Revised National Policy on Human-Wildlife Conflict Management 2018-2027

2 Section Page Table of contents...........................................................................2 Forward........................................................................................3 Abbreviations................................................................................4 Glossary.......................................................................................5 Executive summary........................................................................6 1. Introduction........................................................................7 2. Background.........................................................................7 3. Rationale............................................................................8 4. Alignment...........................................................................9 5. Principles............................................................................9 6. Policy Direction....................................................................10 6.1 Vision.................................................................................10 6.2 Mission...............................................................................10 6.3 Goal...................................................................................10 6.4 Objectives...........................................................................10 6.5 Strategies...........................................................................10 6.5.1 Research and Monitoring.......................................................10 6.5.2 Duty of care, land use planning and integrated measures to avoid human wildlife conflict..............................................11 6.5.3 Human capacity and resources...............................................12 6.5.4 Community care and engagement..........................................14 6.5.5 Delegation of decision-making authority..................................15 6.5.6 Removal of problem causing animals......................................16 6.5.7 Appropriate technical solutions for mitigating human wildlife conflict....................................................................17 6.5.8 Disaster Management...........................................................19 6.5.9 Application of revenues from problem causing animals to avoid future conflicts and to address the losses of affected persons.....20 6.5.10 Protected Areas Neighbours and Residents...............................20 6.5.11 Human Wildlife Conflict Management Schemes.........................21 6.5.12 Public awareness, stakeholder engagement and coordination.....24 7. Implementation Framework...................................................25 7.1 Institutional arrangements....................................................25 7.2 Legal and regulatory arrangements........................................26 7.3 Resource mobilization...........................................................26 7.4 Monitoring and evaluation.....................................................26 7.5 Implementation Action Plan...................................................26 7.6 Conclusion..........................................................................26 7.7 Annexures..........................................................................26 8. Bibliography........................................................................26 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Namibia has adopted a number of innovative approaches to achieve biodiversity conservation within the framework of national development plans including Vision 2030 and poverty reduction strategies. Due to the commitment shown by Namibians, there has been a remarkable recovery and increase of wildlife populations, including key predator species and internationally threatened or endangered species such as elephant and black rhinoceros. Despite these successes, the Government recognizes that living with wildlife often carries a cost, with increased wildlife populations and expanded ranges into communal and freehold farming areas resulting in more frequent conflicts between people and wild animals, particularly elephants and predators in many areas. The Government also recognizes that such conflicts have always existed where people and wild- life live together and will continue to do so in the future. This means that it will not be possible to eradicate all conflict, but that conflict has to be managed in the most effective and efficient ways possible. It is for these purposes that the National Policy on Human Wildlife Conflict Management was de- veloped in 2009 to manage human wildlife conflict in a way that recognizes the rights and devel- opment needs of local communities while at the same time recognizing the need to promote biodi- versity conservation. This policy has been revised and updated to reflect changing circumstances, new thinking regarding HWC and the results of experience in addressing HWC management issues on the ground over the past seven years. FOREWORD 4 ABBREVIATIONS CBNRM Community-based Natural Resource Management DWNP Directorate of Wildlife and National Parks DSS Directorate of Scientific Services EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMP Environmental Management Plan GPTF Game Products Trust Fund HWC Human-wildlife conflict MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism MLR Ministry of Land Reform MOU Memorandum of Understanding NGO Non-governmental Organization PH Professional Hunter 5 GLOSSARY For the purposes of this policy, the words or phrases set out below have the following meanings: Authorized staff member Regional heads of the Ministry authorized by the Minister to carry such duties, functions and responsibilities. Capacity building Transfer of knowledge, information, skills and understanding. Conservancy Communal area conservancy Gazetted in terms of the Nature Conservation Amendment Act (No.5 of 1996). Culling Lethal removal of wild animals to reduce their numbers. Director Director of Wildlife and National Parks Human-Wildlife Conflict Any event in which wild animals harm, destroy or damage human life or property (including damage to or destruction of crops), or in which wild animals are injured, captured or destroyed as a result of a perceived threat to hu mans or their property. Government Government of the Republic of Namibia. Ministry Ministry of Environment and Tourism. Problem-causing animal An identified individual wild animal that at any point in time harms, destroys or damages human life or property. Professional Hunter A professional hunter approved by MET. Protected Area Formal protected area proclaimed in the Government Gazette according to legislation. Staff member Person appointed in terms of the Public Service Act (13 of 1995). Stakeholder Any individual, group of individuals, organization or government department or agency that is affected by HWC or is involved in research on HWC or implementation of measures to mitigate HWC. Wild animal Any wild animal that is included in Schedules 3, 4 and 5 of the Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 4 of 1975, as amended) or any similar schedules contained in legislation that replaces the Ordinance. 6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Addressing Human-Wildlife Conflict requires striking a balance between conservation priorities and the needs of people who live with wildlife. Most Namibians depend on the land for their subsistence. But the presence of many species of large mammals and predators, combined with settlement patterns of people, leads to conflict between people and wildlife. It is therefore necessary that mechanisms are created for rural communities and farmers to manage and benefit from wildlife and other natural resources. The scale and urgency of the problem required Government to develop an integrated, flexible and comprehensive policy towards dealing with human wildlife conflict that can provide a framework for all stakeholders and can meet the country’s national and international commitments to biodiversity conservation while taking into account the rights and development needs of its people. Objectives of the Policy are: 1. To develop future human wildlife conflict management legislative frame work. 2. To develop a standardized monitoring system for human wildlife conflict Management. 3. To establish best practice mitigation, protection and preventative measures for human wildlife conflict management. 4. To develop and implement innovative mechanisms to reduce the level of human wildlife conflict. 5. To provide clarity on the question of non-compensation with regard to damages caused by wild animals. 6. To develop innovative financial mechanisms and solutions for managing human wildlife conflict. 7. To provide for systems and clear processes for quick reaction to incidents of human wildlife conflict. 11. Public awareness and conservation education shall be conducted in order to manage human wildlife conflict efficiently and effectively. 12. The Government will continue with research and monitoring to reduce human wildlife conflict. 13. The Government will empower communities and farmers in order to manage human wildlife conflict. In order to address the impact of human wildlife conflict, the Policy sets out twelve strategies which include research and monitoring; duty of care, land use planning and integrated measures to avoid human wildlife conflict; human capacity and resources; community care and engagement; delegation of decision-making authority; removal of problem causing animals; appropriate technical solutions for mitigating human wildlife conflict; disaster management; application of revenues from problem causing animals to avoid future conflicts and to address the losses of affected persons; protected areas neighbours and residents; human wildlife conflict management schemes; and public awareness, stakeholder engagement and coordination. This Policy will allows for the management of human wildlife conflict in a way that recognizes the rights and development needs of local communities, recognizes the need to promote biodiversity conservation, promotes self-reliance and ensures that decision-making is quick, efficient and based on the best available information. The Policy is based on a number of fundamental principles, and these are: 1. Wildlife is part of the natural environment that people depend on, and based on Article 95 (l) of the Constitution, must be maintained througout the country as part of the sustainable development that the Government of Namibia is committed to pursue. 2. Human wildlife conflict is bound to occur where people and wildlife co-exist, and therefore the conflict needs to be managed. 7 3. The needs of the people and the aims of biodiversity conservation must be balanced for the present and future generations. 4. The Government shall strive to maintain viable populations of all species throughout the country. 5. The Government shall not establish a compensation scheme for losses caused by wildlife but shall put in place other measures to offset and mitigate the cost of living with wildlife. 6. It is the responsibility of all citizens and state agencies to manage human wildlife conflict wherever it occurs. 7. The policy on human wildlife conflict management must promote self-reliance by farmers and other affected parties in managing conflict. 8. The Government shall provide technical assistance, where appropriate, to individuals and state agencies to develop appropriate plans to manage human wildlife conflict efficiently and effectively. 9. The economic value of wildlife should be used to develop and implement mitigation measures and to offset the losses caused by wild animals. 10. The Government shall take the leading role in the management human wildlife conflict, but it is the responsibility of all citizens to manage the conflict. 8 Human wildlife conflict refers to conflict between wild animals and humans. This ranges from the destruction of crops and water installations to loss of livestock, homes and in some cases loss of human lives. It is therefore necessary that mechanisms are created for rural communities and farmers to manage and benefit from wildlife and other natural resources. A variety of approaches can be implemented in order to manage the conflict efficiently and effectively, in line with the strategies set out in the policy. These include prevention strategies which endeavor to avoid the conflict occurring in the first place and take action towards ad- dressing its root causes, and protection strat- egies that are implemented when the conflict is certain to happen or has already occurred, as well as mitigation strategies that attempt to reduce the level of impact and lessen the problem. Human Wildlife Conflict occurs throughout Namibia on communal as well as freehold land and involves a variety of species. The main prob- lems occur on the land where the most elephants and predators are found outside protected ar- eas and where people are least able econom- ically to bear the costs of damage and losses. Namibia has adopted a number of innovative approaches to achieve biodiversity conserva- tion within the framework of national develop- ment plans. Internationally we are regarded as leaders, and wildlife populations are stable or expanding despite growing human popula- tions, numerous infrastructure developments including projects established on defiance of the Environmental Management Act which is there primarily to identify and mitigate po- tential impacts on the environment, including wildlife. Through the Communal Conservancy Programme rural Namibians have gained rights over wildlife and tourism and are generating in- come from the sustainable use of wildlife. Due to the commitment shown by Namibians, there has been a remarkable recovery and increase of wildlife populations, including key predator species and internationally threatened or en- dangered species such as elephant and black rhinoceros. In most other countries in Afri- ca wildlife has simply been displaced by peo- ple through conversion of habitat and illegal hunting. 1. INTRODUCTION 2. BACKGROUND It is therefore of great significance that Namib- ia’s achievements in this regard are not under- played or undermined. Despite these successes, the Ministry of En- vironment and Tourism recognizes that living with wildlife often carries a cost, with increased wildlife populations and expanded ranges into communal and freehold farming areas resulting in more frequent conflicts between people and wild animals, particularly elephants and preda- tors in many areas. This has resulted in livestock and crop losses, damage to water installations and, in some in- stances, loss of human lives. The impacts of livestock losses and damage to crops on ru- ral farmers are compounded by the effects of unemployment, lack of cash and the impact of HIV/AIDS. The Ministry also recognizes that such conflicts have always existed where people and wildlife live together and will continue to do so in the future. This means that it will not be possible to eradicate all conflict, but that conflict has to be managed in the most effective and efficient ways possible. It should also be recognized that people and wildlife live in an interconnected and dynamic environment, that land use pat- terns are changing and that wildlife distribution patterns equally are changing, as populations recover and recolonize former parts of their distribution areas. Because of competition between growing hu- man population and wildlife for the same living space and resources, movement of people for food security, drought, flood, continued neg- ative attitudes towards wildlife and protected areas, negligent exposure to areas with dan- gerous wildlife, modification of wildlife habitats due to infrastructure development, agriculture, green schemes, fishing and other developmen- tal projects, there has been reports of human wildlife conflict in the regions. It is also evident that the wide spread serious drought in almost all of Namibia is aggravat- ing the situation. People and wildlife in several places compete for the same resources. Some people have simply invaded land set aside for wildlife, with consequently severe conflicts. Nonetheless, there are ways to mitigate such conflicts and the Ministry is engaged within its resource limits in this matter. 9 The following are the conflicts related to wild animals with humans: • Loss of human life and injuries to people. • Injuries and death of live stock. • Damage to property (water points and boreholes, fences, gates, kraals, houses, etc.). • Damage to vegetation and wildlife. • Competition with livestock for forage. • Destruction of crops and gardens. The above conflicts are caused because of competition between growing human popula- tion and wildlife for the same living space and resources; movements of people for reasons of safety or food security; continued negative attitudes towards wildlife and Protected Areas; negligent exposure to areas with dangerous wildlife, e.g. swimming by children in the Ka- vango River and modification of wildlife habitats due to infrastructure development, agriculture, green schemes, fishing and other developmen- tal projects. Many wild animals are destroyed in retalia- tion for incidents of human-wildlife conflict, even when the identification of the real cul- prit is not possible, especially with predators. This may eliminate the specie and affect the ecosystem and home ranges. This also has a broader environmental impact on ecosys- tem equilibrium and biodiversity conservation. Human Wildlife Conflict therefore has social and economic or financial impact. It reduces cash income and has repercussions for health, nu- trition, education and ultimately development. This conflict can have negative impact on the livelihood of rural communities, e.g. the killing of livestock (donkeys for transport) by pred- ators. The ban of hunting of species that are killed in large numbers as problem animals, which may generate income for the State, ru- ral communities and farmers when hunted as trophy animals can also be a negative impli- cation. There are also economic costs of dam- age caused by wild animals, and the exposure to wildlife diseases, physical injuries and loss of human lives in some cases disrupts normal lives of families and has financial implications. In 2009, Cabinet approved the National Policy on Human Wildlife Conflict Management. The Policy provides a framework for addressing hu- man-wildlife conflict efficiently and effectively in order to promote both biodiversity conserva- tion as well as human development. Human wildlife conflicts in Namibia have be- come more frequent and severe over re- cent decades as a result of human population growth, wildlife population growth, unplanned agricultural activities, and expansion of agri- cultural and industrial activities which together have led to increased human encroachment on previously wild and uninhabited areas. Com- petition for the available natural habitats and resources has increased. Moreover, the effects of climate change are exacerbating these con- flicts. The situation is even worsened by the drought in most part of the country over the years. With the current challenges and new innova- tive ideas on how to address the conflict, it has become imperative that the National Policy on Human Wildlife Conflict Policy be reviewed. The new policy should be focused and specific on affected areas and the specific conflict should be addressed. The policy should also have an implementation plan that also outlines the required human and financial resources required to deal with the problem. The policy should also speak to other policies such as those addressing issues of land mat- ters, agriculture and forestry. The Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975 (Or- dinance 4 of 1975) as amended by the Nature Conservation Amendment Act (Act 5 of 1996) provides legislative basis for control of specific problem causing animals, declaration of prob- lem animal, hunting and rights on the utiliza- tion of wildlife. This Policy is aligned to this leg- islation. The Protected Areas and Wildlife Management Bill is being prepared and will repeal the Nature Conservation Ordinance, as amended. The Bill will provide for a proper administrative, legal and procedural framework for human wildlife conflict management. 3. RATIONALE 4. ALIGNMENT 10 The Revised National Policy on Human Wildlife Conflict Management is based on a number of fundamental principles: 5.1 Wildlife is part of the natural environment that people depend on, and based on Article 95 (l) of the Constitution, must be maintain throughout the country as part of the sustainable development that the Government of Namibia is committed to pursue. 5.2 Human wildlife conflict is bound to occur where people and wildlife co-exist, and therefore the conflict needs to be managed. 5.3 The needs of the people and the aims of biodiversity conservation must be balanced for the present and future generations. 5.4 The Government shall strive to maintain viable populations of all species throughout the country. 5.5 The Government shall not establish a compensation scheme for losses caused by wildlife but shall put in place other measures to offset and mitigate the cost of living with wildlife. 5.6 It is the responsibility of all citizens and state agencies to manage human wildlife conflict wherever it occurs. 5.7 The policy on human wildlife conflict management must promote self-reliance by farmers and other affected parties in managing conflict. 5.8 The Government shall provide technical assistance, where appropriate, to individuals and state agencies to develop appropriate plans to manage human wildlife conflict efficiently and effectively. 5.9 The economic value of wildlife should be used to develop and implement mitigation measures and to offset the losses caused by wild animals. 5.10 The Government shall take the leading role in the management human wildlife conflict, but it is the responsibility of all citizens to manage the conflict. 5.11 Public awareness and conservation education shall be conducted in order to manage human wildlife conflict efficiently and effectively. 5.12 The Government will continue with research and monitoring to reduce human wildlife conflict. 5.13 The Government will empower communities and farmers in order to manage human wildlife conflict. 6.1 Vision To manage human wildlife conflict in a way that recognizes the rights and development needs of local communities, recognizes the need to promote biodiversity conservation, promotes self-reliance and ensures that decision-making is quick, efficient and based on the best avail- able information. In order to achieve this, the Government will develop appropriate mitigation and monitoring methods and develop the capacity of all stake- holders to manage human wildlife conflict. 6.2 Mission To provide a framework for addressing human wildlife conflict efficiently and effectively in or- der to promote both biodiversity conservation as well as human development. 6.3 Goal To provide measures and approaches to man- age and reduce human wildlife conflict in Na- mibia from the current incidents of about five thousand per year to less than one thousand incidents by 2026. 6.4 Objectives The objectives of the Policy are: 6.4.1 To develop future human wildlife conflict management legislative framework. 6.4.2 To develop a standardized monitoring system for human wild life conflict Management. 6.4.3 To establish best practice mitigation, protection and preventative measures for human wildlife conflict management. 6.4.4 To develop and implement innovative mechanisms to reduce the level of human wildlife conflict. 5. PRINCIPLES 6. POLICY DIRECTION 11 6.4.5 To provide clarity on the question of non-compensation with regard to damages caused by wild animals. 6.4.6 To develop innovative financial mechanisms and solutions for managing human wildlife conflict. 6.4.7 To provide for systems and clear processes for quick reaction to incidents of human wildlife conflict. 6.5 Strategies Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC) is a multi-fac- eted problem. In order to address its impacts, a number of different strategies are required to address the following key issues: • The economic impacts of HWC on local communities. • The appropriate level of decision-making power for managing HWC, particularly in a case where an animal that persistently causes problems needs to be destroyed or relocated. • Accurate information on the scale, the costs and impacts of conflict, and the success of mitigation methods and approaches. • The skills of all stakeholders to manage HWC efficiently and effectively. • HWC management and mitigation plans are included in Regional and National Development Plans and activities and are addressed in associated environmental assessments. • Incidences of wildlife that leaves Protected Areas and causes problems in neighbouring areas. In order to address these key issues the Gov- ernment has developed the following strate- gies: 6.5.1 Research and Monitoring In order to manage Human-Wild life conflict effectively and efficiently it is crucial to have adequate data that is available in a usable form for key decision-makers. There is a need for more comprehensive data that enables the Government and other stake- holders to understand better the nature and scale of the problems, to develop solutions and monitor the success of the solutions. Data gathering needs to be standardized so that re- sults can be compared from area to area and over time. Data needs to be stored in a central data-base that all stakeholders can have ac- cess to. A key requirement is methodologies that can accurately measure the impact of damage to crops and livestock losses on households so a realistic picture is obtained of the true scale of the problem. The Government recognizes that many claims of losses or damage are ex- aggerated by local people because they wish to emphasize the importance of the problem. Yet there are clearly cases where there is real hardship caused by stock or crop losses. These cases need to be identified so that assistance can be provided. Specific Objectives 6.5.1.1 To develop a standardized monitoring and reporting system on animals that causes HWC that captures the most relevant data for use by all stakeholders. 6.5.1.2 To monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of different HWC mitigation methods and to disseminate findings to all stakeholders. 6.5.1.3 To determine the social behavior and movement of certain species that can cause conflicts. 6.5.1.4 To develop data and statistics for effective management of human wildlife conflict. Strategic Approach Establish national data base for human wildlife conflict management in the Ministry. This data base should include historical data and data from existing systems and current incidents. Record data from each reported HWC incident capturing: • Species involved and number • Location of incident (GPS reading) • When incident occurred • Damage caused • Who was affected • Action taken 12 • Was any mitigation in place (e.g. were animals in a kraal? were crops protected? etc.) • Who recorded the data • Sex and age structure of the animal • Any other information which may be appropriate Provide aggregate data for regions and nation- ally. Provide data on the economic impact of HWC on households – this provides a better indica- tion of the costs to citizens than simply record- ing the cost of damage as it takes into account the economic status of the household bearing the loss and other factors. For example, the impact of losing five cows to a predator is much higher on a household owning eight cows com- pared to a household owning fifty cows. Similarly the loss will be greater to a fe- male-headed household with few other assets and little or no cash income. Provide data on the effectiveness of HWC miti- gation methods including type of method (e.g. alternative water points for elephants), fea- tures of the method (e.g. detailed description of the infrastructure, components, ingredients, position in relation to other important features such as other water points, houses, etc.), aim of the method (e.g. deter elephants from en- tering crop fields, provide alternative water to keep elephants away from settlements, etc.), extent to which the method has achieved its aims, reasons for success or failure, length of time over which monitoring has taken place, description of monitoring methodology, provide comparative data to determine why problems occur at specific locations and not others (e.g. why livestock is killed at one kraal but not an- other neighbouring one), and designed to de- tect possible duplication of data. Develop standardized data gathering and mon- itoring systems that are simple and cost-effec- tive to implement, using a compulsory or legal form which is filled regularly. Disseminate data in appropriate forms to all stakeholders. Build capacity of stakeholders in collecting, re- cording and using data and ensure that there is systematic and consistent data recording in terms of level of effort and across temporal, spatial and numerical scales. Develop a standardized method of evaluating crop losses. Establish an “Early Warning System” in the regions and nationally. Researchers often col- lar wild animals to monitor their movements through satellite tracking. Different techniques exist by which this infor- mation on elephant and lion movements can be used to provide communities and farmers with an early warning that elephants or lions are approaching their crop fields or livestock. The communities and farmers can then take appro- priate measures to prevent damage to crops or livestock losses. The early warning system should provide information on a daily basis. Private wildlife researchers who monitor wildlife movements through satellite tracking should provide regional MET offices and local wildlife management units with daily movements of collared predators and elephants. MET, conser- vancies and the researchers should establish mechanisms for this information to be speedily relayed to affected farmers. MET will establish a central based Rapid Re- sponse Unit which will include a veterinarian among the staff members, and which will work with other stakeholders to be able to respond to the need to capture or lethally remove prob- lem causing animals. Carry out research on the social behavior and movement for certain species that can cause problems as determined by the conflicts they cause and the degree of tolerance shown by local residents. In some cases there may be too many animals of a certain species for the amount of habitat available, or the scale of con- flict may be intolerable for residents. In such cases, the Ministry will establish target population levels that would aim at maintain- ing healthy and viable populations of wildlife but also a more manageable size of the wildlife population. Many of the problem-causing spe- cies are valuable financially and the potential exists to offset any costs they may cause by their careful management for sustainable in- come generation. This economic potential is unlikely to be fully unlocked unless through a well-conceived longer-term and integrated management pro- gramme. 13 It is not always the case that problem-causing animal species are over-abundant, and these situations bring special challenges if the Min- istry is to continue to promote their recovery and increases while there is already a scenario of conflict. However, even in such cases, it is better to manage such populations against clear longer-term targets than on an ad hoc basis. In all cases, establishing a target population for certain species will facilitate the setting of quo- tas and making other management decisions where clear long-term targets are established, as well as the implementation of adaptive man- agement. The Ministry will identify priority populations responsible for the most persistent conflicts or with the potential to create the greatest con- flicts in future. Initiate a process in collaboration with other stakeholders to determine an appropriate pop- ulation size (or in the case of the less abun- dant species, other measures) that would both result in a long-term viable wildlife population but reduced levels of conflict. both result in a long-term viable wildlife popu- lation but reduced levels of conflict. Thereafter, develop a management programme where the Ministry would actively manage such a population(s) within those targets, using all the means available to it to achieve its conser- vation and development objectives. All wild animals destroyed as problem causing animals should be reported back, to ensure that such actions contribute to the better man- agement of human wildlife conflict. 6.5.2 Duty of Care, Land Use Planning and Integrated Measures to avoid HWC Every person and all organs of State has a gen- eral duty of care to take reasonable measures to prevent or minimize damage being caused or to be caused by wild animals. It is the responsibility of all citizens, farmers, organizations and organs of State that engage in land uses that can be affected by HWC to take measures to avoid such conflict. The Min- istry of Environment and Tourism will assist in- dividuals, farmers, organizations and organs of State to take such measures but is not respon- sible for damage to property caused by wild animals. Specific Objective To ensure that every person, organizations and organs of State take responsibility for carry- ing out appropriate land-use planning (in ac- cordance with the provisions of the Ministry responsible for land matters), taking reason- able measures to prevent or minimize damage caused by wild animals and developing inte- grated measures that are aimed to avoid and/ or reduce HWC. Strategic Approach Every person, organization, company, organ of State including Regional Councils and para- statals, and development partners engaged in, planning or supporting land uses that might be affected by HWC must carry out appropriate measures to assess the likely extent of such conflict and to put in place appropriate mitigat- ing measures. Environmental Impact Assessment must be conducted for certain activities to avoid human wildlife conflict. In terms of the Environmental Management Act of 2007 (Act No. 7 of 2007), an environmental clearance certificate must be obtained for the following activities which could lead to HWC: • The establishment of land resettlement schemes. • The abstraction of ground or surface water for industrial or commercial purposes. • Construction of dams, reservoirs, levees and weirs. • Construction of facilities for aquaculture production, where the structures are not situated within an aquaculture development zone declared in terms of the Aquaculture Act, 2002. • The declaration of an area as an aquaculture development zone in terms of the Aquaculture Act, 2002. • Irrigation or green schemes for agriculture. • Forestry activities. • Tourism development activities. • Water resource developments. • Construction of cemeteries, camping, leisure and recreation sites. • Fencing. 14 Environmental Inspectors and Wildlife Officers shall collaborate to ensure that activities and projects that require environmental assess- ments do not cause human wildlife conflict. Environmental Assessments for these activities should specifically identify the extent to which HWC may take place as a result of these activ- ities and should include measures to prevent or reduce and mitigate HWC. Environmental Assessments that assess the potential for caus- ing or increasing HWC should be carried out for the provision of water to livestock grazing schemes and small-scale farm development schemes, particularly where they are close to National Parks or could affect wildlife corridors. There are other development activities which can also lead to HWC. Particular attention should be given to assessing and mitigating HWC in the planning and development of new water points, agricultural schemes, the devel- opment of new settlements and the expansion of existing settlements. Measures to mitigate HWC should include ap- propriate land use planning, and the develop- ment of integrated HWC management plans. Such plans must involve specific mechanisms to deal with HWC problems prevalent in a par- ticular area, including the application of ap- propriate technical solutions and monitoring. These plans need to be based on information about the local human wildlife conflict context (i.e. which species, which methods) and need to include a combination of approaches to deal with different species and different problems at different times of the year. The Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) may support local communities, relevant local authorities, Regional Councils, and private en- tities to develop and implement appropriate HWC management and mitigation plans. The implementation of these plans should be car- ried out through Memorandum of Understand- ing (MOU), where necessary, which should be signed by all relevant parties and should spell out the roles and responsibilities of each party. The MET may provide support by: • Providing assistance and advice on developing HWC management and mitigation plans. • Providing technical guidelines for management and monitoring of HWC based on best practice and experience in Namibia and elsewhere. • Working with relevant Ministries, development agencies, and private organizations to ensure that HWC is incorporated in environmental assessments for development projects such as agricultural schemes, aquaculture, etc. • Encouraging individual management units (e.g. a conservancy) to work with other such units and appropriate stakeholders to develop and implement area-based and regional HWC management and mitigation plans. The MET will identify areas with chronic prob- lems as HWC zones. Specific regulations will be developed for such zones providing for ap- propriate assessments to be carried out and management plans to be in place before new developments may take place, e.g. new water points must be sufficiently protected against elephants, or agricultural schemes must have an adequate fence. Such zones would receive priority assistance from the Ministry in terms of technical assistance and advice and the devel- opment of local HWC management plans. The development of Integrated Regional Land Use Plans under the Ministry responsible for land matters should take into account the zo- nation plans of local wildlife management units which identify wildlife corridors and exclusive wildlife and tourism zones. In order to avoid HWC, other sectors should avoid the planning of new infrastructure, agricultural schemes and water provision in these wildlife corridors and zones. Leasehold should be considered for allocation to protect wildlife corridors and to prevent oth- er activities that may lead to human wildlife conflict. Communal Land Boards should take into ac- count wildlife matters and activities that may lead to human wildlife conflict when allocat- ing leaseholds. Integrated Land Use Plans and plans related to wildlife management and hu- man wildlife conflict management should be considered by the Communal Land Boards. 15 6.5.3 Human Capacity and Resources The Ministry of Environment and Tourism should have human resources available for ad- dressing HWC management and to build the capacity of personnel to carry out HWC func- tions. These steps are required to address the growing number of HWC incidents and to help reduce the impacts of HWC on local livelihoods, particularly in communal areas. Suitable and sufficient equipment is critical for enabling game wardens, rangers, scouts and game guards to effectively carry out activities to reduce and mitigate HWC. Personnel operat- ing in the field require the basic field equipment to operate with a reasonable level of comfort and to be able to deal with problem causing animals. Specific Objectives 6.5.3.1 To ensure that MET creates specific and focused HWC staff component and that such staff component have sufficient and appropriately trained personnel to address the HWC problems and issues present in the specific regions. 6.5.3.2 To ensure that MET HWC management personnel are sufficiently and appropriately equipped to carry out their tasks. 6.5.3.3 To create a collaborative approach for prevention and mitigation of HWC with local wildlife management units. Strategic Approach MET shall create a coordination unit on human wildlife conflict management issues at nation- al level and specific staff component in each region that is focused and with HWC manage- ment as their main task and responsibility. MET will identify the training and equipment needs of such teams and ensure that they have the appropriate skills and equipment for carry- ing out their tasks. MET personnel will work closely with the relevant staff members of local management units (such as conservan- cy game guards) and personnel from other relevant organizations. Rapid reaction teams will be established between MET and part- ner organizations to ensure speedy respons- es to HWC incidents. NGOs working with local community organiza- tions such as conservancies should also appoint HWC coordinators who have the specific task of addressing HWC and work closely with MET. Lo- cal level management units should also estab- lish their own structures for addressing HWC. They should have dedicated teams that can work with MET personnel, NGOs and private re- searchers in developing and implementing joint HWC management plans and carrying out joint rapid response activities, as approved by MET. 6.5.4 Community care and engagement Community-based Natural Resource Manage- ment (CBNRM) programme provides local com- munities with a number of incentives to manage natural resources such as wildlife sustainably. Through forming conservancies, local com- munities gain rights over wildlife that enables them to generate income from a number of dif- ferent use options. The adoption of wildlife and tourism as addi- tional forms of land use by rural people and the recovery of wildlife in many conservancies indicates the success of the Government’s CB- NRM programme. With regard to HWC, Gov- ernment has encouraged the commercial use of the larger and more valuable species that impact negatively on people through activities such as trophy hunting to offset the losses that these species cause. However, many of the economic benefits that come from the use of wildlife in conservancies accrue at the community level and do not nec- essarily offset the costs of losses to individual households caused by wildlife. Furthermore, some of the individuals who suffer losses may not be members of the conservancy and eligible to benefit. Households in areas where conser- vancies have not been formed do not receive any benefit from wildlife that can offset costs of crop or livestock losses, nor do farmers who have acquired rights of leasehold on communal land. There is therefore a need to increase the direct benefits from wildlife and tourism to house- holds, and to explore ways in which losses caused by wildlife can be offset for non-conser- vancy members, people living outside conser- vancies, and farmers with leasehold rights. 16 Specific Objective To create sufficient economic and other bene- fits from the use of wildlife so that rural com- munities and farmers will view wildlife as an asset rather than a liability. Strategic Approach The Government will work with conservancies, farmers and other stakeholders to increase the direct benefits to conservancies and farms as a means of offsetting livestock and/or crop losses caused by wildlife. The Government will do this by: • Assisting conservancies and farmers to develop their full economic potential; • Increased devolution of authority over wildlife to conservancies and farmers in order to make wildlife more attractive as a land use; • Encouraging conservancies and farmers to invest in activities that provide the maximum benefit to households affected by HWC. The Government views conservancy benefits that offset losses to HWC as one of the incen- tives for individuals to become conservancy members and commit themselves to conser- vancy objectives. The Government will seek ways to offset loss- es caused by HWC in communal areas where conservancies have not been established. How- ever, in doing this, Government will take care not to reduce the incentive for people to form conservancies. The main focus of this strategic approach will be in areas which may not be ap- propriate for conservancy formation and oper- ation such as leasehold farms, but where HWC is present. In order to do this Government will assist the appropriate local authorities (e.g. traditional authorities, village development committees,) and individual farmers to develop local HWC management and mitigation plans. Government will provide limited funds from the Game Products Trust Fund (GPTF) to assist in implementation of such plans (e.g. to help pay for small infrastructure developments, but not wages). In addition, Government will also ex- plore and establish appropriate legal channels for commercial farmers, and leasehold and/or resettlement farmers to derive economic bene- fits from wildlife. 6.5.5 Delegation of decision-making authority Destruction of individual wild animals will not permanently remove HWC, but in some cases it becomes necessary to destroy a specific animal which persistently causes problems or threat- ens human life. In such cases it is crucial for de- cisions to be taken quickly so that the identified problem causing animal can be speedily dealt with. At the same time, safeguards need to be in place to ensure that wildlife is destroyed for good reason. As in the past, individuals should have the right to defend themselves or their property against a wild animal if attacked and this policy does not aim to remove that right. There are also cases however, when a decision needs to be taken to destroy an animal as a preventive measure. For example, if an animal has attacked a human and escaped, or has per- sistently killed livestock and escaped and there is the fear in the community or good reason to believe that the animal will strike again. In such circumstances action might be needed to prevent such attacks being repeated. In these cases there is a need to streamline the process of identifying such an animal and giving per- mission for its destruction. It is crucial to avoid policies and procedures that lead to long delays in giving permission for a problem-causing animal to be destroyed. Long delays often result in the animal moving away or the wrong animal being shot simply to placate angry villagers. There is therefore a need to deal with local conflict at the local level. This means that decision-making authority needs to be devolved to the lowest level ap- propriate for a quick decision to be taken so that the identified problem-causing animal can be speedily destroyed, therefore providing as much protection for people or property as pos- sible. Specific objectives 6.5.5.1 To devolve decision-making authority over the destroying of identified problem-causing wild animals to a staff member (s) and/or local management unit so that the correct individual animal can be speedily destroyed, providing protection to people and their property. 17 6.5.5.2 To provide sufficient safe guards to ensure that specific animals are destroyed for good reason. Strategic Approach Amendments to the Nature Conservation Or- dinance, 1975 (Ordinance 4 of 1975) shall be done to give powers to the Minister to autho- rize a staff member or staff members respon- sible for management of Wildlife and Nation- al Parks in the Ministry to determine when to destroy a problem-causing animal under the guidelines provided in Annex 1. The authorized staff member will be responsible for deciding whether a problem-causing animal should be destroyed and whether it should be destroyed by MET personnel or by a local management unit to which authority has been delegated by the MET. The authorized staff member will also be responsible for ensuring that local manage- ment unit that have received delegated author- ity comply with this policy and all relevant leg- islation as well as the reporting requirements contained in Annex 2. In addition, Government will also explore and establish appropriate legal channels for com- mercial farmers, and leasehold and/or resettle- ment farmers to derive economic benefits from wildlife. In such cases where an animal is destroyed, the authorized staff member must provide a written report to the Director responsible for management of Wildlife and National Parks. The Director will furnish a written report on the incident to the Permanent Secretary. The use of products derived from problem causing animals must be done so with a permit and conditions issued by the Ministry. The authorized staff member will be responsible for determining that the animal was destroyed for good reason, by following an example set up in Annex 3. If the authorized staff mem- ber finds that an animal was destroyed without permission and in contravention of the Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975 (No. 4 of 1975), or any subsequent legislation that replaces the said Ordinance, or that an animal was not de- stroyed by a designated and approved person, then he/she must conduct an investigation into the circumstances of the destruction of the an- imal. The MET may withdraw the delegation of au- thority given to a local wildlife management unit if that local wildlife management unit car- ries out the destruction of an animal in con- travention of the provisions of this policy or in contravention of the Nature Conservation Ordi- nance, 1975 (No. 4 of 1975), as amended. Local wildlife management unit will have the right to inform the Professional Hunter with which they have an existing contract or any oth- er hunter if the contracted PH is not available, of the opportunity to hunt a problem-causing animal for which they have been given permis- sion to destroy by the authorized staff member. The local wildlife management unit will have the right to charge the Professional Hunter a fee in terms of Section 11 (i) of Annex 2. If an animal is hunted in this way then the local wildlife management unit is responsible for the reporting requirements contained in Section 14 of Annex 2. The delegation of authority by the authorized staff member to a local wildlife management unit to destroy a problem causing animal shall also include directions as to how the products derived from that animal may be used by the local wildlife management unit or retained to the Ministry as State property in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance (No. 4 of 1975), as amended. 6.5.6 Removal of problem-causing animals The Ministry recognizes that the removal of problem causing animals either by lethal re- moval or by translocation does not always solve the problem and there are conservation reasons for limiting lethal removal to those in- stances where it is absolutely necessary. How- ever there are times when removal will be nec- essary in particular where life and property are threatened, where animals persistently cause problems or where the numbers of wild animals are so high that conflict becomes an intolerable burden on resident people. Specific Objectives 6.5.6.1 To provide a framework for the removal of problem-causing animals when appropriate. 6.5.6.2 To set a condition on the filming of wild animals removed as problem- causing animals. 18 Strategic Approach In order to address the need for removal of in- dividual animals from populations the Ministry will delegate conditional authority for the de- struction of identified problem-causing animals in terms of Section 6.5.5 above. From time to time and as becomes necessary, increase hunting quotas in the short term for certain species where appropriate. Where local wildlife management units have quotas, consideration can be given to increase such quotas to provide additional short-term relief. The merits of doing so will vary from case to case and should be considered as such. Consideration can also be given to issuing quo- tas where in certain cases the occurrence of problems is predictable, along with the number of wild animals that would be killed per year. Live capture and sale of problem causing ani- mals can be a means of relieving some pressure in areas where HWC incidents are high and at the same time generating some revenue which can be channeled to the affected community. As it is almost impossible to guarantee that the specific problem-causing animals can be cap- tured, it should be accepted that this option may include the capturing of animals of the same species or group or from the same area rather than the specific individuals. However the end result may often be the same. The Ministry will, should the situation arise, make use of the option of live capture and sale if such action will have the likely result of reducing pressure and problems, and with Treasury approval apply the resulting revenue to conflict prevention in the community con- cerned. Culling to reduce problem-causing populations can be used in situations where the numbers of potential problem-causing species are too high in relation to the human population and in relation to human livelihood activities such as farming. The Ministry needs to have the full range of management options available in- cluding culling, in order to effectively address HWC. Culling, unless at a very large scale, normally only provides a temporary solution, as animal populations usually recover within a few years. However, the revenue earned from culling and the sale of animal products from culling can be used to invest in conflict prevention measures, and furthermore, if the small scale culling has to be repeated over a few years, such culling would also provide valuable research and train- ing opportunities. Like any management tech- nique, it will be essential to apply culling within a monitoring framework. This option may be required in protected areas or parts of protected areas to reduce a popula- tion that would cause problems on neighbour- ing land, or on other State land, or commercial farm land for species that belong to the State, and where the State is requested for assis- tance. If this option is considered necessary, it should be based on an assessment by the Ministry that such culling would not compromise the long- term conservation of that specie nationally or regionally, and on land outside protected areas, consultation with local and regional stakehold- ers would be essential. The Ministry will consider small scale culling as an option to reduce conflicts, based on a scien- tific assessment of the impacts of such culling within a monitoring framework. Any income from culling will be used for conflict prevention and culling should be used as opportunities for research and training. No person will be allowed to film any animal destroyed as a problem causing animal or any actions or activity being conducted for remov- ing problem causing animals without the ap- proval of the Minister. 6.5.7 Appropriate technical solutions for mitigating HWC One of the methods for managing Human Wild- life Conflict efficiently and effectively is to im- plement measures to prevent or reduce con- flict. There are a number of technical solutions to preventing conflict that have been tried and tested. However, some species, such as ele- phants, become habituated to certain solutions and there is a need for ongoing experimenta- tion with new methodologies. 19 Furthermore, there are different problems in different parts of the country even with the same species. Thus elephants in the north and north east cause damage to crops, whereas in the arid north-west the main problem caused by elephants is damage to water installations. In some cases, management and mitigation approaches are relatively simple. For example, livestock losses can be reduced by ensuring that the animals are put in a strong kraal at night. In other cases, there might be a need to look at more sophisticated approaches such as electric fences although this has major finan- cial implications. Specific Objective To promote the development and application by every person, organization, state office, Minis- try or agency and all relevant stakeholders of appropriate and effective plans and measures to prevent or reduce HWC. Strategic Approach The Ministry will work with relevant stakehold- ers to develop, implement, test and dissemi- nate the best possible methodologies for pre- venting or reducing HWC. The Ministry will do this by: • Dissemination of information about the effectiveness of specific methodologies that are appropriate for addressing HWC in each region; • Training stakeholders in the use of specific methodologies; • Assisting stakeholders in the implementation of specific methodologies, through technical advice and support (e.g. promotion of applied livestock management, consolidation of gardens and crop fields, siting and operation of electric fencing, information regarding the behaviour of certain species, etc); Where appropriate and when funds are avail- able, the Ministry will provide such funding to stakeholders in need of financial assistance to test and/or implement mitigation measures. Such financial assistance will be dependent upon the existence of a HWC management and mitigation plan that has been approved by the Ministry, or in the case of a conservancy, is in- cluded in its Wildlife Management Plan. A written agreement must be concluded be- tween the Ministry and a funding recipient which should include the responsibilities and obligations of each party (e.g. that the appro- priate authority such as a Conservancy, Village Development Committee or Traditional Author- ity will ensure that residents do not settle at a water point funded for wildlife only). Such written agreement should include an obligation by the funding recipient to gather and report data on HWC incidents. Where appropriate the agreement should provide for co-financing by funding recipients for infrastructure and/or contributions in kind such as labour. In all regions of the country, local wildlife man- agement unit should develop their own Hu- man-Wildlife Conflict Management Plans. These plans should contain a set of objectives, identi- fy management strategies and actions, involve all relevant stakeholders, assign responsibility for actions and allocate funding. In order to develop HWC management plans communities and farmers should develop part- nerships with researchers, NGOs and the MET. Local wildlife management units should invest a portion of their own income in implement- ing their HWC Management Plans and where necessary should seek additional funding from NGOs, and sources such as the Environmental Investment Fund and the Game Products Trust Fund. Local wildlife management units should carry out local level land-use planning as a means to reduce HWC. As part of zoning their area for different land-uses should identify areas that can be set aside as exclusive wildlife and tour- ism zones and/or wildlife corridors. Such zones should for example be established on land adjacent to National Parks and where wildlife moves across international boundaries and be- tween protected areas. Residents should be encouraged not to settle or grow crops in such zones. Traditional Authori- ties and Communal Land Boards should avoid allocating land for residential and agricultural purposes in these zones. Local level planning should also consider the consolidation of crop fields to make it easier to protect them from crop raiding animals. Cooperation between conservancies and local water point committees should be promoted as much as possible. 20 Conservancies and farmers can help to fund the protection of water points, the development and maintenance of alternative water points for elephants and/or the provision of diesel to pump water at settlements where elephants drink regularly. With assistance from conser- vancies water points committees can help to maintain water points for elephants and ensure a regular supply of water. Relocation of some predators is possible means of reducing HWC. Relocation does not work well for “problem lions” that habitually prey on livestock as they tend to return to the conflict area and/or continue to kill livestock. However, re-location can be very effective for lions that can be described as “occasional raiders”. These animals tend to stay in the area they are re-lo- cated to. It is important to identify which cate- gory lions fall into when considering relocation as an option for addressing HWC. Some re- search indicates that relocation does not work well with leopards as they tend to return to the area where they were captured. With regard to elephants, relocation is techni- cally possible, but there are some key prob- lems. These include the very high costs of moving large numbers of elephants, a lack of areas where elephants could be moved to, and the possibility that elephants would return to the original sites. In an area such as Zambezi Region removing a herd of elephants would not stem the movement of others from Botswana into the region. Lethal removal is recognised as a means of ad- dressing HWC where wild animals persistently cause problems or where numbers of wildlife animals are so high that conflict becomes and intolerable burden on resident people. Lethal removal is usually used when a lion or elephant for example has attacked a person. Where possible, authorisation should be given for a declared problem animal to be destroyed by a trophy hunter in order to raise income either for MET or a local wildlife management unit. Strict legal conditions apply to the lethal removal of certain species and everyone should be aware of the legal requirements before at- tempting lethal removal of any wild animal. 6.5.8 Disaster Management There is strong evidence, both globally and in Namibia, of an increase in the observed frequency and intensity of weather and cli- mate-related hazards. Namibia is the driest sub-Saharan country in Africa and has a fragile environment. Con- sequently, it is vulnerable to climate-related hazards. Climate variability is not new in Na- mibia’s history but the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, especially floods and droughts, has increased sharply in recent years. When there are droughts and floods, human wildlife is also experienced as humans and wild animals compete for the little available resources. Wild animals will always move with the flood waters. Specific Objectives 6.5.8.1 To ensure that human wild life conflict management is part of the disaster risk management and disaster risk reduction programmes, in line with the Disaster Risk Management Act, 2012 (Act No. 10 of 2012). 6.5.8.2 To ensure that preventative and mitigation measures are provided for during times of drought and floods in the country. Strategic Approach Government shall ensure that human wildlife conflict management is part of the disaster risk management and disaster risk reduction pro- grammes in line with the Disaster Risk Man- agement Act, 2012 (Act No. 10 of 2012. In this regard, human wildlife conflict manage- ment, in particular preventative and mitigation measures during times of drought and floods, shall be considered under the National Disaster Fund. Human development and environmental issues are inter-linked. Climate change and disasters modify the natural environment through var- ious processes, including increased desertifi- cation and land degradation. These processes are induced or conditioned by human actions and inactions, such as overgrazing, overex- ploitation of natural resources and settlement development related activities in wetlands that exacerbate the effects of climate change and disasters. Therefore, to reduce these amplifying effects, climate change adaptation and disaster risk reduction needs to promote measures to protect the natural environment by strength- ening its stewardship to preserve ecosystems and biodiversity and to reduce environmental pollution. 21 Settlement of communities and emergency grazing in core wildlife areas during drought and flood times shall be avoided. Preventative and mitigation measures shall be put in place when there are temporary move- ments of people during drought and flood times, e.g. livestock kraals should be built as strong as possible to prevent attacks by pred- ators. 6.5.9 Application of revenues from prob- lem causing animals to avoid future con- flicts and to address the losses of affected persons If generating income from problem-causing animals is to be successful in addressing prob- lems at household level, then the income needs to be used to provide relief to those persons that suffered the impact and/or to avoid the repetition of the same problems in future. Specific Objective To ensure that income derived from the hunt- ing or sale of problem-causing animals is ap- plied to avoid future conflicts between humans and wildlife. Strategic Approach The Ministry will, when authorizing the trophy hunting of a problem-causing animal, establish a condition that the revenue from such hunt- ing must be used to alleviate the impact of the problem for those persons affected by the in- cident/s that gave rise to the animal being au- thorized to be trophy hunted. Funds from problem animals, or a portion of it, will in certain cases as determined by the Ministry deposited in the Game Product Trust Fund (GPTF). In areas where there are local wildlife management units, such funds will be shared between the GPTF and the local wild- life management units. In areas where there are no local wildlife management units, such funds will be shared between the GPTF and the Regional Development Fund of the respective Regional Council. The Ministry will establish a guideline price for the trophy hunting of problem animals that will be mandatory. This guideline should make pro- vision for variation in the quality of trophies, to avoid that incentives are created for the hunt- ing of animals other than those that caused the problem. The Ministry will advise and assist local wildlife management units and Regional Councils to es- tablish an internal mechanism to ensure that they can comply with these conditions and ex- peditiously assist persons that were negatively affected. The Ministry will consider the issuance of per- mits for keep and sell of wild animal skins in incidents of human wildlife conflict. 6.5.10 Protected Areas Neighbours and Residents Many of the conflicts between people and wild- life occur when wildlife leaves Protected Areas and enters neighbouring farm land and conser- vancies. This situation, where wildlife leaving protected areas amounts to the export of eco- nomic and social costs to neighbours, under- mines the conservation objectives of the parks by creating negative and sometimes hostile re- sponses from neighbours. The Ministry’s aim is that parks should be net exporters of valuable resources and economic benefits to neighbour- ing communities. There is therefore a strong obligation on the Ministry to assist communi- ties and farmers in addressing HWC which re- sults from wildlife leaving protected areas. Specific Objectives 6.5.10.1 To reduce the impact on park neighbours of wildlife that leaves protected areas and causes problems. 6.5.10.2 To provide economic and other benefits from Protected Areas to park neighbours. Strategic Approach The Ministry, in accordance with the Policy on Tourism and Wildlife Concessions on State Land, will give preference to allocating con- cessions to protected area neighbours such as conservancies, to help offset livestock and crop losses as a result of HWC and to promote posi- tive relationships with park neighbours. In accordance with the National Policy on Pro- tected Areas’ Neighbours and Resident Com- munities, the MET will promote landscape con- servation approaches that bring land holders together to manage wildlife and other natural resources in an integrated manner. 22 As part of the landscape conservation ap- proach MET will support the development of wildlife-based economic opportunities. MET will promote the adoption of compatible land uses such as wildlife and tourism on land adjoining protected areas in order to reduce HWC. The Ministry will support park neighbours to develop and implement joint HWC manage- ment and mitigation plans and provide advice and technical support in applying mitigation methods. The Ministry will also ensure that HWC man- agement is part of the Park Management Plans for National Parks where such conflict is an is- sue or a problem. The Ministry will enter into collaborative man- agement arrangements (e.g. specific agree- ments or MOUs) with protected area neighbours in order to carry out joint HWC management and support the implementation of local HWC management plans. The Ministry will support park neighbours to develop and implement joint HWC manage- ment and mitigation plans and provide advice and technical support in applying mitigation methods. The Ministry will also ensure that HWC man- agement is part of the Park Management Plans for National Parks where such conflict is an is- sue or a problem. The Ministry will enter into collaborative man- agement arrangements (e.g. specific agree- ments or MOUs) with protected area neighbours in order to carry out joint HWC management and support the implementation of local HWC management plans. The Ministry will work with neighbouring coun- tries to develop protocols for dealing with HWC where communal lands in Namibia border on protected areas and wildlife management ar- eas in those countries through existing pro- grammes such as transfrontier conservation areas. 6.5.11 Human Wildlife Conflict Management Schemes 6.5.11.1 Scheme for Human Wildlife Conflict Mitigation and Preventative Measures A variety of approaches can be implemented in order to manage the conflict efficiently and effectively. These include prevention strategies which endeavor to avoid the conflict occurring in the first place and take action towards ad- dressing its root causes, and protection strat- egies that are implemented when the conflict is certain to happen or has already occurred, as well as mitigation strategies that attempt to reduce the level of impact and lessen the prob- lem. Specific Objectives 6.5.11.1.1 To create a programme or project within the Ministry, that is internally and externally funded, to support implementation of mitigation and preventative measures for human wildlife conflict. 6.5.11.1.2 To establish a budget vote to support a programme for human wildlife conflict mitigation and preventative measure in the Ministry. Strategic Approach The Ministry will create a programme or project that is internally and externally funded, to sup- port the implementation of mitigation and pre- ventative measures for human wildlife conflict. Such a programme or project will have specif- ic terms and conditions and will work closely with the staff members of the Ministry and lo- cal wildlife management units through a deter- mined annual log frame and action plan. Such a programme or project establish, set up or construct preventative and mitigation mea- sures such as protection walls or ring trenches for water points, crocodile enclosures, livestock kraals, chili pepper fences, chili bomps, alter- native waterpoints for elephants, improved livestock husbandry, etc. The Ministry will establish a budget vote to support a programme for human wildlife con- flict mitigation and preventative measures that should be financed appropriately annually. 23 6.5.11.2 Human Wildlife Conflict Self Reliance Scheme It is not Government policy to provide com- pensation to farmers for losses due to wild an- imals. Furthermore, compensation schemes implemented elsewhere have proved to be very problematic and open to abuse. There is a need to find other means to offset the losses caused by wildlife and at the same time build the self-reliance of farmers. A number of people are killed by wild animals every year in Namibia. Legally the State owns all wildlife except where legislation specifically provides otherwise. Although the Government cannot be held legal- ly responsible for the death of a person killed by a wild animal, there are moral obligations on the Government to support the family of such a person. The Government has therefore decided to adopt the policy of providing funeral expenses for such a family. The Ministry of En- vironment and Tourism wishes to demonstrate its commitment to the welfare of the people of Namibia while at the same time promoting biodiversity conservation. The financial support to bereaved families is aimed at covering basic funeral costs and is not in any way intended as compensation for loss of life. Specific Objectives 6.5.11.2.1 To provide the means to directly offset the losses of communities and individual farmers caused to livestock and crops. 6.5.11.2.2 To promote the equitable distribution of benefits so that individuals who suffer losses can benefit from wildlife income. 6.5.11.2.3 To meet the moral obligation of Government to support a family who has lost a family member to certain species of wild animals under conditions where the affected person could not reasonably have been expected to defend himself/herself \or to avoid the incident, and where the family has to incur costs for a funeral and related costs. Strategic Approach Payments under the Human Wildlife Conflict Self Reliance Scheme are made to cover live- stock losses at rates which do not cover the full value of the animal concerned but aim to par- tially off-set the loss to the farmer. A payment at a determined rate would also be made to cover for damages caused to crops as well for human death and injuries to people. The Human Wildlife Conflict Self Reliance Scheme shall apply to both conservancy and non-conservancy areas on State Land and Re- settlement farms, but not on private land. In terms of this Policy, livestock include cattle, goats, sheep, donkey, horse and sheep. This Policy will apply to incidents of livestock death caused by wild animals, provided that: • No payments will be made for live stock killed in a National Park or Conservancy exclusive wildlife zone. Payment will be made in a Multiple Use Area of a zoned National Park. • Livestock death must be reported within one day of the incident occurring, unless a valid reason of not doing so as stipulated is provided and the evidence thereof is still visible. • The cause of death must be verified by a Ministry staff member or a community game guard where such structure exists. • No payment will be made if the livestock was killed without reasonable precautions being put in place. • Ministry staff members together with Conservancy staff (where it is inside the conservancy) and Traditional Authority leaders will inspect livestock enclosures and advice where strengthening is required. Payments to crops will be made to damages caused only by elephants, buffaloes and hippo- potamus. Damages by other animals except for elephants, buffaloes and hippopotamus are dif- ficult to verify and can be misused. Such dam- ages by other animals can also be controlled by farmers. Crops will include maize, millet, sor- ghum and vegetables. The Human Wildlife Conflict Self Reliance Scheme shall apply to both conservancy and non-conservancy areas on State Land and Re- settlement farms, but not on private land. 24 In terms of this Policy, livestock include cattle, goats, sheep, donkey, horse and sheep. This Policy will apply to incidents of livestock death caused by wild animals, provided that: • No payments will be made for live stock killed in a National Park or Conservancy exclusive wildlife zone. Payment will be made in a Multiple Use Area of a zoned National Park. • Livestock death must be reported within one day of the incident occurring, unless a valid reason of not doing so as stipulated is provided and the evidence thereof is still visible. • The cause of death must be verified by a Ministry staff member or a community game guard where such structure exists. • No payment will be made if the livestock was killed without reasonable precautions being put in place. • Ministry staff members together with Conservancy staff (where it is inside the conservancy) and Traditional Authority leaders will inspect livestock enclosures and advice where strengthening is required. Payments to crops will be made to damages caused only by elephants, buffaloes and hippo- potamus. Damages by other animals except for elephants, buffaloes and hippopotamus are dif- ficult to verify and can be misused. Such dam- ages by other animals can also be controlled by farmers. Crops will include maize, millet, sor- ghum and vegetables. The Ministry will when issuing quotas for tro- phy hunting in conservancies make provision that the quota allows for funds to pay for the livestock and crop damages to members of such conservancies. Where there are no registered conservancies, the source of funding for the Human Wildlife Self Reliance Scheme shall be a contribution from trophy hunting concessions on State Land outside registered conservancies, trophy hunt- ing of problem animals, tourism concessions and permit fees from trophy hunting through the Game Product Trust Fund. Contribution to the Human Wildlife Conflict Self Reliance Scheme will also be through donors as approved by the Government. The Ministry will explore possibilities of transfer- ring the management of funds and payments to farmers and communities who suffer the losses by wild animals, to the Regional Councils. How- ever, the Ministry will still carry the functions of the allocation of funds as well as the assess- ment and investigations of damages thereof. The Minister or any person delegated by him/ her will appoint a Ministerial Review Panel of not less than three staff members to assess the application for payments in non-conservancy areas and make recommendations for his/her approval. In gazetted conservancy areas, each conser- vancy will have a review panel for the scheme consisting of representatives each from the Ministry, the support NGO, the Conservancy Committee and the Traditional Authority. Re- view Panels for conservancies will be appointed by the Minister. This policy will apply in bona fide incidents of accidental death and injuries caused by wild animals included in Schedules 3, 4 and 5 of the Nature Conservation Ordinance (Ordinance 4 of 1975, as amended), provided that: • The deceased or injured person was not engaged in poaching or other llegal activity. • It can be ascertained as far as possible that the attack by the wild animal was not provoked. • The deceased or injured person has no insurance coverage elsewhere or is not eligible for receiving costs from another organization. • A Ministry official or member of the Namibian Police has investigated the incident and verified the circumstances as meeting all relevant requirements for the application of the policy. Payment for accidental death and injuries caused by wild animals shall apply throughout the country provided that the above conditions and any other conditions set up by the Minister are applied. 25 Amounts for payment through the “Human Wildlife Conflict Self Reliance Scheme will be as follows: Human death: Funeral expenses and related costs N$ 100 000 Injuries to persons: Type of injury Amount (N$) Injury with no loss of body part 10 000 Injury with loss of body part 30 000 Disability 50 000 Livestock: Livestock Amount (N$) Cattle (cow or bull) 3 000 Goat 500 Sheep 700 Horse 800 Donkey 500 Pig 700 Crop damages: Hectares Amount (N$) One quarter of a hectare 250 One hectare 1000 The Minister shall adjust the amount for pay- ment from time to time as may be deemed ap- propriate, in consultation with relevant stake- holders. The Minister will further establish procedures, conditions and guidelines for qualifying and use of the Human Wildlife Conflict Self Reliance Scheme. The Ministry will further explore possibilities for payment of damages to properties such as fences, water points, etc. by wild animals. This is highly dependent on the availability of funds. 6.5.11.3 Human Wildlife Conflict Insurance Scheme It is not Government policy to provide compen- sation to farmers for losses due to wild ani- mals. Furthermore, compensation schemes im- plemented elsewhere have proved to be very problematic and open to abuse. There is a need to reduce the growing tension around HWC as losses of human lives, live- stock, and crops as well as damage to infra- structure are highly emotional issues and affect livelihoods. Specific Objectives 6.5.11.3.1 To establish an insurance scheme for human death and injury caused by wild animals. 6.5.11.3.2 To establish a human wildlife conflict livestock insurance scheme. Strategic Approach The Ministry will investigate and establish an insurance scheme that would provide payments to affected parties whose family members die or are severely injured as a result of HWC. This will apply in all areas of the country but with specific conditions. The Ministry will also investigate and establish a HWC livestock insurance scheme to offset the costs of livestock deaths. In order for both the death and injury, as well as the livestock insurance scheme to operate, the Ministry through its annual budget provisions, or through its development support partners or through the GPTF will make funding avail- able that will be paid through a professional in- surance company or a specific Human Wildlife Conflict Fund and that company or Fund will then provide payments to affected parties as prescribed. Terms and conditions will apply. Once in place and fully functional, the Human Wildlife Conflict Insurance Scheme will re- place the Human Wildlife Conflict Self Reliance Scheme. 6.5.12 Public awareness, stakeholder engagement and coordination In order to address HWC efficiently and effec- tively, there is a need to conduct awareness and educate the communities, 26 farmers and the general public on the preven- tive and mitigation measures that should be put in place. It is also necessary to provide information on species behavioural patterns in order to help the public understand how best to avoid con- flict arising. There is also a need to engage other stakehold- ers such as the traditional authorities, Regional Councils, NGOs and line Ministries on how best to manage HWC. Specific Objectives 6.5.12.1 To ensure that all relevant stakeholders are aware of the need for HWC prevention and mitigation measures and have access to information on how to manage HWC according to their own circumstances and requirements. 6.5.12.2 To ensure that HWC management activities and responses are coordinated between all relevant stakeholders. Strategic Approach The Ministry of Environment and Tourism will hold regular meetings with key stakeholders such as farmers’ associations, conservancies, community forests, water points committees, etc. in order to sensitize their members to the need to incorporate HWC management in their plans and activities and find ways to implement information given. MET will develop appropriate information ma- terial that farmers and communities can use in order to develop their own HWC management plans and in order to apply their own preven- tion and mitigation measures. MET will also work closely with other line Minis- tries such as the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry and the Ministry of Land Reform to ensure that the plans and activities of these ministries incorporate HWC management. This is particularly important where agricultur- al or resettlement schemes are being estab- lished. NGOs, conservancies and traditional authorities should also play an active role in providing awareness to farmers about HWC management. Public awareness on human wildlife conflict management will be conducted through the media, billboards, brochures, pamphlets, radio, and ways that is possible. 7. IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK 7.1 Institutional Arrangements 7.1.1 The Ministry of Environment and Tourism will play the coordinating and leading role in the implementation of this Policy. 7.1.2 Traditional authorities, communal area farmers, freehold farmers, communal area conservancies, line Ministries and Regional Councils, will in practical terms, support these strategies by implementing programmes and projects which can bring about the intended goals. 7.1.3 Where relevant the NGOs and private sector will be invited to become involved in the provision of planning, training, extension services, material inputs and control of the conflicts by wild animals. 7.1.4 Line Ministries and Regional Councils will ensure that all individuals, organizations and State agencies take responsibility for carrying out appropriate land-use planning and developing integrated measures that are aimed to avoid and / or reduce human-wildlife conflict therefore should develop and implement an integrated human-wild life conflict management plan that includes measures for the prevention and/or reducing of HWC, the mitigation of problems caused by HWC and for gathering data on HWC incidents. 7.1.5 The media should report on human wildlife conflict appropriately and responsibly, and support awareness on prevention and mitigation of human wildlife conflict. 7.1.6 Professional Hunters should contribute to human wildlife conflict mitigation and preventative measures and ensure that in an event a problem causing animal have to be controlled through hunting, such hunting should be done in a professional manner and accepted hunting ethics. 27 7.2 Legal and Regulatory Arrangements The Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975 (Or- dinance 4 of 1975) as amended by the Nature Conservation Amendment Act (Act 5 of 1996) provides legislative basis for control of problem causing animals, hunting and rights on the uti- lization of wildlife. This Policy is aligned to this legislation. The Protected Areas and Wildlife Management Bill is being prepared and will repeal the Nature Conservation Ordinance, as amended. The Bill will provide for a proper administrative, legal and procedural framework for human wildlife conflict management. 7.3 Resource Mobilization All role players in the implementation of this policy need to budget or mobilize resources in order to fulfil their role and responsibilities in the implementation of actions for this policy. 7.4 Monitoring and Evaluation 7.4.1 The impact of the implementation of this policy and progress and constraints regarding its implementation will be periodically assessed by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism in consultation with other stakeholders. 7.4.2 The Event/Incident Book System and the Human-Wildlife Conflict Data form will be used for monitoring and evaluation of the human-wildlife conflict. 7.4.3 Statistical figures per year on human wildlife conflict incidents, including financial implications will be used for monitoring and evaluation. 7.4.4 Procedures for reporting and provision of feedback on incidents and mitigation measures shall be developed and used 7.5 Implementation Action Plan See Annex 4 below. 7.6 Conclusion Human wildlife conflict is a challenge that the country is faced with. Addressing human wild- life conflict therefore requires striking a bal- ance between conservation priorities and the needs of people living with wildlife. Mechanisms need to be put in place to reduce the level of human wildlife conflict, to ensure that benefits of conservation management far outweighs the costs, and to build on the sig- nificant successes in managing human wildlife conflict. The strategies of this Revised National Policy on Human Wildlife Conflict Management should be interrogated by all and implemented accordingly and as required. 8. BIBLIOGRAPHY 8.1 Ministry of Environment and Tourism. 2005. National workshop on human-wildlife conflict management in Namibia. Safari Hotel, Windhoek. 8.2 Ministry of Environment and Tourism. 2017. National workshop on human-wildlife conflict management in Namibia. Safari Hotel, Windhoek. 8.3 National Policy on Human Wildlife Conflict Management. 2009. Ministry of Environment and Tourism. 8.4 Nature Conservation Amendment Act of 1996 (Act 5 of 1996). 8.5 Nature Conservation Ordinance of 1975 (Number 4 of 1975). 29 Annex 1: Guidelines concerning delegation of authority to Regional Offices of MET and other designated institutions to determine when to destroy a problem-causing animal Authorized staff member or staff members of the Ministry of Environment and Tourism and other designated institutions will determine when to destroy a problem-causing animal, based on the following criteria and procedures: 1. This delegation does not apply to situations on land in proclaimed protected areas. 2. Authorized staff member must, prior to causing an animal to be destroyed, use the resources available to them to verify the reported problem and to assess the seriousness of the problem. 3. Decisions to destroy any animal must be based on an assessment whether: a. An animal has injured or killed a person. b. An animal has persistently killed livestock. c. An animal remains close to settlement and behaves aggressively such that residents feel threatened going about their daily lives. d. Further problems will be caused if the animal(s) concerned are not destroyed. e. The responsible animal can be identified, located and destroyed with the resources available to the authorized staff member, and f. The destruction of the specific animal(s) will at least in part resolve a problem. 4. Authorized staff member may task other MET staff members only in such instances where they are confident that the relevant staff member is fully skilled and equipped for the task and that the risks of wounding an animal or otherwise creating secondary problems are minimized. 5. MET staff should, in the interests of public safety aim to avoid the destruction of an animal in the presence of the public (including the media) wherever possible. 6. At no time is any MET staff member allowed to destroy an animal without another staff member present to witness the procedure. 7. Authorized staff member must ensure in all cases where an animal is destroyed by a MET staff member outside of a conservancy that all trophies be recovered, prepared and safeguarded for future sale to the benefit of MET (through the GPTF). For elephant skins, DWNP and DSS will advise on recovery methods appropriate to field conditions after consultation with local tanning industries. 8. In the case of an animal being legally destroyed in an authorized local wildlife management unit by MET staff or by a designated person from the authorized local wildlife management unit, the income from the trophy will be accrued as directed by the authorized staff member. The delegation to an authorized local wildlife management unit should include directions as to how the products derived from that animal may be used by the local wildlife management unit or retained to the State in terms of the Nature Conservation Ordinance (No.4 of 1975), as amended. 9. Authorized staff member must ensure that the meat of any edible animal destroyed be made available to the person(s) who were affected, alternatively via the relevant Traditional Authority if it cannot be determined who should benefit or how the meat should be divided. If so preferred by the affected persons, permits can be issued for the selling of such meat. 10. Authorized staff member must determine whether the greatest positive impacts can be achieved by an MET staff member or designated person destroying an animal versus having the animal shot by a client of a Professional Hunter against payment. Such a decision should be based on the urgency of the matter, the availability of suitable staff and resources to monitor the hunt, and the availability of a Professional Hunter or client, and the suitability of the animal in question. 30 In the case of an animal legally destroyed by a scheduled client of a Professional Hunter with an existing contract with an authorized local wildlife management unit, the income from the trophy will be accrued as directed by the authorized staff member. 11. Where the option of a Professional Hunter is required outside of a local wildlife management unit, the authorized staff member or authorized institution should approach the nearest Professional Hunter operating in that area. If none, or if such hunter is not available or interested or able to carry out the task, the authorized staff member or authorized institution should contact the Director who will maintain a list of Professional Hunters for this purpose and who will thereafter determine if there is a demand or if MET should itself take such action. 12. The approval to a Professional Hunter to destroy any animal must be accompanied by clear instructions, an appropriate permit issued, and the hunting must be supervised by an MET staff member (but leaving this to the discretion of the authorized staff member in cases where hunting takes place in a conservancy and under the supervision of conservancy members). i. The approval for such hunting must be on the condition that the revenue from such hunting must be used to alleviate the impact of the problem for those persons affected by the incident/s that gave rise to the animal being authorized to be trophy hunted. ii. MET will establish a guideline price for the trophy hunting of problem animals that will be mandatory. This guideline should make provision for variation in the quality of trophies, to avoid that incentives are created for the hunting of animals other than those that caused the problem. 13. Authorized staff members must maintain records for all cases reported to them, their assessment according to section 3 above, decisions and actions taken by them, and the outcome of those actions and decisions, the disposal of the meat and trophies of the animal killed. The authorized staff member must provide a written report to the Director responsible for management of Wildlife and National Parks within 10 days. Reports must include the following: • The species of animal destroyed. • Where and when the animal was destroyed. • That there were good grounds in terms of the guidelines provided in Section 3 above for the destruction of the animal and that these conform to the reasons provided in the decision-making framework for the region. • That there were good grounds for being reasonably confident that the animal causing the problems was the animal that was destroyed and an explanation of the reasons for this confidence. • The disposal of the products such as ivory, meat, hide, etc. • An account of the operation. • The costs of the operation to MET if MET destroyed the animal. • Identification of the staff member that carried out the destruction. • Where the destruction was carried out by a Professional Hunter, the relevant part of the report must be signed by the hunter and countersigned by the staff member who supervised the hunting as a true reflection of the incident (or not, as may be the case). 31 14. If the authorized staff member fails to report to the satisfaction of the Minister and account for their decisions, or otherwise do not comply with the criteria or procedures outlined in the delegation, the delegation can be revoked at any time and grounds for a misconduct charge will be investigated. Similarly, if the authorized staff member is considered to be unreasonably giving cause to the unjustifiable destruction of an animal or an unjustifiable number of animals, the delegation can be revoked at any time and the staff member charged with misconduct. Annex 2: Guidelines for destruction of a problem causing animal by a local wildlife management unit to which authority has been delegated by the MET. Authorized staff member of the Ministry may provide written permission to a local wildlife manage- ment unit to destroy a problem-causing animal, based on the following criteria and procedures: 1. This delegation does not apply to situations on land in proclaimed protected areas. 2. Authorized staff member may provide such permission to a local wildlife management unit if the MET does not itself have the resources or the opportunity to destroy the animal concerned. The permission maybe for once off only. 3. Authorized staff member must, prior to providing permission to a local wildlife management unit to cause an animal to be destroyed, use the resources available to them to verify the reported problem and to assess the seriousness of the problem. 4. An authorized local wildlife management unit may only use a designated person approved by the authorized staff member for the region or that specific unit to destroy an animal. 5. The authorized staff member may authorize an MET staff member to ob serve the destruction of a problem causing animal by a local wildlife management unit or by the Professional Hunter (PH) with which the local wildlife management unit has an existing contract. 6. Local wildlife management unit or the PH with which they have an existing contract should, in the interests of public safety aim to avoid the destruction of an animal in the presence of the public (including the media) wherever possible. 7. At no time is any designated person from an authorized local wildlife management unit allowed to destroy an animal without another staff member present to witness the procedure. 8. An authorized local wildlife management unit must ensure that the meat of any edible animal killed be made available to the person(s) who were affected, alternatively via the relevant Traditional Authority if it cannot be determined who should benefit or how the meat should be divided. If so preferred by the affected persons, permits can be issued for the selling of such meat. 9. Authorized local wildlife management unit must determine whether the greatest positive impacts can be achieved by designated person destroying an animal versus having the animal shot by a client against payment. Such a decision should be based on the urgency of the matter, the availability of suitable staff and resources to monitor the hunt, and the availability of the PH with which the local wildlife management unit has an existing contract and whether that PH has a scheduled client in the local wildlife management unit at the time. 10. The approval to a PH to destroy any animal must be accompanied by clear instructions, an appropriate permit issued, and the hunting may be supervised by an MET staff member. 11. The approval for such hunting must be on the condition that that the revenue from such hunting must be used to alleviate the impact of the problem for those persons affected by the incident/s that gave rise to the animal being authorized to be trophy hunted. 32 i. MET will establish a guideline price for the hunting of problem animals that will be mandatory. This guideline should make provision for variation in the quality of trophies, to avoid that incentives are created for the hunting of animals other than those that caused the problem. ii. Local wildlife management unit should establish internal mechanisms to ensure that they can comply with these conditions and to expeditiously assist persons that were negatively affected by the problem-causing animal. iii. Where local wildlife management unit are not able to establish such mechanisms to directly assist persons affected by the problem-causing animal, MET should require that such revenues are deposited in the Game Product Trust Fund to ensure that MET has proof of payment, after which local wildlife management unit must specify how these funds will be used to address impacts. Once this has been agreed, MET will arrange that the GPTF releases the funds. iv. The submission of proof of such payment must be obtained by the authorized staff member and Director from the Professional Hunter, and failure to provide such proof will be used as reasonable grounds to refuse the future registration of that hunter with MET and/or other appropriate measures such as the revoking of permits, concessions, etc. Non-compliance with any of the conditions specified with the approval of such a hunt must similarly be reported and commensurate action taken by MET through the Director. 12. Authorized local wildlife management unit must maintain records for all cases where they have caused a problem causing animal to be destroyed in terms of this policy, the disposal of the meat and trophies of the animal killed. Reports must include the following: • The species of animal destroyed. • Where and when the animal was destroyed. • That there were good grounds for being reasonably confident that the animal causing the problems was the animal that was destroyed and an explanation of the reasons for this confidence. • The disposal of the products such as ivory, meat, hide, etc. • An account of the operation. • Identification of the staff member that carried out the destruction. • Where the destruction was carried out by a professional hunter, the relevant part of the report must be signed by the hunter and countersigned by the staff member who supervised the hunting as a true reflection of the incident (or not, as may be the case). 13. If authorized local wildlife management unit conservancies fail to report to the Ministry and account for their actions, or otherwise do not comply with the criteria or procedures outlined in the delegation of authority, the delegation can be revoked at any time and grounds for prosecution investigated if illegal activity is suspected. 33 Annex 3: HWC Decision-making frameworks 1. Decision process to determine appropriate management action in areas with human-wildlife conflict • Is there a human wildlife problem in the area? If the answer is no, then no further action should be taken. If the answer is yes, proceed to next question. • Is the area a conservation area? If the answer is yes, implement community awareness and protection strategies, and remove problem individuals. If the answer is no, proceed to the next question. • Can animals (wildlife) be managed in the area so that benefits of maintaining them are greater than those of removing them? If the answer is yes, develop and implement plans to manage wildlife sustainably in the area, implement community awareness and protection strategies, remove problem individuals and monitor. If the answer is no, proceed to the next question. • Can land use be planned to accommodate wildlife cost-effectively? If the answer is no, remove the animals (wildlife). If the answer is yes, develop and implement plans to manage wildlife sustainably in the area, implement community awareness and protection strategies, remove problem individuals and monitor. 2. Framework for deciding when a problem-causing animal should be destroyed Introduction This decision-making framework provides the foundation for taking a decision that a problem-causing animal should be destroyed. It poses a number of questions, the answers to which lead to the next level of question and ultimately to a decision to destroy the animal concerned. Decision-making framework • Has the report of the problem been received in sufficient time to enable the specific problem-causing animal to be located and destroyed? If not, then no further action should be taken. The reason for taking no further action should be explained to the person(s) making the report. If yes, proceed to next question. • Has the animal (or animals) a) Injured or killed a person? b) Persistently killed livestock? c) Remained close to a settlement, behaving aggressively such that residents feel threatened? Or would further problems be caused if the animal(s) concerned is not destroyed. If the answer is “no” to all of these questions, then no further action should be taken and the reasons explained to the person(s) making the report. If the answer to one of these questions is “yes” then proceed to the next question. 34 • Can the animal be identified, located and destroyed with resources directly available to the MET/local wildlife management unit? If the answer is no, then the MET/local wildlife management unit should determine whether a professional hunter can find a client to destroy the animal within sufficient time for the specific animal to be located. If the MET/local wildlife management unit does not have the resources and no professional hunter and client can be found in time then no further action should be taken. If the MET/local wildlife management unit has the resources to take action or a professional hunter and client are available, then proceed to the next question. • Will the destruction of the specific animal(s) at least in part resolve a problem? If the answer is no, then no further action should be taken. If the answer is yes, then the decision should be taken to destroy the animal. 35 ANNEXURE 4: Implementation Action Plan 1 Strategies Activities/Tasks Baseline Possible Indicator(s) Lead Agency Supporting Partners Time frame Cost N$ 1. Research and Monitoring Establish a national data base for human wildlife conflict management Standard forms available Computerized and file system established MET NACSO GIZ 2018 250 000 Establish an “Early Warning System” for reporting human wildlife conflict incidents Some elephants and predators already collared Functional system at regional offices established for elephants and predators MET Researchers 2018 10,000,000 Create a “Rapid Response Unit” in the MET None Unit that includes a Veterinarian established at MET head office MET NGOs Researchers 2018 2,000,000 Carry out research on the social behavior and movement of certain species or /and sub populations to inform human wildlife conflict management None Mapping on the movement on the elephants, predators and other large herbivores, and wildlife corridors established MET NGOs Researchers 2018 and ongoing 2, 500, 000 Establish target population levels for certain species or/and sub populations to reduce human wildlife conflict None Target populations identified MET NGOs Researchers Farmers Conservancies 2019 500 000 2. Duty of care, land use planning and integrated measures to avoid human wildlife conflict Conduct EIA for specific projects to avoid human wildlife conflict None EIAs produced MET Proponents 2018 and ongoing 250 000 Identify areas with chronic problems as HWC zones and provide necessary support None Chronic problem areas identified MET NACSO 2018 300 000 Develop Integrated Regional Land Use Plans that takes into account zonation plans for wildlife and mitigation measures for human wildlife conflict thereof Land Use Plan for Kavango East Region exists At least three Land Use Plans with more HWC incidents produced MET MLR 2018 and ongoing 5,000,000 2 Strategies Activities/Tasks Baseline Possible Indicator(s) Lead Agency Supporting Partners Time frame Cost N$ 3. Human Capacity and Resources Create a Coordination Unit for human wildlife conflict at national level Two staff members already appointed Functional unit appointed and equipped MET OPM 2018 3,000,000 Establish a Human Wildlife Conflict Management Unit in each region Staff members from the current staff establishment exist Reorganized staff structure of the Directorate of Wildlife and National Parks to create Human Wildlife Conflict Management Unit put in place and functional MET OPM 2018 – 2019 50,000,000 4. Community care and engagement Create sufficient economic and other benefits from the use of wildlife so that rural communities and farmers view wildlife as an asset rather than a liability Six community concessions already awarded Ten more community concessions awarded MET NACSO 2018 and ongoing 500 000 Explore legal channels for commercial farmers, and leasehold and/or resettlement farmers to derive economic benefits from wildlife None Legal mechanisms created for benefits to farmers, leasehold and resettlement farmers MET MLR Farmers Unions 2019 and ongoing 850 000 5. Delegation of decision-making authority Provide delegation of powers by the Minister in the repeal of the Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975 (4 of 1975) Draft Protected Areas and Wildlife Management Bill available Nature Conservation Ordinance, 1975 (4 of 1975) repealed by the Protected Areas and Wildlife Management Act MET MoJ Attorney General 2018 500 000 Provide guidelines on how products derived from problem causing animals can be used Regulations available Amended Regulations to the current and future legislation and specific guidelines produced MET MoJ Attorney General NAMPARKS 2018 500 000 6. Removal of problem causing animals Remove problem causing animals when appropriate Number of animals already removed each year Animals to be removed identified MET NAPHA Professional Hunters 2019 350 000 Increase hunting quotas in the short term for certain species that cause human wildlife conflict Quotas for conservancies and other areas already exists Areas and species for increase of quota identified MET NACSO 2018 and ongoing 500 000 36 3 Strategies Activities/Tasks Baseline Possible Indicator(s) Lead Agency Supporting Partners Time frame Cost N$ 7. Appropriate technical solutions for mitigating human wildlife conflict Develop and implement technical solutions and mitigation measures for each region to reduce human wildlife conflict Guidelines for implementation of the current HWCM Policy exists Revised guidelines for implementation of the HWC Policy developed and approved MET Line Ministries Communities Farmers NACSO 2018 300 000 8. Disaster Management Ensure that human wildlife conflict management is part of the disaster risk management and disaster risk reduction programmes None Incorporation of HWCM as part of disaster risk management and disaster risk reduction programmes MET OPM Regional Councils 2018 100 000 Ensure that preventative and mitigation measures are provided for during times of drought and floods in the country None Preventative and mitigation measures put in place MET OPM Line Ministries Communities Farmers NACSO 2018 and ongoing 35,000,000 9. Application of revenues from problem causing animals to avoid future conflicts and to address the losses of affected persons Ensure that income derived from hunting or sale of problem causing animals is applied to avoid future conflicts between humans and wildlife None Income generated applied as such MET Conservancies Farmers 2018 and ongoing 1,500,000 10. Protected Areas Neighbors and Residents Provide economic and other benefits from Protected Areas to park neighbours and residents Six community concessions already awarded Ten more concessions awarded MET NACSO 2018 and ongoing 500 000 Upgrade, rehabilitate and maintain the fence of Etosha National Park to prevent elephants and predator conflict with neighbours 120 kilometers upgraded At least 400 kilometers completed MET MoF NPC 2018 and ongoing 500,000,000 4 Strategies Activities/Tasks Baseline Possible Indicator(s) Lead Agency Supporting Partners Time frame Cost N$ 11. Human Wildlife Conflict Management Schemes Create a programme or project within the MET to support implementation of mitigation and preventative measures for human wildlife conflict management None Programme/project established in MET MET MoF NPC NGOs Development partners 2018 and ongoing 500,000,000 Establish a budget vote to support a programme for human wildlife conflict mitigation and preventative measures in the MET None Human wildlife conflict management vote created and budgeted for, for both operational and development budget MET MoJ NPC 2018 - 2019 0 Implement the Revised Human Wildlife Conflict Self Reliance Scheme Current HWC Self Reliance Scheme exists Revised HWC Self Reliance Scheme exists MET GPTF Conservancies 2018 and ongoing 4,000,000 per year Investigate and provide a system/plan for an insurance scheme for human death and injury caused by wild animals None Insurance scheme investigated and system put in place MET MoF WWF NACSO Development partners 2018 20,000,000 per year Investigate and provide a system/plan for an insurance scheme for human wildlife conflict livestock insurance scheme None Insurance scheme investigated and system put in place MET MoF WWF NACSO Development partners 2019 40,000,000 per year 12. Public awareness, stakeholder engagement and coordination Establish coordination forums for human wildlife conflict management Ad Hoc forums and committees exists Well established forums and committees MET Relevant appropriate stakeholders 2018 and ongoing 500 000 Hold regular meetings of stakeholders as part of awareness raising in reducing human wildlife conflict Ad Hoc meetings conducted Well established meetings conducted MET Relevant appropriate stakeholders 2018 and ongoing 500 000 Develop and disseminate human wildlife conflict management information material as part of awareness raising in reducing human wildlife conflict None Brochures, stickers, pamphlets,,etc. produced MET Relevant appropriate stakeholders 2018 and ongoing 10,000,000 per year 5 Strategies Activities/Tasks Baseline Possible Indicator(s) Lead Agency Supporting Partners Time frame Cost N$ 13. Resource mobilization Provide budget under MET to implement human wildlife conflict programmes and projects None Funding provided under MET annual budget MET MoF NPC 2018 and ongoing 30,000,000 per year Conduct fundraising for implementation of human wildlife conflict management programmers and projects One fundraising event conducted One fundraising event conducted per year MET MoF NGOs Development partners 2019 300 000