financial viability of
trophy hunting and the maintenance of wild land. PLoS ONE,7(1),
e29332.
MACKENZIE, J.M. (1988)The Empire of Nature: Hunting, Conservation
and British Imperialism. Manchester University Press,
Manchester, UK.
MARKER, L., MILLS,M.&MACDONALD,M.(2003) Factors influencing
perceptions of conflict and tolerance toward cheetahs on Namibian
farmlands. Conservation Biology,17,1290–1298.
MARTIN,R.(2004) The influence of veterinary control fences on wild
large mammals in Caprivi, Namibia. In Conservation and
Development Interventions at the Wildlife/Livestock Interface
(ed. S. Osofsky), 27–40. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
MARTIN,R.(2008)Review of Safari Hunting in Botswana. Botswana
Wildlife Management Association Report, Maun, Botswana.
MCLAUGHLIN,D.(2010)Botswana Beef Industry and EU Trade Policy.
Unpublished Report, Gaborone, Botswana.
MENDELSOHN,J.(2006)Farming Systems in Namibia. Namibian
National Farmers Union, Windhoek, Namibia.
52 P. A. Lindsey et al.
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
http://journals.cambridge.org Downloaded: 09 Jan 2013 IP address: 41.174.54.44
MUROMBEDZI,J.(2003)Pre-colonial and Colonial Conservation
Practices in Southern Africa. IUCN Report. Http://dss.ucsd.edu/
_ccgibson/docs/Murombedzi%20-%20Precolonial%20and%
20Colonial%20Origins.pdf [accessed December 2010].
NACSO (NAMIBIAN ASSOCIATION OF CBNRM SUPPORT
ORGANISATIONS)(2010)Http://www.okacom.org/geonetwork/srv/
en/metadata.show.embedded?uuid=40a99379-a5d1-42e1-b71a-
523f876f8995 [accessed August 2010].
NAMC (2006)Report on the Investigation to Identify Problems for
Sustainable Growth and Development in South African Wildlife
Ranching. National Agricultural Marketing Council Report,
Pretoria, South Africa.
NAMIBIAN MINISTRY OF WORKS AND TRANSPORT (2011)Namibia
Rainfall Performance at Specified Places.Http://www.meteona.com/
climate/Monthly_Seasonal_Rainfall_Performance_
Monitoring_Bulletin.pdf [accessed May 2011].
NNF (2010)Namibia Nature Foundation.Http://www.nnf.org.na/
index.php [accessed June 2010].
PRICE-WATERHOUSE (1994)The Lowveld Conservancies: New
Opportunities for Productive and Sustainable Land Use. Price-
Waterhouse, Harare, Zimbabwe.
SCOONES,I.&WOLMER,W.(2008)Foot-and-Mouth Disease
and Market Access: Challenges for the Beef Industry in Southern
Africa. Working Paper 1, Institute for Development Studies,
Brighton, UK.
SIMS-CASTLEY, R., KERLEY, G., GEACH,B.&LANGHOLZ,J.
(2005) Socio-economic significance of ecotourism-based private
game reserves in South Africa’s Eastern Cape Province. Parks,15,
6–18.
TAYLOR,R.&MARTIN,R.(1987)Effects of veterinary fences on
wildlife conservation in Zimbabwe. Environmental Management,11,
327–334.
THOMSON,G.(2008)Regional Positions on Foot-and-Mouth Disease
Control in Southern Africa. Unpublished Report. Institute of
Development Studies, Brighton, UK.
WTTC (WORLD TRAVEL AND TOURISM COUNCIL)(2012)Travel and
Tourism Economic Impact, 2012: Namibia.Http://www.wttc.org/
site_media/uploads/downloads/namibia2012.pdf [accessed June
2012].
Appendix
The appendix for this article is available online at http://
journals.cambridge.org
Biographical sketches
PETER LINDSEY works throughout Southern Africa on wildlife-based
land uses, the bushmeat trade and predator conservation. C ARL
HAVEM ANN is studying the roan antelope in Botswana. R OBIN LINES
has undertaken applied research on large carnivore conservation in
Southern Africa since 2002.A
ARON PRICE works on livestock water
quality compliance. TARRYN RETIEF is studying the effects of
biological gradients on biodiversity in Botswana. TIEMEN
RHEBERGEN works as a consultant in geographical information
systems and agriculture. CORNELIS VAN DER WAAL’s research
interests include applied rangeland ecology in savannah and desert
systems, and mine restoration. STEPHANIE S. ROMAÑACH investi-
gates wildlife responses to climate change and ecosystem restoration in
the Everglades. She has worked widely in Southern and Eastern Africa
and helps run the African Wildlife Conservation Fund.
Benefits of wildlife-based land uses 53
©2013 Fauna & Flora International,
Oryx
, 47(1), 41–53
