‘Local hunting’ and community-based natural resource management in Namibia: Contestations and livelihoods

Abstract

The argument in this paper is not commonly made in the conservation literature. We argue that 'poaching' and 'illegal hunting' are inadequate concepts for understanding why local forms of hunting persist despite their being banned and criminalised. A 'poacher' 'poaches' because a set of institutionalised rules recognises and identifies him or her as such. Instead, we propose to use the concept 'local hunting' and 'local hunters'. We also argue that conservation policies and specifically the creation of environmental subjects, conservancy's distributional politics and a contrasting ontological foundation of community-based conservation play keys role in explaining the continuity of 'local hunting'. More space is needed to situate local hunters and their hunting practices and motivations in the broader conservation discourse and policies.

Does money “buy” tolerance toward damage‐causing wildlife?

“…Crowding out was more likely when feelings of autonomy were not met (Akers & Yasué, 2019). In Namibia, monetary benefits are small at the individual level, and the income from wildlife is not sufficient to sustain livelihoods (Lubilo & Hebinck, 2019; Muyengwa, 2015). However, in‐kind benefits include meat from trophy hunting and special hunts for cultural festivals, which is appreciated by most (Lubilo & Hebinck, 2019; Muyengwa, 2015; Stomer et al, 2019).…”

“…The monetary benefits and other benefits such as meat distribution, assistance with funeral expenses, student bursaries, assistance with chasing wildlife from fields and the sense of belonging (Mosimane & Silva, 2014), may be adequate to motivate an intrinsic “warm glow” feeling. Although these benefits are small when looking at the household level (Lubilo & Hebinck, 2019; Muyengwa, 2015), they may be sufficient to elicit the higher intrinsic appreciation of wildlife and ultimately tolerance. In support of the second motivation, the higher tolerance and nonmonetary benefits represent positive attitudes toward wildlife and may be due to feelings of appreciation from the monetary benefits.…”

The making of a conservation landscape: the emergence of a conservationist environmental infrastructure along the Kwando River in Namibia's Zambezi region

“…While the local population was not actively engaged in commercial hunting, subsistence hunting made an important contribution to local livelihoods (and continues to do so today; see Lubilo and Hebinck 2019). Large animals such as hippos and buffalo were hunted as much as antelopes and other wildlife – albeit mainly by traditional means.…”

Development visions, livelihood realities – how conservation shapes agricultural value chains in the Zambezi region, Namibia

“…The institutional setting is simultaneously constituted by internal norms and values and externally implemented visions and regulations. In the case of CBNRM, novel institutions are for instance the establishment of a conservancy management board, the development of zonation maps to allocate land-use towards tourism, wildlife and agricultural areas and the management of income that is generated by the conservancy body (Mosimane & Silva 2015;Lenggenhager 2018). Thus, livelihood strategies are not developed individually and out of context; rather, they are shaped by structural conditions and institutional settings (Scoones et al 2012;Vicol et al 2018).…”

“…Communal conservancies are a decentralised form of land-use and environmental management, which transfer authority to an organised committee, and offer the community opportunities to benefit primarily from tourism revenues (e.g. Bandyopadhyay et al 2009;Lubilo & Hebinck 2019). Such Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) manifests in small, mosaic-like territories, where the institutional context significantly differs from institutions regulating communal land-use (Gargallo 2020).…”