Sunday 15 / December / 2024
Windhoek: Google the words "cull," "hunting" and "Namibia" and hundreds of search results will appear going back years.
They advertise opportunities to indulge in "luxurious accommodations" and the country's "finest cuisine," while hunting wild animals such as wildebeest, oryx and zebra.
As counterintuitive as it may seem, trophy and cull hunting are part of long-standing land management in Namibia, a strategy referred to as "sustainable use" by some conservationists and game hunting companies that is aimed at protecting ecosystems and boosting wildlife numbers.
Profits from hunts go back into conservation and local communities, and game meat is distributed locally or sold, according to the government.
Namibia is currently leaning into this strategy as a means of providing meat to locals, while simultaneously easing pressure on water and vegetation amid the country's worst drought in 100 years.
With water levels critical, wildlife, livestock and crops are dying and 1.4 million people — half of the country's population — are going hungry.
An so, in a move that has sparked international outrage, the government is in the process of culling 640 animals such as buffalo and zebra in national parks and communal areas as well as 83 elephants in places identified as "hot spots" for human-wildlife conflict.
Some of the animals will be sold to trophy hunters via lucrative hunting licenses, profits that will then be used to improve water supplies at national parks. The meat from the trophy and cull hunts will be distributed to people most in need.
But for critics, the plan is shortsighted and won't make any real impact on the numbers facing hunger.
"What's really needed here are long-term sustainable solutions," Abigail Forsyth, a campaign manager at animal rights group PETA, told DW. "We know that the United Nations is already working to help address Namibia's needs. And we've already urged them to make further efforts with other programs, like the World Food Programme."
The Namibian Chamber of Environment (NCE), a nongovernmental network of conservation groups, said opponents were trying to "manufacture international outrage over audacity of an African country to help itself in a time of crisis rather than waiting for handouts from developed countries."
"They are really double standards being applied here, severe double standards," said Chris Brown, an environmental scientist and head of the NCE.
Culling is part of Namibia's environmental strategy
Brown, who previously worked for the country's Environment Ministry, said culling is a common way to protect delicate ecosystems in the arid country.
Namibia has around 2.5 to 3 million wild animals, according to the NCE. Up to 360,000 are killed for their meat every year, with more taken off in drought years in fenced national parks and farms, where animals cannot migrate in search of other food sources.
"In drought conditions, you have to be responsive, as you damage your vegetation," said Brown. "In these arid areas it takes a long, long time for rangeland to recover, not years, but sometimes decades. When the rain does come, the recovery is very limited."
'Animals shouldn't be slaughtered to generate money'
Brown also points out that living near lions, leopards and elephants can be a "pain," adding that farmers in Europe don't want to live with wolves or foxes on their land. If a herd of elephants turns up, looking for water and can't find any, they get "grumpy," and push water tanks over, pull up pipes and even swing a trunk at humans, he said.
Sharing the income generated from controlled hunting encourages farmers and locals to live with these animals, rather than harming them, according to the NCE.
"Our challenge is to find ways in which we can incentivize people wanting to live with wildlife, making it worth their while, and one of the ways is by shooting the odd elephant," said Brown. That incentive comes either in the form of money from selling hunting licenses, game meat and jobs linked to the hunting sector.
But for PETA's Forsyth, trophy hunting isn't the answer to protecting wildlife.
"Trophy hunting has nothing to do with conservation and animals shouldn't be slaughtered to generate money. The numbers just don't add up," she said, calling on governments instead to focus on creating jobs and income through safari tourism.
But the NCE pointed to the jump in elephant populations from around 7,000 in the mid-1990s to around 24,000 today as proof of success of the country's conservation model.
"The elephant population is prospering very well here indeed. Because people are prepared to live with elephants," said Brown.
In a letter written by a group of Namibian conservationists and scientists calling for a stop to the cull
, the authors accused African countries of "significantly inflating" elephant populations to "monetize the last of the species." They point to a general decline in numbers across the continent from 5 million in 1900 to 400,000 today.
The conservationists said that killing even a few elephants in a herd can have devastating consequences. Traumatized animals can be more aggressive toward humans, and they suggest using other "humane population control methods" like contraception to reduce the risk of human-wildlife conflict.
Is eating game really dangerous?
Critics of Namibia's planned cull also warn that handling and processing wild animals can help deadly pathogens make the jump from wildlife to humans.
"The risks of butchering and consuming wild animals puts Namibia's population at risk and it also puts the wider global health at risk," said Forsyth, citing zoonotic diseases like HIV/AIDS and Ebola. "It's certainly a risk of any of these diseases or a pandemic that we haven't seen yet."
A 2022 review published by the International Union for Conservation of Nature
found that wildlife trade and hunting was not a main driver of zoonosis, with just one or two confirmed cases of such transmission out of a billion.
While the authors said the risks from the wildlife trade and hunting shouldn't be ignored, most zoonoses cases come from "animal-based-food systems and insects" as well as "agricultural intensification and expansion, and […] destruction of tropical forests."
