Conservation and the Environment in Namibia 2025

CONSERVATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT IN NAMIBIA 2025

WHY DO WE NEED PLANT DATA? AT A CROSSROADS THE OKAVANGO

WADDLE WE DO WITHOUT THE PENGUINS? ON THE BRINK OF EXTINCTION

HOW CAMERA TRAPS ARE SAFEGUARDING NAMIBIA’S NATURAL HERITAGE

FAST FACTS ON NAMIBIA

824,268 km²

21 March 1990 INDEPENDENCE:

CURRENT PRESIDENT: Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah

Multiparty parliament

Democratic constitution Division of power between executive, legislature and judiciary

Secular state

Christian freedom of religion

SURFACE AREA: Windhoek CAPITAL: 90%

MAIN PRIVATE SECTORS: Mining, Manufacturing, Fishing and Agriculture 46%

BIGGEST EMPLOYER: Agriculture

FASTEST-GROWING SECTOR: Information Communication Industry

Diamonds, uranium, copper, lead, zinc, magnesium, cadmium, arsenic, pyrites, silver, gold, lithium minerals, dimension stones (granite, marble, blue sodalite) and many semiprecious stones

CURRENCY:

The Namibian Dollar (N$) is fixed to and on par with the SA Rand. The South African Rand is also legal tender.

Foreign currency, international Visa, MasterCard, American Express and Diners Club credit cards are accepted.

TAX AND CUSTOMS

All goods and services are priced to include value-added tax of 15%. Visitors may reclaim VAT.

ENQUIRIES: Namibia Revenue Agency (NamRA) Tel (+264) 61 209 2259 in Windhoek

Public transport is NOT available to all tourist destinations in Namibia.

There are bus services from Windhoek to Swakopmund as well as Cape Town/Johannesburg/Vic Falls.

Namibia’s main railway line runs from the South African border, connecting Windhoek to Swakopmund in the west and Tsumeb in the north.

There is an extensive network of international and regional flights from Windhoek and domestic charters to all destinations.

NATURE RESERVES: of surface area

ROADS:

HIGHEST MOUNTAIN: Brandberg

HARBOURS: Walvis Bay, Lüderitz

Spitzkoppe, Moltkeblick, Gamsberg

PERENNIAL RIVERS: Orange, Kunene, Okavango, Zambezi and Kwando/Linyanti/Chobe

EPHEMERAL RIVERS:

Numerous, including Fish, Kuiseb, Swakop and Ugab

FLORA

20% 14 400 680

OTHER PROMINENT MOUNTAINS: vegetation zones species of trees

MAIN AIRPORTS: Hosea Kutako International Airport, Eros Airport

RAIL NETWORK:

TELECOMMUNICATIONS:

6.2 telephone lines per 100 inhabitants

MOBILE COMMUNICATION SYSTEM:

Direct-dialling facilities to 221 countries

GSM agreements with 150

species of lichen

LIVING FOSSIL PLANT: Welwitschia mirabilis

BIG GAME:

Elephant, lion, rhino, buffalo, cheetah, leopard, giraffe

20 antelope species

250 mammal species (14 endemic)

256 699

50 reptile species

ENDEMIC BIRDS including Herero Chat, Rockrunner, Damara Tern, Monteiro’s Hornbill and Dune Lark frog species

Most tap water is purified and safe to drink.

Visitors should exercise caution in rural areas.

0.4182 medical doctor per 1,000 people privately run hospitals in Windhoek with intensive-care units

4

Medical practitioners (world standard) 24-hour medical emergency services

3.1 million DENSITY: 3.8 per km²

461,000 inhabitants in Windhoek (15% of total) OFFICIAL LANGUAGE:

13 ethnic cultures 16 languages and dialects

LITERACY RATE: 1.8% POPULATION GROWTH RATE:

EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS: over 1,900 schools, various vocational and tertiary institutions bird species

GMT + 2 hours

220 volts AC, 50hz, with outlets for round three-pin type plugs

FOREIGN REPRESENTATION

More than 50 countries have Namibian consular or embassy representation in Windhoek.

PUBLISHING EDITORS

Elzanne McCulloch elzanne@venture.com.na

Gail Thomson gailsfelines@gmail.com

PRODUCTION

Liza Lottering liza@venture.com.na

LAYOUT & DESIGN

Richmond Ackah Jnr. design@venture.com.na

CUSTOMER SERVICE

Bonn Nortjé bonn@venture.com.na

PRINTERS

John Meinert Printing, Windhoek

The editorial content of Conservation and the Environment in Namibia is contributed by the Namibia Chamber of Environment, freelance journalists, employees of the Namibian Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) and NGOs. It does not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies held by MEFT or the publisher. No part of the magazine may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher. Conservation and the Environment in Namibia is published by Venture Publications Pty Ltd in Windhoek, Namibia www.venture.com.na Tel: +264 81 285 7450, 5 Conradie Street, Windhoek PO Box 21593, Windhoek, Namibia

ABOUT VENTURE Media

SHARING STORIES THAT MATTER.

That’s our mantra at Venture Media. Sharing stories, information and inspiration to an audience that understand and value why certain things matter. Why conservation, tourism, people & communities, businesses and ethics matter.

How these elements interrelate and how we can bring about change, contribute to the world and support each other. Whether for an entire nation, an industry, a community, or even just an individual.

We find, explore, discover, teach, showcase and share stories that matter.

www.venture.com.na or email us at info@venture.com.na for a curated proposal.

In 2021, we're focussing on telling and sharing STORIES THAT MATTER acros riou tal p urney and share your s wi ders ertain things matter

tion communities matter

w t elat ng about change, ute por er for an entire nation mun dividual

from the PUBLISHER

Guardians of a Changing World

Each year, as we compile Conservation and the Environment in Namibia, I am reminded that conservation is as much about people as it is about nature. Behind every project, every set of data, every animal protected or tree replanted, there are individuals – scientists, community members, students, and rangers – driven by purpose and hope. They are the guardians of a changing world.

This year’s edition arrives at a critical moment. Namibia’s conservation landscape is evolving rapidly, facing pressures that are both old and new. From the fragile flow of the Okavango and the decline of our African Penguins, to the lesser-seen threats to woodlands and nearendemic plants, the stories in these pages reveal the complexity of protecting what we hold dear. They also reflect innovation and courage: communities coexisting with elephants, scientists gathering long-term plant and carbon data to guide future policy, and creative solutions to the challenges of human–wildlife conflict.

The truth is that conservation is no longer just about saving species; it’s about sustaining systems. It’s about understanding that an elephant herd in Kunene, a pangolin in Nyae Nyae, and a waterway in Kavango are all part of the same lifeline. It’s about acknowledging that the health of our environment defines our own well-being as Namibians.

Amid uncertainty, there is also resilience. Across the country, new generations of conservationists are emerging – young Namibians who see science and stewardship not as opposing worlds but as shared responsibilities. They are equipped with knowledge, technology, and passion, and they remind us that hope is an active choice.

As publishers, our role is to ensure that these stories continue to be told, that truth is amplified, and that collective awareness translates into action. Because only when we understand why something matters, do we truly begin to protect it.

Thank you to every contributor, researcher, and organisation featured in this issue, and to our readers, who continue to champion stories that matter. Together, we keep the conversation alive, and with it, the vision of a future where people and planet thrive side by side.

Yours in conservation,

Elzanne McCulloch

ABOUT NAMIBIAN CHAMBER OF ENVIRONMENT

The Namibian Chamber of Environment (NCE) is a membership-based and -driven umbrella organisation established as a voluntary association under Namibian Common Law to support and promote the interests of the environmental NGO sector and its work. The Members constitute the Council – the highest decision-making organ of the NCE. The Council elects Members to the Executive Committee at an AGM to oversee and give strategic direction to the work of the NCE Secretariat. The Secretariat (staff) of the NCE comprise a CEO and Office Manager. Only the Office Manager is employed full-time. The NCE currently has 67 Full Members – Namibian registered NGOs whose main business, or a significant portion of whose business, comprises involvement in and promotion of environmental matters in Namibia; and 13 Associate Members – individuals running environmental programmes and non-Namibian NGOs likewise involved in local to national environmental matters in Namibia. A list of Members follows. For more information on each Member, their contact details and website link, please go to the NCE website at www.n-c-e.org/members.

THE NCE HAS FOUR ASPIRATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND FIVE OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES AS FOLLOWS:

Aspirational Objectives

• Conserve the natural environment

• Protect indigenous biodiversity and endangered species

• Promote best environmental practices

• Support efforts to prevent and reduce environmental degradation and pollution

Operational Objectives

• Represent the environmental interests of Members

• Act as a consultative forum for Members

• Engage with policy- and lawmakers to improve environmental policy and its implementation

• Build environmental skills in young Namibians

• Support and advise Members on environmental matters and facilitate access to environmental information

The NCE espouses the following key values:

• To uphold the fundamental rights and freedoms entrenched in Namibia’s Constitution and laws, including the principles of sustainable use, protection of biodiversity and inter-generational equity;

• To promote compliance with, uphold and share environmental best practice, recognising that the Earth’s resources are finite, and that human health and wellbeing are inextricably linked to environmental health;

• To recognise that environmental best practice is best promoted by implementing the following seven principles: sustainability, polluter pays, precautionary, equity, effectiveness and efficiency, human rights and participation;

• To develop skills, expertise and passion in young Namibians on environmental issues;

• To ensure political and ideological neutrality, be evidence-based and counter fake information; and

• To promote inclusiveness and to fiercely and fearlessly reject any form of discrimination.

TO EFFECTIVELY IMPLEMENT THESE OBJECTIVES AND VALUES, THE NCE HAS DEVELOPED EIGHT STRATEGIC PROGRAMME AREAS:

1. Support to Members

The NCE provides office facilities, boardroom, internet and safe parking for its out-of-town Members when in Windhoek. In partnership with EcoWings Namibia and FlyNamibia / Westair, two Cessna 182s and a Piper Cub are available for conservation purposes such as aerial surveys, radio-tracking and anti-poaching work. Our three 4x4 Toyota Hilux double-cab vehicles have become too costly to maintain. They have been sold and in early 2025, a new 4x4 will be purchased for use by Members for their conservation work; registration and research permit facilitation; and any other support requested by Members.

2. National facilitation

The NCE organises symposia and workshops on topical and priority issues; supports the development of strategic Best Practice Guides at sector level, the first on mining, the second (in preparation) reviews policy and legislation on and/or impacting Namibia’s environment; facilitates collaboration on conservation assessments and action plans, the latest being Namibia’s Carnivore Red Data Book (http://the-eis.com/ elibrary/search/27193); and representing the sector and Members on national bodies.

3. Environmental information

The NCE hosts and supports the development of Namibia’s Environmental Information Service (EIS at www.the-eis.com) in partnership with Paratus Telecom, a one-stop-shop for all environmental information on Namibia. The EIS comprises an e-library with over 30,435 reports, publications, maps, data sets, theses, etc., which are searchable and down-loadable. Included are all Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) reports since 2020 (over 5,700), over 800 wildlife survey reports and counts (some going back to 1926), and wildlife crime reports (over 4,000). It provides an Atlasing platform for citizen science data collection that currently covers mammals, reptiles, amphibians, butterflies, plants (both indigenous and invasive alien) and archaeology. Records are conveniently entered via a free cell phone App.

The NCE has also established a free, open access scientific e-journal – Namibian Journal of Environment – now in its ninth year (www. nje.org.na). The NCE and Venture Media’s environmental website “Conservation Namibia” (www.conservationnamibia.com) tells Namibia’s conservation stories via blogs, factsheets, video and articles from this magazine. The NCE informs the public on topical environmental issues on its website (www.n-c-e.org), Facebook page, X (Twitter) feed and LinkedIN profile. The Namibian Environment and Wildlife Society (NEWS) with support from the NCE recently launched a new tool to help stakeholders and the public better engage with EIAs – the EIA Tracker (https://eia-tracker.org.na/), a transparent, user-friendly system that presents and maintains information on all

development projects that require EIAs, with a current database of 2,298 proposed and existing projects.

4. Environmental advocacy

The NCE addresses national threats to Namibia’s environment and natural resources by first attempting to work constructively with the relevant government or other entity but, if necessary, through public exposure. The NCE has addressed the issue of Chinese incentivised poaching and illegal trade in specially protected wildlife, the overfishing of pilchards in Namibian waters, illegal and unsustainable timber harvesting and export, and the need to reduce and eliminate single-use plastic from Namibia’s environment.

In 2024, it published a position paper on the proposed hydrogen developments for the Tsau ||Khaeb (Sperrgebiet) National Park, explaining that this product is correctly termed red hydrogen due to the major potential impacts on biodiversity (https://n-c-e.org/ wp-content/uploads/Green-hydrogen-Tsau-Khaeb-National-ParkNCE-Position-Paper.pdf). This year, NCE produced a series of films showcasing Namibia’s Wildlife Economy – including a 7-minute teaser, a 36-minute full film, and 11 interviews of varying lengths featuring MEFT, community leaders, hunters and game ranchers, and non-government conservation organisations. The purpose of this film is to help people who are not familiar with the concept of the wildlife economy and the role of hunting in conservation –especially Western policy-makers and decision-makers – to be better informed on this issue and reduce their pressure on Namibia and its neighbouring countries for taking this approach to conservation. The NCE also produced an opinion on the in-situ leach uranium mining in the transboundary Stampriet aquifer in the Kalahari. Our position is simple – you don’t pollute and contaminate one of our most important groundwater resources for years and decades for short-term uranium mining benefits. This would put at risk the entire economy of the Kalahari, and many sectors beyond this aquifer (https:// conservationnamibia.com/blog/uranium-leach-mining.php).

Elzanne McCulloch

It has also initiated a highly successful pangolin reward scheme in partnership with MEFT, some NCE Members and communities. The scheme rewards people for providing information on pangolin trafficking leading to arrests – more than 300 criminal cases opened and over 500 people arrested and charged.

5. Environmental policy research

When we talk about the “environment” we mean the interrelationship of ecological, social and economic aspects – essentially sustainable development. This is appropriate for a country with an economy reliant mainly on natural resource-based primary production where ecological and socio-economic issues are two sides of the same coin. However, this conceptual approach is rarely understood by people from western industrialised countries who think of environment as being just the green environment. To get around this problem, the NCE has established a socio-economic / livelihoods component that works seamlessly with the environmental component and focusses mainly on the urban environment. Over 50% of Namibians now live in towns and the city of Windhoek, with a projected rise to 70% by 2030. The priority areas of focus are access to affordable urban land for housing, appropriate sanitation, solid waste management, energy and research on the economics of poverty.

6. Young Namibian training and mentorship

Over the past eight academic years (2018-2025) the NCE in partnership with Woodtiger Fund has provided 270 post-graduate bursaries in the broad environmental field (including subjects such as biodiversity conservation, natural resources management, wildlife and tourism management, sustainable agriculture, water, forestry and fisheries management, climate change mitigation and adaptation, renewable energy, data and spatial science, risk and change management, leadership, through to environmental economics, environmental law, environmental engineering) and 52 internships, mainly for NCE bursaryholders, that involves close mentoring by experienced environmental professionals. The aim is to build the capacity and confidence of young Namibians to become the environmental leaders of tomorrow.

In 2024, NCE supported the establishment of the Namibian Youth Chamber of Environment, which seeks to inspire and equip young (18-35 years) Namibians with the confidence and skills to advocate for the environment during their studies, within their communities and in their professional settings. NYCE was formally established during their first AGM held in June 2024. They are active on social media, using Instagram, TikTok and WhatsApp to reach young people interested in the environment across the country. Current membership stands at 335 individuals and eight youth organisations, with members from all 14 regions of Namibia. This year, NYCE held a successful Arbour Day in collaboration with the Schools Environmental Clubs of Namibia to get scholars and students involved in tree planting and to learn more about Namibia’s indigenous plants. They also hold regular clean-up campaigns, webinars, and quizzes to keep their membership engaged and inspired.

7. Fund raising

Core funding for the NCE is currently provided by B2Gold. This means that all additional funding received is invested directly into environmental projects and programmes – there are no overhead costs. The NCE focuses on corporate support and avoids targeting funding sources that may compete with its Members. The corporate sector assists with fund raising by approaching their clients, partners and networks. Our main sponsors are shown on the back cover.

8. Grants making

Funds raised by the NCE are used strategically to support priority environmental projects and programmes in Namibia. Emphasis is placed on legacy initiatives that have tangible outcomes. These are often based on national policy and bring together government and NGO partners, communities and the private sector, and frequently lead to investments by larger bilateral or multi-lateral funding organisations. An on-line grant application process allows NCE Members to apply for funding. To date 229 grants have been awarded, to the value of just under N$ 32 million, with 90% going to NCE Members. Some of these projects are showcased in this magazine.

MEMBERS

FULL MEMBERS

A. Speiser Environmental Consultants cc

African Conservation Services cc

Africat Foundation

Ameib Scientific Station

Anchor Environmental Consultants (Pty) Ltd

Ashby Associates cc

Biodiversity Research Centre, NUST (BRC-NUST)

Botanical Society of Namibia

Brown Hyena Research Project Trust Fund

Bwabwata Living Museum

Canyon Nature Trust

Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF)

Conservancy Association of Namibia (CANAM)

Desert Lion Conservation Trust

Development Workshop Namibia (DWN)

Environmental Assessment Professionals Association of Namibia (EAPAN)

Earthlife Namibia

Eco Awards Namibia

Eco-logic Environmental Management Consultancy cc

EduVentures

Elephant Human Relations Aid (EHRA)

Environmental Compliance Consulting (ECC)

EnviroScience

Felines Communication and Conservation Consultants cc

Giraffe Conservation Foundation (GCF)

Gobabeb Research and Training Centre

Greenspace

Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC)

JARO Consultancy

Kwando Carnivore Project

LM Environmental Consultants

Museums Association of Namibia

N/a’an ku sê Foundation

Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations (NACSO)

Namib Desert Environmental Education Trust (NaDEET)

Namibia Archaeological Trust

Namibia Biomass Industry Group (N-BiG)

Namibia Bird Club

Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF)

Namibia Professional Hunting Association (NAPHA)

Namibia Scientific Society (NSS)

Namibian Environment and Wildlife Society (NEWS)

Namibian Hydrogeological Association

NamibRand Nature Reserve

Namibian Beekeeping Association

Nyae Nyae Development Foundation of Namibia (NNDFN)

Ocean Conservation Namibia

Omba Arts Trust

Ongava Game Reserve / Research Centre

Orange River-Karoo Conservation Area (ORKCA)

Otjikoto Trust

Pangolin Conservation and Research Foundation

ProNamib Nature Reserve

Progress Namibia TAS cc

Rare and Endangered Species Trust (REST)

Research and Information Services of Namibia (RAISON)

Rooikat Trust

Save The Rhino Trust (SRT)

Scientific Society Swakopmund

Seeis Conservancy

SLR Environmental Consulting

Southern African Institute of Environmental Assessment (SAIEA)

SunCycles Namibia

Sustainable Solutions Trust

Tourism Supporting Conservation Trust (TOSCO)

Twin Hills Trust

Venture Media

ASSOCIATE MEMBERS

Bell, Maria A

Black-footed Cat Research Project Namibia

Bockmühl, Frank

Desert Elephant Conservation

Irish, Dr John

Kolberg, Herta

Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research

Lukubwe, Dr Michael S

Namibia Animal Rehabilitation, Research and Education Centre (NARREC)

Seabirds and Marine Ecosystems Programme

Sea Search Research and Conservation (Namibia Dolphin Project)

Strohbach, Dr Ben

Wild Bird Rescue

Foreword

Namibia is in desperate need of truly sustainable development. Even using a very broad definition of “employed” (if you have worked at least one hour in the past week), our unemployment rate sits at an unacceptably high 55%, and a shocking 61% among young Namibians. All sectors of the country should be seized with addressing this issue, including the environmental sector. Yet the particular responsibility of our sector is to ensure that development is sustainable and thereby benefits future generations of Namibians as well as those alive today.

NCE’s stance on various development projects proposed during recent years reflects this responsibility. We support projects and ideas that have strong potential for creating economic growth and jobs with environmental impacts that are well-understood and can be mitigated through responsible management. Among these are responsible mining, including marine phosphate dredging, and the developing offshore oil and gas sector.

We do not support projects that produce relatively few jobs or economic benefits in relation to their environmental impacts. Examples of these are poorly managed mining operations in areas that are better suited for high-value tourism, in situ leach mining using the Stampriet Aquifer, exploring for oil and gas in the Okavango ecosystem, and developing hydrogen projects in the Tsau ||Khaeb (Sperrgebiet) National Park. Each project is assessed on its merits, taking into consideration the costs, benefits, risks and location, among other factors.

Namibia’s possible development pathways should be assessed at the national scale with an eye on global developments and our future. Each development project within a sector should therefore be evaluated in terms of its contributions to these larger outcomes. We take this approach to assessing Namibia’s energy sector, which is on the cusp of major change. Which energy options will deliver the maximum benefits and jobs for as many Namibians as possible, both today and in the future? Turn to p.74 to find out.

Wherever possible, we work with government to promote sustainable development initiatives, such as our recent film showcasing the wildlife economy. Yet it remains our responsibility as a Chamber to ring the alarm bells and stand against unsustainable development options whenever they are proposed.

Several articles in this year’s magazine tackle development-related challenges. In the ocean, the fisheries industry and marine biodiversity are suffering the consequences of corruption and unsustainable fishing quotas and practices over the last few decades (pp.40 and 71). Moving inland, the Okavango River system could collapse if nothing is done about unsustainable water use and development in the catchment areas and along its banks in Angola and Namibia, which would result in economic collapse for Botswana’s tourism sector (p.24).

Another important element of sound decision-making for sustainable development is science – collecting long-term, reliable data and analysing it to answer our most pressing questions is indispensable. On page 60 Prof. Morgan Hauptfleisch explains how science moves us away from arrogance with little knowledge towards a place of uncertainty with more knowledge, until we finally gain real understanding of complex socio-ecological issues.

Dedicated plant researchers (showcased on pp.18 and 50) are contributing valuable information to this cause. Science has led the way to a new classification system for giraffe (p.30), alerting the world to the dangers of lead bullets (p.44), and recording amazing hyaena behaviour (p.14). Combining scientific methods and local knowledge makes even greater gains for conservation, as illustrated for elephant conservation in communal conservancies (pp.10 and 56) and Namibia’s overall approach to community conservation (pp.36 and 66). In this regard, we support two very important platforms that make good quality information available to everyone free of charge. These are the Environmental Information Service (EIS) at www.the-eis.com and Conservation Namibia at conservationnamibia.com on which all the articles in this magazine are published to make them internationally available.

As you dive into the stories told by NCE members in this year’s edition, maintain a sustainable development perspective, noting how the environmental sector can contribute to Namibia’s prosperity, both now and for generations to come.

Yours in Conservation,

Chris Brown and Gail Thomson

Herd of elephants in the Huab River

Christin Winter

GUARDING PEOPLE AND THEIR ELEPHANTS

How Community Elephant Guards are working towards coexistence

Text and photos by: Elephant Human Relations Aid (EHRA)

Since 2003, Elephant-Human Relations Aid (EHRA) has been dedicated to implementing holistic solutions for human-elephant conflicts in Namibia’s northwest. We assess the diverse ways that free-roaming elephants negatively impact people’s lives and livelihoods, and trial and apply effective measures to foster peaceful coexistence. The ultimate aim is to safeguard elephant survival beyond national park boundaries by employing strategies centred on harmonious living and habitat protection.

EHRA launched the Elephant Guard Programme in 2019 as a boots-on-the-ground extension of its longstanding conflict prevention work, providing regular outreach, safety education, and rapid response to communities experiencing human-elephant conflict. The Community Elephant Guards are local people – respected members of their villages and conservancies – carefully chosen by traditional leaders or conservancy committees. This ensures deep trust and cultural alignment. Before taking on their vital roles, each Guard undergoes a long and rigorous training programme, which they must pass to be certified. This training equips them with the knowledge, skills, and confidence to respond effectively to complex situations involving elephants.

Although the programme paused during COVID-19 due to funding constraints, it was revived in 2022 and is now active in Sorris Sorris Conservancy, the greater Omatjete area, and around Fransfontein town. Five trained Community Elephant Guards work around the clock in these elephant conflict hotspots – including one outstanding female Guard who is breaking barriers and inspiring other women.

Human-elephant conflict is one of the main drivers of elephant population decline in northwest Namibia, and at the heart of this conflict lies fear and misunderstanding. EHRA’s educational PEACE Project (People and Elephants Amicably Co-Existing), launched in 2009, laid the foundation by training thousands of community members on how to safely interact with elephants and prevent conflict. The Elephant Guards now continue that legacy, becoming the trusted experts in their communities – first responders during emergencies, elephant educators, and compassionate listeners.

What is truly remarkable is how motivated these local communities are to take ownership of the situation themselves. Rather than outside actors stepping in, it is their own neighbours – people who share their daily lives and challenges – leading the way. This local leadership is transforming fear into agency, inspiring pride and proactive problem-solving.

The Elephant Guards’ daily work is as diverse as it is vital. One of their most important roles is providing live updates on collared elephant movements – a sort of elephant “weather app” that helps communities prepare for a visit. This real-time information, paired with in-person outreach, helps shift fear into empowerment.

When conflict occurs, the Guards are often the first to respond –day or night. They assess the damage, help with repairs, and offer immediate support. Equally important, they investigate the cause and recommend practical solutions, often using materials and knowledge already available within the community.

The numbers reflect their dedication. In the past year, Elephant Guards spent:

• 29.5% of their time on community outreach and training

• 20.6% responding to conflict and conducting repairs

• 16.6% attending community meetings to build trust

• 6.6% supporting Eco Clubs at schools

• 5.6% guarding homesteads and funerals during elephant activity

The remaining time was spent coordinating logistics, reporting data, and following up on prior incidents – work that often goes unseen but is essential to the programme’s success.

The results are tangible. As one villager, Mr. Sarob from Farm Arbeid, recalled: “I was walking with two friends when we bumped into elephants. They wanted to run, but I remembered what Taiwin [our Elephant Guard] had taught us – not to run, since there might be more elephants nearby. So, we climbed a hill instead. From there, we saw we were surrounded. That knowledge may have saved our lives.”

Types of elephant damages reported in the conservancies that EHRA works with

Elephants in the Sorris Sorris Conservancy after the rains

Head Elephant Guard (Sorris Sorris Conservancy), Taiwin Garoeb, assisting communal farmers with repairing damages caused by elephants

Elephant Guard (Fransfontein), Nicanor Ortner, during an elephant collaring operation

Christin Winter

The Guards are often called in the middle of the night when elephants approach villages. Residents are scared – sometimes too scared to implement what they’ve been taught. In these moments, Guards like Taiwin, the Head Guard for the western region, calmly stay on the phone, guiding people step by step through how to safely move elephants away from homesteads.

Perhaps most empowering is how the Guards help communities find low-cost, high-impact solutions using what they already have. One popular tactic involves the use of honey bee sounds, which elephants naturally avoid. While real beehive fences aren’t always feasible in this dry part of the country, villagers now download the buzzing of angry bees from YouTube and play them through phones, speakers, or even televisions when elephants approach.

“They know elephants are smart,” says Taiwin. “So they download several different versions to keep them guessing. And it works!” Thanks to the Elephant Guards, many families who once lived in constant fear now feel secure and confident. With protected water tanks, solar pumps replacing diesel, gardens surrounded by electrified fencing, and a growing toolbox of conflict mitigation strategies, attitudes are shifting. People are not only more accepting of elephants – they’re starting to feel proud of them.

“I used to be terrified of elephants. I didn’t want them. Now, I feel safe and I understand. I can enjoy the elephants now,” says Geraldine from Farm Irene. “And when my grandchildren visit, I show them the elephants. I’m proud they are here.”

In a world where coexistence often feels like a dream, EHRA’s Elephant Guards are proving that with the right knowledge, local leadership, and compassion, it’s a reality worth working for.

“Their passion, creativity, and commitment are what make this programme truly special,” reflects Christin Winter, EHRA’s Conservation Programme Manager. “This small team dreams big – and they are making that dream work.”

Frequency of human-elephant conflict incidents per month during 2024

PEACE Project Field Leader, Herman Kasaona, during a workshop

Brown hyaena vs. Cape fur seal

An epic struggle and a first for science

By: Gail Thomson

Photos by Marie Lemerle

Tivat, a female brown hyaena, was afraid of seals when she first encountered them. Over a few months, she learned to kill seal pups ‒ not unusual for a brown hyaena. Just one year after her first encounter with seals, Tivat did something that (to our knowledge) no other brown hyaena has achieved: she killed an adult Cape fur seal!

To understand this achievement, you need to know a little more about brown hyaenas. Every carnivore textbook will tell you that they are primarily scavengers, with only 6-16% of their meals coming from things they have killed. They are known to eat snakes, insects, and even fruits and vegetables!

The hyaenas living along the coastline of Namibia are renowned for killing seal pups, and probably hunt more than their inland relatives. Nonetheless, they prefer taking pups that are sleeping or not paying attention to their surroundings. The unsuspecting seal pup is quickly dispatched with a crushing bite to the head.

Dr Marie Lemerle of the Brown Hyena Research Project thought she had witnessed all of the brown hyaena’s hunting strategies, until Tivat showed up. “I’ve spent over 3,000 hours watching brown hyaenas foraging near seal colonies,” she says, “sometimes they pretend to be sleeping to get the pups to relax and forget that a predator is there; other times they dash into the colony and grab any pup that is too slow to get away.”

When Tivat first showed up at the Baker’s Bay seal colony south of Lüderitz, she was an unlikely candidate for pushing the boundaries of hyaena hunting abilities. “She was extremely skittish when we first spotted her in October 2023,” Lemerle recalls, “she even ran away from the seals!” The research team has since discovered that this hyaena most likely originates from an area without a seal colony, which explains her unusual nervousness.

In May 2024, after several months of visiting the seal colony, Tivat discovered what many other hyaenas had before her: seal pups are

quite easy to kill. By January 2025, she had become a prolific pup-killer, managing to take 12 of them in just over an hour of hunting.

Yet Tivat had already set her targets on bigger prey: “I was amazed to witness her trying to take down an adult female seal during October 2024, but unsurprised that her hunt was not successful.” After 90 seconds of struggling, the seal managed to escape. Dr Lemerle’s assumption that Tivat was being overly ambitious is based on her knowledge of the species and extensive personal observations.

Brown hyaenas have never before been recorded taking down prey larger than themselves. Hyaenas only weigh 50 kg maximum, while the average weight of a female Cape fur seal is 57 kg (the massive male seals weigh over 240 kg). Only lions are known to successfully hunt adult Cape fur seals from the land, as recorded by Dr Philip Stander on the Skeleton Coast. Lions are way above brown hyaenas in the predator pecking order, so surely Tivat’s dream of killing an adult seal was unrealistic?

That assumption was shattered on 9 July 2025. Lemerle and Natacha Anglade (a Master of Science student) spent the whole day at Baker’s Bay seal colony, watching from different vantage points. Their patience paid off, as they witnessed something that no scientist had before.

Tivat arrived at the colony in mid-morning and started creating havoc among the seals. She ran up to each group of seals in turn, causing most of them to flee into the sea. Sometimes, the seals would charge back at her, ‘knowing’ that they are too big for a brown hyaena to subdue. One struggle lasted only three seconds before the seal freed itself from the hyaena’s grip.

Tivat was undaunted and tried her luck with four seals that day. Her fourth attempt earned her the ultimate prize. The final victim initially lunged at Tivat, but it seems that the hyaena had learned how to fight during the previous struggles and latched onto the seal’s neck. “We filmed the battle from our distant observation points, but we knew it would soon be over when blood spurted from the seal’s carotid vein,” Lemerle remembers this brutal, fascinating scene

clearly. It took about eight minutes from the first attack to the seal’s last breath.

As it turns out, this incredible feat wasn’t a once-off event. Tivat has since killed at least one more adult seal, and the researchers noted that the most recent kill was highly efficient. “It seems like she is specialising in taking adult seals due to the lack of pups in the colony at this time,” observes Lemerle, “it will be interesting to see if other hyaenas will learn her hunting tactics.”

To learn more about this remarkable hyaena, the Brown Hyena Research Project fitted Tivat with a GPS collar in August 2025. “While we were collaring her, we estimated her age at 10-12 years old, and she weighed 43 kg, making her seal-hunting feats even more impressive!” Lemerle and the research team hope to learn more about Tivat and her clan. Since brown hyaenas from the same clan often forage separately, it is challenging to determine which clan they belong to solely by observing their hunts. With GPS data, the researchers are likely to find the clan’s den where they raise their cubs, and thus identify Tivat’s clan mates.

This discovery demonstrates the value of long-term observational research, where scientists simply watch their subjects and record their behaviour. It also shows what we can learn when animals are not disturbed by human presence. These brown hyaenas inhabit the Tsau ǁKhaeb (Sperrgebiet) National Park, which is off-limits to all but a select few researchers and permit-holding visitors. The researchers watch the hyaenas from a distance to ensure that their presence isn’t influencing the hyaena or seal behaviour.

As Tsau ǁKhaeb opens to the public with plans for tourism, the impacts on the animals that have lived with minimal human presence need to be minimised as much as possible. This is possible with well-managed tourism, says Lemerle: “If there are a limited number of vehicles operating in the area, we can work with them to establish best practices for viewing hyaenas and seals.” Rule-breakers are relatively easy to identify and report when there are few of them.

If the Park is opened up for industrial development, however, such rules and regulations are likely to be trampled, along with the unique plants found here. The plans to produce hydrogen in this area include large industrial plants, solar panels, wind turbines, pipelines, roads, and pylons. With so many people involved in the construction and maintenance of such infrastructure, it will be impossible to limit their disturbance of wild animals, not to mention the plethora of other impacts of this ill-conceived idea.

While concerns about the future of Tsau ǁKhaeb National Park remain in the background, the hyaena researchers will continue to study this resilient and adaptable carnivore. Tivat may even be a pioneer of new hyaena behaviour if others start copying her methods. Follow the Brown Hyaena Research Project on Facebook for future updates about Tivat and insights into the lives of these remarkable coastal carnivores.

HOW LONG-TERM MONITORING OF NAMIBIA’S WOODLANDS CONTRIBUTES TO UNDERSTANDING AFRICAN ECOSYSTEMS

By: Alice Jones, Leena Naftal, Hermane Diesse, Gabriel Uusiku, John Godlee, Kyle Dexter and Vera De Cauwer

Hilma Amupolo and Alice Jones collecting grass biomass data at Ongava Game Reserve

Vimbai Rukuni, George Lyanabu and Hermane Diesse during the resurvey of our plots at Sachinga Livestock Centre, Zambezi

Across the grasslands and woodlands of Africa, a network of researchers is collecting long-term, highly detailed data on plants and their environments. This effort fills significant gaps in our understanding of how woodland savanna ecosystems function and respond to direct human impacts and climate change.

Professors and students at the Namibia University of Science and Technology (NUST) Biodiversity Research Centre have joined colleagues from international universities in this new network. One of the main tools they are using to better understand woodlands is called a Permanent Sampling Plot (hereafter, ‘plot’), which is a one-hectare block of land that supports a representative sample of vegetation. After they are identified and marked, the researchers can return to these plots every few years to re-record detailed information on the plants within them. This data is used to monitor the species present, their size, and how these characteristics change over time.

Each plot is carefully selected to capture the diversity of the landscape, taking into account vegetation cover, species composition, elevation, soil type, and land-use history. While the plots must be accessible, we typically select areas that are unlikely to be disturbed by humans, allowing us to understand natural processes and apply these insights to other natural areas. We also explore how people interact with the land by establishing plots in areas grazed by cattle or adjacent to farmland. This work is always done in collaboration with landowners and local residents to ensure long-term access to these valuable sites.

The only indication that a piece of land is within one of our research plots is the presence of four permanent corner markers and the small metal tags fixed to the tree trunks. Each tag has a unique number, allowing us to track each tree over time. The plot corners serve as

anchors from which we run 100-metre measuring tapes to define our plot borders each time we visit. These permanent markers must be unobtrusive yet sturdy enough to withstand the attention of inquisitive elephants and baboons.

In Namibia, we have marked 23 plots at four sites, with most of them established in 2023. Three plots established by NUST in 2006 were re-established. Two of our sites are located in State Forests (Kanovlei in Otjozondjupa and Hamoye in Kavango East), one is in a private protected area (Ongava Private Game Reserve in Kunene), and the fourth is situated within the Sachinga Livestock Centre in Zambezi. Each of these sites hosts woodlands that are dominated by different tree species, allowing us to compare these ecosystems.

The value of long-term, detailed studies on Namibian woodlands is multiplied when we add our data to the network of similar sites across southern Africa. Our plots are part of the Socio-Ecological Observatory for the Southern African Woodlands (SEOSAW), which was established to help researchers standardise their plot marking and research methods across the region.

As we conduct our studies in Namibia, our colleagues are doing similar studies on plots in other countries. When we combine our data and knowledge through SEOSAW, we can look for long-term, widespread trends and features of African woodlands that would go unnoticed if each study group focused solely on its own country. The overarching aim of SEOSAW is to understand how these dynamic ecosystems are changing and how this influences biodiversity, carbon storage, and local livelihoods.

What kinds of data do we collect when we visit our plots? This depends to some extent on which studies we are currently

Leena Naftal and Gabriel Uusiku measuring the stem diameter of a Mopane at Ongava Game Reserve

undertaking and the standard data collection protocol established for the long-term SEOSAW monitoring work. During most visits, we measure mature trees by recording stem diameters and noting signs of mortality or resprouting. We may also estimate the percentage cover and biomass of grasses, forbs (leafy plants that are not trees or shrubs), leaf litter, and woody debris. Each researcher in our team has their own projects that will either utilise these measurements or incorporate additional data to answer their respective research questions.

For Alice Jones, a PhD student at the University of Edinburgh, data from these long-term plots are the foundation of her doctoral research into savanna tree recruitment strategies. Using species composition data collected from the mature tree surveys, she investigates whether the trees we see today are successfully reproducing to maintain stable populations. During visits to the plots, she systematically samples the soil seed bank and seedling layers. By identifying and counting the species present in these early life stages, Alice can trace recruitment patterns and pinpoint potential bottlenecks in regeneration. Her work sheds light on the long-term stability of tree populations, which is vital for understanding the future of savanna ecosystems and guiding conservation efforts.

Leena Naftal, a PhD student at NUST, is using the tree measurements and information from soil cores to estimate the amount of carbon stored in both vegetation and soil. She will use this information to produce detailed carbon stock distribution maps for northern Namibia, parts of Angola, Zambia, and Botswana. These carbon stocks form the basis of potential carbon markets, whereby communities or local authorities are compensated for maintaining or restoring natural vegetation to capture carbon dioxide. Without this initial dataset, we cannot determine the amount of carbon our woodlands store, which is essential information for carbon markets and trading.

The detailed ground-level data from our plots complement data collected using satellites and other large-scale research. NASA’s Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) is an instrument installed on the International Space Station that produces 3D images of the Earth’s surface using LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) technology. Another method, called Terrestrial Laser Scanning (TLS), produces even more detailed 3D models using earth-based lasers.

Hermane Diesse, a PhD student at NUST, combines information from GEDI and TLS with data from plots at three of our study sites and other sites in the SEOSAW network, extending beyond Namibia. He is investigating how rainfall and fire interact with forest structure, and how the canopy and subcanopy layers influence species diversity and plant biomass above the ground (i.e., excluding roots). His work shows that small trees and shrubs in dry woodlands contribute a greater proportion of the total above-ground biomass than those in wetter woodlands, which are dominated by larger trees. While wetter areas generally support higher overall levels of above-ground plant biomass, drier areas support a unique share of both biomass and diversity in their understorey components.

These results have significant implications for conservation strategies and carbon credit allocation. Many carbon assessments exclude trees and shrubs smaller than 5 cm or 10 cm in diameter, leading to the underestimation of both carbon storage and biodiversity

Alice Jones

Gabriel Uusiku

Concrete plot marker and measuring tape

value. Diesse’s work highlights the importance of incorporating small trees and shrubs into carbon assessment protocols, particularly in dry woodlands. This would more accurately capture the carbon storage potential of these ecosystems and significantly increase their estimated contribution to climate mitigation.

Gabriel IK Uusiku, a Master’s student at NUST, is investigating the relationship between seasonal leaf changes (known as phenology) and litter decomposition in semi-arid savannas. Using the plots at Ongava Game Reserve equipped with phenocameras (camera traps with the movement sensor disabled), he captures daily vegetation imagery to track seasonal canopy dynamics.

The dominant trees in this area include Mopane (Colophospermum mopane), Purple-pod Cluster-Leaf (Terminalia prunioides), and Blue-leaved Corkwood (Commiphora glaucescens), all of which lose

their leaves in winter. The leaves then accumulate on the ground as leaf litter, thus returning nutrients to the soil. The link between leaf greenness (as determined by the cameras) and the amount of leaf litter that accumulates and decomposes on the ground provides insight into the functioning and resilience of savanna ecosystems.

The NUST team, led by Prof. Vera De Cauwer, has significantly enhanced the impact of their individual research projects by contributing to the SEOSAW network. Students from as far afield as the University of Edinburgh, or as close as our neighbouring countries, can tap into this valuable database to answer questions that no researcher could achieve alone. Each of the plots in Namibia is part of a much larger puzzle. While each piece is important, the state of southern Africa’s woodlands is only revealed when we put the pieces together and view the whole picture from multiple research perspectives.

Hermane Diesse operating the terrestrial laser scanner provided by the University of Edinburgh at Kanovlei state forest

Leena Naftal recording measurements

The field team at Ongava Game Reserve during early April 2025

John Godlee

Deeper Trouble for the Okavango

By: Gail Thomson and Mike Murray-Hudson

by John Mendelsohn

The Okavango Delta and its upstream catchment, which supports hundreds of thousands of people, are under threat. While the potential for oil extraction in the catchment garners international attention, this life-giving ecosystem seems on track to quietly die by a thousand other cuts. A new report by John Mendelsohn for The Nature Conservancy reveals that threats to this system continue growing each year.

Water from Angola flows along Namibia’s northern border before crossing over into Botswana, where it eventually fans out in the Delta and slowly seeps into the Kalahari sand. Two main rivers in Angola supply the Delta – the Cuito in the east and the Cubango (also known as the Kavango in Namibia) in the west.

The western Cubango River is largely responsible for the seasonal flood pulses in the rivers and Delta’s floodplains that are essential

for plant growth, fish spawning, bird nesting, and watering the huge number of elephants and other mammals that attract tourists from all over the world. Indeed, a substantial part of Botswana’s lucrative tourism industry relies on the Cubango River and the abundance of life it supports in the Delta. Throughout its entire course, the Cubango also supports people, crops, and livestock that utilise its water and the surrounding land. Yet, if development continues in its current uncontrolled manner, the river and its ecosystem may become so degraded that the health and well-being of people and wildlife are negatively affected.

The heart of the problem lies in the inadequate management of the entire river system and its surrounding environment. Although Angola, Botswana, and Namibia established the Permanent Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) in 1994 as a means of promoting cross-border cooperation and managing the Okavango River system, 31 years later, a formal water-sharing agreement remains absent.

Photos

CholohangaChicalaCachiungoChinguar

Controls over the use of land and water in Angola and Namibia are also virtually absent, making both land and water essentially free for the taking and use.

Consequently, commercial and subsistence developments along the river continue as though this water will never run out or become too polluted for use. Mendelsohn’s 2024 report reveals that threats to this system are growing each year, with no indication that they are slowing or being controlled.

Commercial agriculture

Commercial agriculture in Angola and Namibia along the Cubango/ Kavango is expanding, but there are no controls over how much water each farm consumes, or how much fertiliser and pesticide is used. Pollution is not monitored anywhere. Between 2020 and 2024, the land used for large irrigation schemes in both countries increased from 6,200 hectares to just over 8,000 hectares. Management of several state-owned farms (known as ‘green schemes’) was transferred to the profit-oriented private sector in Namibia over the same period.

While privately run commercial farms are likely to bring jobs and increase food production per hectare, these operations must be regulated. Land and water are not infinite resources. The use of fertilisers and pesticides should be controlled and limited to minimise the levels of river pollution.

Mohembo Botswana

Artisanal mining for gold close to the Cubango River

Growing numbers of local residents are also commercialising their farming operations by selling their produce in towns, which allows them to invest in mechanised ploughing and fertilisers and to expand their fields. In south-eastern Angola, the rate of land clearing increased from 41.5 hectares per day in the five-year period immediately following the end of the Angolan civil war to 129 hectares per day in 2016-2020. In the most recent period (2021-23), land is being cleared for agriculture at a rate of 114 hectares per day. This development is a double-edged sword: it reduces rural poverty, but damages the land and the river.

Charcoal production, plantations, and mines

Like agriculture, charcoal is produced on large and small scales. The small-scale producers sell their charcoal along roads to people living in the main towns in Angola. This may be the only source of cash income for many rural households.

Large-scale land clearing for charcoal production is of much greater concern. In 2022, 30 farms covering 153,000 hectares were designated for clearing by a local authority in Angola. Some of these farms are already being cleared of woodland (approximately 8,400 hectares by

September 2025) to produce charcoal, which is then used to smelt iron ore from a local mine. This open-cast iron mine is located within the river basin.

Ironically, the pig iron produced here is marketed and exported as ‘green’ or ‘carbon-neutral’ because the cleared land will be replanted with non-native eucalyptus plantations (gum trees). These plantations host very little biodiversity, are thirsty, and most other plantations like them in Angola have not grown well. Local people in this area value the natural miombo woodlands and resist the government’s plans to expand these operations.

The much-publicised oil exploration in Namibia and Botswana by Recon Africa is yet another potential threat to the system. At this stage, it seems like the potential for oil in this area was over-hyped for commercial reasons, and the project is unlikely to come to fruition. Even if the exploration comes to nothing, this is a cautionary tale of how external investors can override concerns about local livelihoods and the environment. Recon Africa has recently expanded its explorations into the lower Cubango catchment in Angola.

This former green-scheme project at Musese is now managed privately

This small vegetable farm near Rundu is a well-managed co-operative that produces food and supports many livelihoods. This is all on 34 hectares and with relatively little use of Okavango water - an example of positive development in the area.

New dams Angola is currently building two large dams (the Calucuve and Ndué) along drainage lines of seasonal (ephemeral) rivers. Since the rainfall in this area is unpredictable and the catchment area is sandy (most water will seep away before reaching the dams), it is likely that these reservoirs will often run dry. The current plan for these dry periods is to redirect water from the Cubango River into these dams, thus taking large amounts of water from the river system.

In Namibia, plans to channel water from the Kavango River to existing dams around Windhoek are frequently proposed, especially during droughts. The current idea is to take water from the river at Rundu during peak river flow periods. Flood pulses at these peak periods are critical for the Okavango Delta ecosystem and for floodplains along the major rivers.

These plans do not account for the increased volumes of water being extracted from the major rivers in Angola and Namibia in recent years. Between 2017 and 2023, along the section of the river that forms the border between Namibia and Angola, the number of small water pipes increased from 25 to 130, the number of medium-sized pipes increased from 44 to 95, and the number of large pipes from 20 to 25 or 26. Most of these pipes are on the Namibian side of the river.

Cuchi forest clearing

A roadside market on the main road between Chinguar and Cuito, where locally grown vegetables are the main produce for sale. Many changes in land uses and settlement patterns in the catchment reflect the increasing needs of residents for cash incomes

One of two banks of charcoal furnaces used to convert miombo trees into charcoal. Each bank has 400 furnaces which are clearly visible in Google Earth at these coordinates: 14.735 South and 17.04 East

For many years, it was assumed that measurements of flow at Rundu reflected the volumes of water leaving Angola at the Katwitwi border post. New data reveal that this is not the case, and that large volumes of water are indeed lost from the Kavango River before it is joined by the Cuito River from Angola. If even more water is taken from the Cubango/Kavango by either Angola or Namibia, the effects on the Delta in Botswana could be severe.

Expansion of towns and cities

Migration from rural to urban areas is inevitable as both Angola and Namibia develop, resulting in larger towns that have substantial requirements for land and water. Many villages in Angola are rapidly becoming towns, while several towns are growing into cities in the catchment area of the Cubango River. This trend can have positive effects, as people living in towns have greater access to services and income opportunities than those in rural areas. The rural environment should also benefit if fewer people rely on slash-andburn subsistence agriculture.

Urban development nonetheless poses challenges for the environment. Solid waste and sewage from towns are significant sources of river pollution, and there is already evidence that the Namibian section of the river is being contaminated by chemicals and waste generated by agriculture and urban areas.

The environmental impacts of growing urban areas can be mitigated through proper town planning, waste management, and efficient water use. Like many of the other challenges outlined here, these require strong political will, wide public awareness, and collective action to overcome.

The key to saving the Okavango: public interest and political will The future of the whole Cubango/Kavango river system, including the Okavango Delta, lies with the three countries that manage and benefit from these waters. The Okavango Delta supports a thriving tourism industry that contributes substantially to Botswana’s economy, but the concerns raised above are not limited to Botswana. If development

Sentinel satellite images taken on 25 Sept 2025 of Calucuve (15.57 South and 16.04 East) and Ndúe (15.81 South and 16.55 East) dams nearing completion.

continues in the unregulated “free-for-all” way that is currently happening in Angola and Namibia, people and the environment in all three countries will suffer.

With land and water so easily available, many more large, irrigated farms can be expected along the Cubango/Kavango and Cuito rivers. Consequently, downstream flows will be reduced and increasingly polluted by agricultural chemicals.

These changes and challenges are inevitable unless substantial controls and measures are implemented to minimise environmental impacts. Both existing and new commercial crop farms must use water efficiently and minimise artificial fertiliser inputs. Underground water should be used more to supply farms, towns, and other users.

Urban growth will present additional challenges, but towns that are properly managed can accommodate a large number of people and enhance their living standards without compromising the environment.

Major new developments such as dams, mines, and oil production should be approached with the appropriate levels of caution and public participation. Are the damages that such projects cause worth the economic gains that they may produce? Clearing vast swathes of biodiversity-rich miombo woodland to replace it with eucalyptus plantations is one example of ill-conceived development. The people living in the affected area will lose their natural resources and access to ancestral lands, while a private company profits from exporting green-washed pig iron.

Choosing positive development trajectories over short-term gains requires strong political will, which is driven by public concerns and

understanding. The people living in Angola, Namibia, and Botswana need to be aware of the threats posed by water loss, pollution, and land degradation in their immediate vicinity and upstream.

Plans to redirect water from the river to dams in Angola and Namibia should not be implemented without consulting Botswana. The OKACOM platform, which is intended to promote co-management of the Okavango system among the three countries, needs to be active and taken seriously by all stakeholders, especially the governments of the Basin States.

The Okavango ecosystem may be known globally for its final destination – the Delta – yet this is certainly not the only reason to manage it wisely. Thousands of people live along the river and within its broader catchment area, thus depending directly on this ecosystem for their survival and well-being. Their rights to a clean, functional environment and sustainable economic development must be considered together, rather than as separate issues. It is time for the governments of these three nations to heed the ecological warning signs and chart a more sustainable path forward for their people and the Okavango River Basin.

Full report: Mendelsohn, J. (2025). Threats and developments in the Catchment of the Cubango/Okavango River in Angola and Namibia: Update and Perspectives in 2024. Compiled for The Nature Conservancy.

THE STATE OF GIRAFFE IN 2025: A TURNING POINT FOR AFRICA’S TALLEST MAMMALS

By: Giraffe Conservation Foundation

Reticulated giraffe in Samburu National Park, Kenya

The year 2025 will be remembered as a turning point in the story of the giraffe. Long familiar as one of Africa’s most iconic animals, giraffes are undergoing a transformation in the way science, conservationists, and the public understand them. For more than 250 years, all giraffes were thought to belong to a single species, Giraffa camelopardalis. That picture has now changed dramatically. In August, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) formally recognised four

distinct giraffe species: the Masai giraffe, Northern giraffe, Reticulated giraffe, and Southern giraffe.

How do we know that there are four species of giraffe?

The detailed taxonomic review was conducted by the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Giraffe & Okapi Specialist Group Taxonomic Task Force. This review evaluated extensive genetic data from multiple peer-reviewed studies. Many of these studies focused on giraffe genetics, making the giraffe one of the most genetically well-studied large mammals in Africa.

Complementing the genetic work, the review also incorporated studies of the physical form and structure of the giraffe, including notable differences in skull structure and bone shape across regions. Spatial use and biogeographic assessments also considered the role of natural barriers – such as major rivers, rift valleys, and arid zones – that could have contributed to evolutionary isolation. Together, these multiple lines of evidence provide clear scientific support for elevating certain giraffe populations to full species status, reflecting their distinct evolutionary histories.

This research was largely spearheaded by the Namibian-based Giraffe Conservation Foundation (GCF), in partnership with many African governments, conservation organisations, and academic institutions. Most notably, the genetics research was undertaken by GCF in collaboration with the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Centre (SBiK-F). These findings, first revealed in 2016, revealed differences between giraffe lineages as deep as those separating polar bears and brown bears, an extraordinary discovery for such a visible and widely distributed animal. As Professor Axel Janke of SBiK-F remarked, “to describe four new large mammal species after more than 250 years of taxonomy is extraordinary.”

Conservation applications of the new classification

This reclassification is not simply an academic curiosity. As Dr Julian Fennessy of GCF emphasised, “each giraffe species faces different

Updated range map for all four giraffe species (Source: Giraffe Conservation Foundation 2025)

Northern giraffe calf and mum, Murchison Falls National Park, Uganda

threats, and now we can tailor conservation strategies to meet their specific needs.” For the first time, conservation priorities, funding streams, and international policy will be able to focus on speciesspecific requirements, recognising that the ecological challenges facing Northern giraffes in Niger are not identical to those for Southern giraffes in Namibia or Masai and Reticulated giraffe in Kenya.

The IUCN decision coincided with the release of GCF’s State of Giraffe 2025 report, which synthesised data from across the continent to provide the most accurate overview yet of giraffe numbers and distribution. Together, these two milestones represent a historic shift in our understanding of giraffe taxonomy, numbers, distribution, and conservation status.

The GCF State of Giraffe 2025 report is based on data compiled in their newly established Giraffe Africa Database (GAD), a platform designed to collate survey results and provide a consistent picture

of each population’s status. Because survey methods vary widely in reliability, the report applies an Information Quality Index, assigning higher confidence to ground-based counts and individual monitoring, and adjusting aerial estimates upward to account for under-detection. This methodological rigour matters because past assessments often underestimated populations, or were based on rough guesses rather than systematic data. By combining hundreds of data sources, including government surveys, non-government reports, and peerreviewed studies, GCF has created the clearest view yet of how all giraffe species and their populations are faring.

How are the four different species faring?

The overall picture is one of cautious optimism, with significant caveats. Across Africa, the combined numbers of all four giraffe species now total approximately 140,000 individuals. This is higher than estimates suggested over the last two decades, largely due to improved survey coverage, data sharing, and increased conservation

efforts, but it still remains well below historical levels. In 1995, populations were far larger, and in several cases, they have fallen by more than half in just thirty years. When we consider the four distinct species separately, however, we discover a more complex and dynamic story.

The Masai giraffe, spread across Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Zambia, now numbers around 43,900 individuals. While their numbers have remained stable over the past five years, this species declined by nearly 40% during the previous three decades. The well-monitored Kenyan populations in the Amboseli, Tsavo, and Masai Mara ecosystems appear steady, and Rwanda’s Akagera National Park has seen impressive growth from a small reintroduced herd. Tanzania, historically a stronghold, has remained poorly surveyed in recent years, creating a troubling data gap. The Luangwa subspecies of Masai giraffe comprises a small, isolated population of approximately 764 individuals in Zambia. Although this subspecies has increased by 18% over the past five years, it still remains far below historical estimates.

The status report for Northern giraffes paints a more sobering picture. Numbering 7,037 across Central, East, and West Africa, a 19% growth rate during the past five years masks a catastrophic 70% decline since the mid-1990s. The three subspecies tell the story in sharper detail. The Kordofan giraffe is now primarily concentrated in Chad, where it holds two-thirds of the population in Zakouma National Park. In contrast, Cameroon and the Central African Republic have experienced significant declines, with perhaps only a handful of individuals remaining in the latter. The Nubian giraffe subspecies has fared somewhat better, with nearly 4,000 individuals, many of which reside in Uganda’s Murchison Falls National Park and Kenya’s Ruma National Park; however, the population in South Sudan is in sharp decline. The West African giraffe, once numbering just 70 individuals in Niger, has recovered to a minimum of 669, but remains highly vulnerable due to its small range and the fragile political situation of the country.

The Reticulated giraffe, instantly recognisable by its lattice-like coat pattern, now numbers about 20,900. Kenya holds almost the entire

global population, with key strongholds in Garissa, Laikipia, Marsabit, Meru, Samburu and Wajir. Together, these areas account for 98% of their total. These populations are increasing, but Ethiopia and Somalia remain poorly surveyed, with perhaps only a few dozen surviving in these insecure regions. Overall, the population of Reticulated giraffes has increased by 31% since 2020, but remains 42% lower than the 1995 levels. Conducting more surveys in their remote areas would help gain a better understanding.

The Southern giraffe, by contrast, is a modern-day conservation success story. At nearly 69,000 individuals, it is the most numerous species and has more than doubled in size over the past three decades. Namibia alone holds nearly 14,000 of the Angolan subspecies, while South Africa hosts almost 30,000 of the South African subspecies. Botswana, Zambia, and Zimbabwe also maintain strong populations, and reintroductions into Malawi and Mozambique have been successful. The Southern giraffe demonstrates what is possible when robust national conservation frameworks, community engagement, and private landholders align to protect and expand populations.

Using our knowledge to guide giraffe conservation

While these species-level assessments provide clarity, it is essential to note that each species and its local populations often face very different circumstances. Some small, isolated populations are declining rapidly and could vanish within years without intervention. Others, especially where conservation translocations and management strategies are in place, are recovering. Countries that have developed National Giraffe Conservation Strategies and Action Plans – such as Chad, Kenya, Niger, and Uganda – have seen positive outcomes. Despite progress, challenges remain significant. Habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from the expansion of agriculture and infrastructure are reducing the giraffe’s range across East Africa. Poaching continues in regions with weak governance, with giraffes hunted illegally for meat or traditional uses. Climate change is altering vegetation and water availability, adding further pressure to these ecosystems. In many areas, particularly in the Central African Republic, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Tanzania, data gaps hinder effective planning. Without sustained monitoring, conservationists cannot accurately track trends or respond to emerging threats.

This is why the IUCN’s decision to recognise four giraffe species carries such weight. By treating them separately, the global community can direct conservation funding and policy toward the species most at risk. Preliminary findings suggest that three of the four species – the Masai, Northern, and Reticulated – are threatened, underscoring the urgency of targeted action. The Southern giraffe, though currently secure, still requires careful management to prevent future declines. Stephanie Fennessy, Executive Director of GCF, captured the stakes clearly: “What a tragedy it would be to lose a species we’ve only just discovered.”

As the leader in giraffe conservation throughout Africa, the Giraffe Conservation Foundation provided not only updated numbers with their State of Giraffe 2025 but also a model for how to build conservation around robust science. By integrating genetic discoveries, field surveys, and international collaboration, it sets the stage for a new era of giraffe conservation. 2025 will be remembered as the year when giraffes were finally seen not as one animal but as four –each with its own history, challenges, and prospects. It may also be remembered as the year when the world decided to stand tall for these gentle giants and initiated targeted efforts to ensure they will continue to roam Africa’s landscapes for generations to come.

Masai giraffe calf

GCF & Billy Dodson

Namibia’s conservation success and Germany’s steadfast support

By: GIZ and KfW

Photos by GIZ

In Namibia, nature conservation and sustainable use are enshrined in the constitution, making it a global leader in this regard. Namibia’s approach to protecting natural heritage focuses on empowering communities as stewards of the land, rather than relying solely on regulation and law enforcement.

Over 40 percent of Namibia’s land is designated for conservation and sustainable use, exceeding the international goal to conserve 30% of the earth’s surface by 2030. Central to this achievement is Namibia’s community-based conservation model, which grants rural communities rights to use their natural resources sustainably. Through communal conservancies and community forests, local people manage wildlife and benefit from its protection. This approach has transformed conservation into a grassroots movement, with 86 communal conservancies and 47 community forests covering around 20 percent of Namibia’s territory and benefiting over 244,000 people.

This model has gained international recognition, thanks to the Namibian Government’s vision for sustainable and inclusive use of natural resources for the benefit of all Namibians. A key partner in

this journey has been the Federal Republic of Germany, which has provided consistent financial, technical and policy support since 1990 through institutions like KfW Development Bank and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ).

With over € 1.6 billion (approx. N$ 32 billion) in development assistance to Namibia over the last 35 years, Germany has made a significant contribution towards Namibia’s achievements in conservation and sustainable development. We share a few highlights from this long and productive partnership here.

KfW – supporting national parks and community conservation Through the Namibia National Parks Programme (known as NamParks), KfW helped build and upgrade critical infrastructure in national parks for the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) – including 13 new park management stations, administrative buildings, staff accommodation and tourism facilities. These investments have improved the efficiency and professionalism of park management, made parks more accessible and attractive to tourists, enhanced biodiversity monitoring, and contributed to job creation in

neighbouring communities. This support programme has strengthened the livelihoods of an estimated 180,000 Namibians and improved wildlife management in these critical protected areas.

Looking ahead, sustainability is a pressing concern. While donor support has been vital, reliance on project-based funding leaves Namibian national conservation efforts vulnerable to economic shocks and geopolitical developments. Recognising this, KfW committed € 3 million toward establishing a sustainable financing mechanism for Namibia’s state-protected areas.

Beyond state-protected areas, Germany has supported Namibia’s Community-Based Natural Resource Management Programme (CBNRM). The Community Conservation Fund of Namibia (CCFN) was established with support from KfW to provide long-term support to community conservation areas. Through the CCFN, conservancies receive grants to support operational costs, invest in tourism infrastructure, and maintain wildlife monitoring and anti-poaching patrols. This financial stability was vital during the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a sharp drop in tourism revenues for many communities. Around 9,400 local beneficiaries and their families received support during this time of need through the Conservation Relief, Recovery and Resilience Facility (CRRRF) managed by the CCFN.

Germany has also played a significant role in mitigating humanwildlife conflict. In regions like Kunene and Zambezi, communities face numerous threats from wildlife – including elephants eating crops and destroying water infrastructure, or predators such as lions attacking livestock. These events can provoke retaliation against wildlife and erode community support for conservation. KfW has therefore funded numerous mitigation measures, including predator-proof livestock

kraals, early warning systems and water access points for wildlife away from villages, providing communities with both security and incentives to continue coexisting with wildlife. In the Ombonde landscape alone, the conflicts with lions declined by 80%.

Poaching remains a threat within and beyond state-protected areas, especially to high-value species like rhinos and pangolins, which stretches conservation resources. KfW has bolstered anti-poaching efforts by providing equipment, trainings, and infrastructure to support the MEFT’s Wildlife Protection Services (WPS).

GIZ – providing technical support for policies, resilience and livelihoods

The support Germany provides through financial cooperation is complemented by Namibian-German Technical Cooperation partnerships. Technical Cooperation – implemented mainly through GIZ – is designed to strengthen natural resource management, policy development and implementation while promoting good governance and capacity development.

Since the 1990s, GIZ (formerly GTZ) has been a consistent partner of the Namibian Government and civil society in shaping and scaling up environmental policies and initiatives. These include the CBNRM Programme, biodiversity finance initiatives and targeted policy development. The Environmental Management Act (EMA) and Namibia’s ambitious climate goals (Nationally Determined Contributions, NDCs) under the Paris Climate Agreement are among the policies developed with GIZ assistance.

GIZ is currently supporting the development process of the third National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (NBSAP). This will

ensure crucial policy support in the future for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, particularly in the face of emerging challenges such as increased mining and exploration as well as energy infrastructure development in and around conservation areas and communal conservancies.

Technical Cooperation has also continuously focused on diversifying livelihoods and income opportunities. Partnerships between Namibian and European companies have promoted the sustainable use of indigenous natural products, such as through the Eudafano Women’s Cooperative, which processes Marula oil and supports over 2,500 women. The regulation of access to such natural resources and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from their use has created important incentives to conserve Namibia’s rich natural heritage for current and future generations.

To ensure that resources are being put to good use and that the governance of communal conservancies is delivering results for their members, GIZ has been providing support for financial management

trainings in all regions. It has further advised MEFT during the introduction of a CBNRM digital monitoring and reporting system to continuously improve management and accountability.

Over the years, Technical Cooperation has helped communities adapt to climate challenges. In response to recurrent droughts, GIZ worked closely with the MEFT to improve water infrastructure, such as replacing diesel pumps with solar pumps in the Kunene Region. These pumps have provided clean water for over 4,300 people and many wild animals while reducing human-wildlife conflict and avoiding 450 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually.

Celebrating achievements, looking to future challenges

The Namibian-German Cooperation can be proud of the many achievements during the last few decades. From 1990 to 2022 community conservation contributed an estimated N$13,466 billion to Namibia’s net national income, supporting around 3,200 direct jobs in community conservation and generating income from tourism and small enterprises.

Despite the many successes and progress, some challenges remain. These include competing land uses (e.g. mining and energy infrastructure vs. conservation and tourism) and climate change, which is intensifying pressures on Namibia’s ecosystems. Increasingly unpredictable rainfall, prolonged droughts, and extreme weather events demand adaptive strategies, particularly in water management, land restoration, and managing wildlife migration corridors. At the same time, Namibia’s conservation model must keep demonstrating that the people benefit directly from natural resources and that biodiversity improves the lives of all Namibians.

What makes Namibia’s conservation model remarkable and fit for the future is its integration of social, economic, and environmental priorities. It is not only about saving wildlife; it is about creating systems where people and nature can coexist and thrive together. This philosophy aligns closely with Germany’s own development principles, which prioritise sustainability, local ownership, and long-term impact while emphasising capacity building and inclusive development.

The partnership between Namibia and Germany is characterised by mutual respect and shared vision. German Development Cooperation has consistently aligned with Namibia’s own priorities, thus fostering trust and enabling vital reforms. This partnership serves as a model for other countries, demonstrating that conservation and development can go hand-in-hand. From building infrastructure and institutions to supporting communities and financing futures, Germany has contributed to Namibia’s national success story. The road ahead will require continued commitment, innovation, and adaptation from both partners. But the foundation is strong, and the vision is clear.

Namibia’s unique nature and landscapes may be ancient, but its conservation thinking is ahead of its time. With Germany as a steadfast partner, Namibia has created a legacy of environmental conservation, inclusive and sustainable use, offering a blueprint for balancing ecological responsibility with economic resilience. As global attention shifts toward nature-based solutions, the Namibian-German partnership stands as an inspiring example of what is possible, and urgently needed, worldwide.

Namibia’s African Penguin on the Brink of Extinction

By: Namibia Nature Foundation

Meet Egbert, an African Penguin rescued as an abandoned egg from the Stony Point penguin colony in South Africa. Years later, as an adult, he was found stranded in Swakopmund, where a first responder rescued him and arranged his transfer to facilities run by the Namibian Foundation for the Conservation of Seabirds (NAMCOB) in Lüderitz for rehabilitation. A few months after his rescue, he was released back into the wild at Guano Bay, Namibia. From there, he made his way to Halifax Island, off the Namibian coast, where he now waddles freely alongside his penguin buddies in the Namibian Islands’ Marine Protected Area (NIMPA).

Double happy endings like Egbert’s are cause for celebration, given there are only 1,500 African Penguin adults (700–800 breeding pairs) left on four islands within NIMPA. African Penguins have been pushed

to the brink of extinction by guano harvesting, overfishing, predation, habitat loss, and climate change. Can we save Egbert and his friends from extinction?

The African Penguin is the only penguin species found in Africa, breeding primarily on coastal islands and forming large colonies from Namibia to Port Elizabeth, South Africa. These endearing little penguins are more than just charming waddlers; they play a vital role in Namibia’s marine ecosystems. As an indicator species, their health reflects the state of our oceans and signals changes in the fish stocks critical to our marine ecosystem and the coastal fisheries that depend on it.

Globally, their population has crashed by over 97%, prompting the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to classify the

species as “Critically Endangered,” one step away from extinction in the wild. Starvation is a key reason for their demise, as we have overfished the sardines, anchovies, and other small pelagic fish that comprise their primary diet. Oil spills, climate change, and habitat loss from past guano harvesting are among the other factors that have compounded the crisis.

Against this backdrop, experts emphasise urgency. “The African Penguin is in a dire situation, and we cannot afford to wait any longer to protect the species properly,” says Nicky Stander, Head of Conservation at the Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds (SANCCOB). “In just over a decade, they could no longer exist. Governments, organisations, and individuals must come together to save them at all costs”.

What the science tells us

Scientific studies paint a sobering picture of the challenges facing Namibia’s African Penguins. Research from Mercury Island in Namibia, one of the last strongholds, shows that these seabirds are being forced to survive on low-energy prey, such as gobies, rather than their preferred diet of nutrient-rich sardines and anchovies. This dietary shift drastically reduces their breeding success, chick survival, and overall health, indicating the collapse of their food web.

A landmark study in the scientific journal Biological Conservation revealed that declines in sardine populations due to overfishing and climate variability are tightly correlated with penguin population crashes. Penguins can only hunt close to their breeding islands, making them particularly vulnerable to overfishing close to key breeding sites. These findings reinforce the urgent need for ecosystem-based fisheries management and strict enforcement of marine protection policies in NIMPA.

Jessica Kemper

NAMCOB

Dr Willimien van Wyk from SANCCOB, removing some dirt in Egbert’s wound

Gail Thomson

Gail Thomson

Gail Thomson

Gail Thomson

Furthermore, long-term monitoring in the Benguela Current ecosystem reveals that guano-dependent nesting sites remain degraded due to historical exploitation, and recovery is slow without active habitat restoration. To address this, NAMCOB has installed 100 nest boxes across the four NIMPA islands to support breeding populations.

Fighting for survival

The 9,500 km² NIMPA was designated in 2009 as a safe space for marine animals to feed, breed, and rest. Despite being established in 2009, the NIMPA management framework has yet to be approved, which hinders conservation efforts. NAMCOB is advocating for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Water, and Land Reform (MAFWLR) to adopt the NIMPA operations management plan.

The NIMPA operations management plan will help conservationists to make better decisions and implement regulations to protect marine life and ecosystems. It will also support sustainable resource use by communities. For it to work well, fisheries managers need proper training, and the plan must be based on solid evidence.

“The African Penguin is in a very perilous state. As one of the sentinels of our oceans, they are signalling that we are not managing our local marine environment holistically enough. We need to change this in order to arrest the situation,” says Angus Middleton, Chairman of the NAMCOB executive committee.

The Power of Collaboration

NAMCOB and MAFWLR, in collaboration with national and international partners, are implementing hands-on conservation measures on all four of the penguin breeding islands in NIMPA. These efforts include protected area monitoring, oil spill preparedness, and seabird research and monitoring. The team also engages with coastal communities through awareness initiatives.

“As the government, we have to strengthen our efforts by working with NGOs and experts in the field like never before,” says Desmond Tom, Senior Fisheries Biologist at MAFWLR. Crucially, MAFWLR has implemented a moratorium on commercial sardine fishing to allow for the recovery of this important fish stock for humans and penguins.

Saving African Penguins like Egbert is possible if we all work together. Monitoring their survival, reproduction, and breeding colony sizes must guide Namibia’s ecosystem-based management to ensure healthy oceans. A robust NIMPA management plan that protects the key breeding islands – Mercury, Ichaboe, Halifax, and Possession – around Lüderitz is critical to their survival and broader ecosystem health.

Waddle we do without the penguins?

African Penguins play a crucial role in marine ecosystems. They enrich coastal waters with guano, contribute to marine food webs, and support biodiversity beyond the fisheries sector. Their story doesn’t have to end in extinction. You can support the critical work being done by the government and its partner organisations, like NAMCOB. Penguins need more than happy endings for individuals like Egbert; they need systemic change in how we manage marine ecosystems. In the long run, these changes will help penguins and people.

NAMCOB

NAMCOB

Ukarapo Mungunda (NAMCOB Seabird Ranger Coordinator), holding a sedated juvenile penguin down in preparation for an X-ray at SANCCOB during her training

Kaurimbi Mberirua (NAMCOB Seabird Ranger), posing for a picture with Egbert after monitoring his recovery

LEAD HARMS CHEETAHS AND LEOPARDS

By: Dr Catherine Hauw, Dr Anne Schmidt-Küntzel and Dr Laurie Marker

New studies reveal: cheetahs and leopards are harmed by consuming lead contained in bullets

Two scientific papers published by Dr Catherine Hauw and colleagues in 2025 confirm the danger of lead bullets for carnivores. One paper described the death of a cheetah after ingesting a lead bullet, while the other presented the results of an MSc study that showed elevated levels of lead in captive cheetahs and wild leopards in Namibia.

The toxicity of lead is well known and documented for animals and humans, but the specific role that lead bullets play in poisoning mammals is less well explored. Until now, most studies have focused on the impact of lead ammunition on scavenging birds, such as California Condors, Old World Vultures, and eagles. We now have evidence that African predators that eat meat containing lead bullets and fragments are also susceptible to lead poisoning.

Cases of lead bullets causing cheetah deaths

The first indication that lead bullets were a problem for cheetahs came through a 2015 report of two cheetah deaths in South Africa published by Michelle North and colleagues. When a cheetah that was destined for release in Namibia displayed the same symptoms as the South African cheetahs before its sudden death, the veterinary team at the Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF) immediately considered lead poisoning as a cause of death.

In all three cases, the cheetahs were fed with antelope or birds that had been hunted using lead ammunition just prior to the cheetahs’ deaths. They all displayed strange behaviour, including excitability or nervousness, abnormal back arching, seizures, salivation, and finally, death. Lead bullets or bullet fragments were found in the cheetahs’ stomachs after death, along with high levels of lead in their kidneys

Suzi Eszterhas

Wild cheetah feeding on a kill, Tanzania

Male cheetah coalition feeding on an gemsbok carcass during rehabilitation, CCF Namibia

and livers. While other causes of death could not be ruled out entirely, lead poisoning from the bullets they consumed was the most likely cause of the observed symptoms and death.

Acute poisoning events like these are luckily rare in captive cheetahs. We do not know whether or how often this may happen in the wild, as the wild predators would have to be tracked for days after feeding on carcasses containing lead to witness any symptoms.

Lead poisoning can also be responsible for chronic health problems that are less dramatic than these sudden deaths. Chronic health problems can occur if, rather than consuming entire bullets or large fragments as in the published acute cases, carnivores consume tiny lead fragments regularly that build up over time. Scavengers are particularly at risk of being exposed to fragments of lead bullets.

Is lead accumulating in the bones of Namibian carnivores?

The previously mentioned studies sought to discover if there was a chronic lead poisoning problem in two Namibian carnivore species. Lead levels were compared among three groups: captive cheetahs fed meat from animals shot with lead, wild cheetahs that exclusively hunt their own prey, and wild leopards that both hunt and scavenge. Since hunters often discard carcasses contaminated with lead fragments, which could be eaten by wild leopards, one would expect wild leopards to show higher lead levels than wild cheetahs.

Lead is a toxic heavy metal that does not serve the body of animals but instead accumulates in bones and organs over time. Lead levels can therefore be monitored in the blood, hair, and bones of animals. Blood provides an indication of lead exposure in the last few weeks, while hair and organs, such as the liver and kidneys, reflect exposure over several months. Bones indicate that lead accumulation has occurred over the years. Carnivores that experienced chronic lead poisoning during their lives would contain high levels of lead in their bones.

CCF’s practice of keeping the bones of all the dead carnivores it has received since the early 1990s provided the perfect study material to answer our research questions. The CCF collection includes skeletons of cheetahs that were kept in captivity from a young age and never released, as well as cheetahs that were rehabilitated and subsequently released. Additionally, the collection features skeletons of wild cheetahs and leopards that were killed and the bodies sent to or collected by the CCF. The cheetah skeletons were categorised according to the time that the animals had spent in captivity. All leopards were wild.

We selected 62 cheetah and 11 leopard skeletons from this collection for the purpose of this study. We found lead in all bone samples, although the levels were lowest in wild cheetahs. On average, cheetahs that spent time in captivity had five times more lead in their bones than wild cheetahs; the lead levels increased with each year of captivity. Similarly, wild leopards had accumulated three times more lead in their bones than wild cheetahs.

We could understand the steadily increasing chronic levels of lead we saw in the captive cheetahs. While most meat fed to captive cheetahs is free of lead bullets and fragments, captive cheetahs at CCF used to be fed the heads of slaughtered donkeys and horses about once a month as behavioural enrichment to reduce boredom in captivity. Unfortunately, these heads were contaminated by the lead from the bullets used to shoot these donkeys and horses.

On impact, lead bullets break into numerous tiny fragments that can spread as far as 40 cm from the wound channel. These fragments were most likely consumed by the cheetahs. Since lead accumulates in bones, the longer the cheetahs spent in captive care, the more heads they had consumed, and the higher their lead levels. The practice of feeding heads was stopped in light of the study results.

The increased lead found in wild leopards also made sense, as leopards scavenge frequently and are therefore more likely to consume lead bullet remains from injured game or the entrails of game animals left behind by human hunters. In contrast, the low lead levels found in wild

Dr Hauw working with captive cheetahs, South Africa

Zoltan Szabo, CCF

Released cheetah at a supplemental feeding, CCF Namibia

cheetahs can likely be attributed to the smaller source of lead through bioaccumulation from the general environment (e.g., soil) via their prey species.

Another noteworthy result was the high variability in lead levels observed in captive cheetahs that had been released, with some exhibiting the highest lead levels recorded in this study. All released animals went through a boma stage, where they are fed whole game carcasses that had been shot. This practice accustoms the cheetahs to eating whole carcasses as part of their ‘training’ for their new lives in the wild. It also increases the risk of ingesting lead bullets, which can lead to acute lead poisoning and death, or varying numbers of bullet fragments, as reflected by their bone lead levels.

Joining the call for unleaded bullets

The lessons learned from our study have specific applications for carnivore sanctuaries and wider applications for the use of lead ammunition in general. A simple solution would be to refrain from using lead ammunition globally. Alternatives to lead bullets, such as steel or copper bullets, have been developed and are increasingly being used worldwide, with some countries having imposed a ban on lead bullets altogether (e.g., the UK in June 2025).

Non-leaded bullets are not always easy to find in Namibia, however, and it may take a while for hunters to adapt to using them. In the meantime, lead contamination can be avoided through careful meat preparation. Carnivore sanctuaries must take special care to avoid feeding lead-contaminated meat by: 1) not feeding heads if the carcass had been shot in the head, and 2) removing about 40cm of flesh around the bullet hole. Hunters who do not want their activities to harm non-target species should remove all traces of lead-contaminated carcasses from the field and not dump entrails in the open after slaughter. Switching to non-lead bullets is the best longterm solution.

Finally, although our study did not include the impact of lead consumption in humans, we know from extensive medical research that lead is just as toxic to us as it is to wild carnivores. While slaughterhouses may take measures to remove visible bullet

fragments, it is likely that many unseen lead fragments will remain in game meat that is then prepared for human consumption.

Few people, including hunters and farmers, realise that lead bullets typically fragment into many hundreds of small, micro, and nano pieces which cannot be seen or felt. The combined surface area of these tiny pieces is thousands of times greater than that of the original bullet, making the lead easier to absorb into our

Dr Hauw identifying bones from CCF’s biobank, Namibia

Collecting cheetah bones for analysis with CCF team. Becky Johnston, Barth Balli, Catherine Hauw and Christine Roviera

CCF

Cheetah skeleton at the Cheetah Museum at CCF’s International Research and Education Centre in Namibia

The Namibian Wildlife Lead (Pb) Poisoning Working Group Established in 2021, this Working Group comprises individuals and organisations that work alongside the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT) to address the issue of lead toxicity in Namibia’s environment and wildlife sector. The Working Group aims to identify options for how Namibia could address the issue, while exploring the potential for regional collaboration beyond Namibia’s borders.

The Working Group is collaborating with MEFT, hunters, and farmers to incentivise a transition towards lead-free ammunition in the wildlife sector. Their activities include monitoring and research on the levels of lead in vultures, carnivores, and people who consume game meat. Scan the QR code to find out more about the working group and what you can do to become part of the movement towards a lead-free Namibian wildlife sector.

bloodstream. When lead bullets are used to shoot game, it is essential to carefully remove the tissue surrounding the wound, as recommended for carnivores.

Like the cheetahs and leopards in this study, humans who eat game hunted with lead bullets are accumulating lead over time, which is known to cause chronic health problems. These include multiple organ damage, leading to cardiovascular problems such as hypertension in adults, reproductive problems such as impotence in men, and severe developmental problems such as low IQ in children. Future studies in Namibia need to test the amount of lead present in game meat, levels of lead in the blood of people who eat game meat regularly, and (if possible) lead accumulation in human bones after death.

Since no level of lead is considered safe for human or animal consumption, our findings lend significant weight to calls to ban the use of lead ammunition in the wildlife sector in Namibia and worldwide. Hunters, people who care about the environment, and anyone who consumes game meat can support this call by demanding alternative types of ammunition from bullet manufacturers and ammunition outlets. Prior to a complete ban, the government should consider implementing strong regulations against the use of lead bullets in the wildlife sector and increasing awareness of their toxicity. In the meantime, utmost care must be taken to prevent or reduce lead consumption by humans and wild carnivores by removing bullets and bullet fragments from animal carcasses.

The research was conducted under the auspices of the Cheetah Conservation Fund and the Royal Veterinary College of the University of London, in collaboration with the University of Namibia, the Central Veterinary Laboratory, and Hokkaido University.

For more information, contact Cheetah Conservation Fund: +264 (0)67 306 225 or visit their website: www.cheetah.org

Read the scientific papers from Namibia here:

Hauw, C. et al. (2025). Case Report: Acute lead poisoning from bullet ingestion in a captive cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) in Namibia: implications for wildlife management. Frontiers in Veterinary Science.

Hauw, C. et al. (2025) Lead Bullet Burden: Widespread Lead Exposure in Wild Carnivores and Unseen Consequences of Feeding LeadShot Meat to Captive Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). Journal of Wildlife Diseases

Cheetahs following the feeding truck toward the release site, CCF Namibia

Further research and call for samples

Building on the pioneering research and significant findings of her MSc project, Dr. Hauw is now pursuing a PhD at the Chemistry Laboratory of Wits University under Prof. Marc Humphries, in collaboration with Prof Jordan Hampton at Murdoch University, Australia. Her doctoral research focuses on using apex predators as sentinels of environmental lead exposure in South Africa and Namibia, within the framework of One Health. Species such as jackals, cheetahs, brown hyaenas, and leopards serve as indicators of lead contamination, helping to identify regional hotspots and ultimately contributing to the protection of vulnerable human communities through partnerships with the Ministries of Health and Environment of both countries.

For this new avenue of research, Dr. Hauw is seeking collaborations with anyone able to provide samples, whether from hunters, wildlife sanctuaries, parks, or government agencies. She is collecting bone, hair, and blood samples from terrestrial and marine carnivores to investigate lead exposure in wildlife, ecosystems, and humans. All collaborators are warmly welcome, including those already working on human lead exposure, to work on a One Health aspect of the research. Interested parties can get in touch at catherine.hauw@gmail.com

CCF

WHY DO WE NEED PLANT DATA?

By: Herta Kolberg & Sofia Amakali, Near-Endemic Plants Project

Knowing where plants occur, what they look like in the wild, and how they are used (and could be used) by local people is vital to plant conservation. Plants that occur only in Namibia (endemic species) and those that are mainly found in Namibia (near-endemic species) deserve special attention in national policies and development plans.

During the last two years, we entered data on Namibia’s near-endemic plants into a database we previously created for Namibia’s endemic plants. Gathering the information for our database is painstaking and sometimes difficult work, but it is worth the effort. This knowledge will enable us to better manage and conserve Namibia’s plant resources and the surrounding environment.

Each plant in our database has a distribution based on where it has been found growing in the wild. Some of our information is from collections and observations by botanical experts, while others are from plant enthusiasts. Unfortunately, we have to disregard doubtful entries (e.g., a record for a plant that is not known to occur in a particular area) if they don’t include clear photos or parts of the plant that we can use to verify the observation. All indigenous plants in Namibia are also included in this database; however, only basic

information is available for these plants, and their distribution in Namibia has not yet been updated.

Some of the older specimens in botanical collections are associated with vague locations (e.g., between Walvis Bay and Otjitambi, or on a farm that spans thousands of hectares), which cannot be georeferenced and are therefore of no use for mapping distribution. These days, we collect accurate latitude-longitude points for each plant we sample using a GPS, but only a few decades ago, handheld GPS units were not commonly available. Instead, plant collectors used quarter-degree-squares (QDS). Our database, therefore, utilises the QDS system (see Map 1 for a quick guide), which enables us to retain the older QDS records and incorporate our newer, more accurate GPS records into these blocks for easier grouping.

Here, we provide three examples of the many ways this information may be used: 1) to identify important plant conservation areas; 2) to maximise local community benefits from plants; 3) to inform environmental impact assessments. In each example, we use real data from plants in our database and apply them to real and hypothetical cases.

Map 1: Quarter degree squares are identified by laying the international standard location grid (latitudes and longitudes) over the whole country, and then dividing these up into quarters twice. The degree square highlighted around Windhoek is named after the 22 degree line running along the top and the 17 degree line running along the left side of the block. Windhoek itself lies in the bigger block C and sub-block A. Its quarter degree square code is therefore 2217CA. Every QDS on earth thus has a unique six-digit code.

Identifying priority conservation areas

The data generated through our project provides a valuable foundation for evidence-based conservation planning. Using our database, one can map the number of endemic and near-endemic plant species that occur in each QDS in Namibia (Map 2). When you overlay this map with the boundaries of Namibia’s national parks, communal conservancies, and community forests, you can identify plant diversity hotspots and evaluate the extent to which they are currently protected (Map 3). This information can guide the relevant authorities and community stakeholders in prioritising plant biodiversity hotspots for conservation.

Map 2: Namibian endemic and near-endemic plant species richness per QDS

Map 3: Namibian endemic and nearendemic plant species richness per QDS overlaid with communal conservancies, national parks and community forests

Our maps of endemic and near-endemic plants reveal that most of the QDS hotspots fall outside the boundaries of national parks, especially in the north-west. While six community forests have been established alongside communal conservancies in the north-west, these do not cover all the hotspots. The remaining areas are largely covered by communal conservancies, but these focus on conserving large mammals that attract tourists.

In south-western Namibia, plant biodiversity hotspots are found within the Namib-Naukluft and Tsau ǁKhaeb National Parks; however, effective protection is also not guaranteed, as management efforts often overlook plants. The plants in these parks are further threatened by mineral prospecting, mining, and other proposed developments. Several of Namibia’s key areas of plant biodiversity are either unprotected or overlooked in development plans.

To address this gap, we recommend prioritising unprotected hotspots in the north-west, central-west, and south-west for future conservation efforts. National parks and community conservation areas that boast high plant diversity should include plants in their management plans and allocate sufficient resources to implement them.

Maximising the benefit of plant resources for local communities

The aim of conservancies and community forests is to effectively manage and conserve biodiversity, while simultaneously earning a living through the sustainable use of biological resources. Community forests focus on plant resources, while communal conservancies were established to conserve animals. These community conservation areas are one means of promoting the sustainable use of plant resources, and several community forests have already been established that overlap communal conservancies in north-west Namibia to serve this purpose.

Communities living in an area usually know best what plants are useful to support their livelihoods (edible plants, medicinal plants, livestock forage). In exceptional cases, such knowledge may have been lost within the community, but still exists in older plant information collected by botanists. In these instances, the knowledge should be returned to such communities. Established community forests should receive more support to develop plant-based products (e.g., oils, beauty products) that can be harvested sustainably. Plants that are special in some way, such as being photogenic or unique in the world, may, however, not be known to local communities and could be marketed for tourism purposes, thus generating income without harming the plants.

Let us consider the community forests of Orupembe, Sanitatas, and Puros in north-western Namibia (Map 4). These all share the same boundaries as the conservancies by the same names. By overlaying the number of endemic and near-endemic plants on this map, we can see that the Orupembe community forest contains an area where up to 110 endemic or near-endemic plants are found. This indicates that the eastern areas of the community forest need the most attention for plant conservation.

Tourism operations in this area could highlight the fact that nearly 8% of Namibian endemic/near-endemic plants can be observed here. One of these species is the northernmost Welwitschia population in Namibia. These Welwitschia plants are quite small, as they grow in a different environment than in the central Namib. This interesting Welwitschia locality also extends into the eastern part of the Sanitatas community forest.

S. Amakali

Crassula ausensis a small succulent that is found only in south-western Namibia

S. Amakali

Abrus kaokoensis – recently described and found in only a small area of north-western Namibia

The Puros community forest, although not having the high diversity of endemic or near-endemic plants as the Orupembe conservancy, houses a very special plant: Oberholzeria etendenkaensis. It is found only in this one place, in the north-east of the community forest, in the entire world. It is also the only succulent legume species in the

country. Such a rare and unusual plant could be used as something to differentiate this community conservation area from others and attract more visitors. In the Puros community forest we also find the only plants of Roepera orbiculata discovered in Namibia to date. The species was previously only known from Angola.

Oberholzeria etendekaensis known from only one QDS in north-western Namibia (photos from Swanepoel et al. 2015)

Map 4: Endemic and near-endemic species in the community forests of Orupembe, Sanitatas and Puros

Supporting environmental impact assessments

Environmental impact assessments (EIAs) require data on plants and animals in the area that is earmarked for development. Data on endemic and near-endemic, protected, rare, or endangered species is especially important, as their presence in the area will affect how and if the development should take place. This information is freely available through the Environmental Information Service (EIS), which hosts our plant information.

Environmental assessment practitioners, or the plant specialists who do baseline vegetation studies for each EIA, need to know what plants to expect in the area that may be developed. Baseline studies are often conducted outside the growing or flowering season to meet EIA deadlines. Consequently, many species that only appear after the rains will not be recorded during the study, while perennial plants may be difficult to identify without flowers or fruit. Knowing which plants were previously found in the area and which of those have a special

status (e.g., endemic, endangered) will certainly help the practitioner produce a thorough EIA.

Consider a hypothetical case study: an open-cast mine north-east of Okangwati in the Kunene Region is planned within QDS 1713AC. The practitioner can access the database to determine which species have been recorded in this QDS and those in the surrounding areas. This provides a good starting point for a baseline survey, since the study area is usually much smaller than a QDS.

In this example, the study area falls within a QDS that hosts 216 plant species, 12 of which are endemic, and 51 are near-endemic. Among these plants, 27 are protected by Namibian law, and nine are considered threatened at a global level. The proposed mine is clearly in an important plant area (Map 5), and the practitioner or plant expert should take extra care to document the presence or absence of these plants during their baseline study.

Map 5:

A: Overall Namibian plant species richness per QDS

B: Namibian endemic and near-endemic plant species richness per QDS

Roepera orbiculata – restricted to a small area in northern Namibia

H.

Kolberg

Welwitschia mirabilis at its northernmost locality in Namibia, growing on a rocky hillside

L. Nanyeni

The Environmental Commissioner’s office can also use the plant data to determine if: 1) the vegetation assessment was done thoroughly, and 2) the proposed development falls within a sensitive area that supports high levels of biodiversity. If the development falls into a sensitive area, a proper baseline study should be required. The Commissioner’s office can use the database to answer key questions: How many plant species were recorded by the baseline study, compared with the number we would expect in this area? Were any endemic, near-endemic, protected, or IUCNlisted species flagged? Were mitigation measures suggested, especially for the latter species? These answers will reveal whether the EIA studies were done properly.

Namibia’s plant database requires further development

The plant database is by no means perfect, complete, or 100% correct. Many more years of work will be necessary to clean up and complete our dataset, and then we will need to keep it up to date. New studies are published almost daily, many of which have implications not only for the classification and naming of Namibian plant species but also for their attributes, such as distribution range, physiology, chemistry, or genetics.

Our current collections, used for distribution mapping, are biased towards areas that are more accessible and popular, which make them seem more species-rich than less-visited areas. The square containing Windhoek (2217CA) is ranked first with 674 plant species recorded, while places like Waterberg, Rosh Pinah, Brandberg, and Epupa also have high numbers of species per QDS.

By contrast, 22% of the QDS blocks in Namibia have fewer than ten plant species recorded, while 57% have fewer than 50 species. No plant species at all is recorded in 4.5% of Namibia’s QDS blocks. Although some of these squares will naturally have low numbers of plants (e.g., in the Namib sand sea), most of the others will have more species than our records indicate. Many more baseline studies are required, which involve collecting, identifying, and maintaining plant specimens.

The current plant database is freely available and has many uses. Our work on endemic and nearendemic plants is just the start of a long-term plan to better understand, manage, and conserve Namibia’s unique flora.

Monechma serotinum – known from only two localities in north-western Namibia

H. Kolberg

Turnera oculata var. paucipilosa – endemic to north-western Namibia

H.

Kolberg

Between cliffs and communities: The story of Kunene’s highland elephants

By: Morgan Hauptfleisch and Michael Wenborn

by Michael Wenborn

When Captain James Shortridge wrote about Namibia in 1934, he observed that elephants were largely confined to the Caprivi and, quite unexpectedly, to the dry, rugged Kaokoveld in northwestern Namibia (now in the Zambezi and Kunene regions, respectively). Some elephants used the ephemeral springs on the southern edge of the Etosha Pan, but they were few in number.

Today, elephants are plentiful in the Zambezi and Kavango regions and Etosha National Park, while they persist in the northwestern Kunene Region. The elephants in the Kunene move across communal land, among villages and settlements, and also into freehold farmland, crossing and traversing farm fences. This population includes the famed ‘desert elephants’, who prefer the arid western parts of the dry Ugab, Huab, and Hoanib riverbeds. Occasionally, they have even wandered through the Skeleton Coast onto the beach. The ability of these elephants to adapt to these arid conditions has rightly earned them global recognition.

Photos

Desert-adapted elephant in the lower Hoanib River

Between Etosha and the lower Hoanib River lies an area of highlands (see map), which is inhabited by a similarly unusual subpopulation of elephants. This area is roughly half the size of Etosha, with mountain peaks up to 1,800 metres. The landscape features steep, rocky slopes and some wide valleys, dominated by mopane trees. There is a growing population of elephants in these mountainous areas, thought to be numbering well over 100, depending on their movements in and out of the highlands area. The ability of these ‘highland elephants’ to scale high mountains makes them just as fascinating as their desert-dwelling cousins.

The relatively small number of highland elephants spread across a large area makes them difficult to observe, especially during the day. Often having to rely on water pumped for livestock near villages, the elephants tend to visit water holes at night when they can drink without being disturbed. Our team is excited each time we see elephants, but we are even more amazed by the elephant dung and browsed trees that indicate their ability to climb the steep, rocky

hillsides we hike up during our research. We have two interlinked research projects that aim to gain a deeper understanding of these mountaineering pachyderms.

The first project started in 2021. Due to the difficulties in observing and tracking the elephants, the focus was on collating the knowledge of the community game guards who conserve the wildlife of these special highlands. The game guards are employed by communal conservancies and trained with support from Namibian conservation organisations. Some community game guards have over 20 years of experience in their roles, combined with a lifetime of living in these wild areas. Their roles include keeping records of incidents of humanelephant conflict, noting elephant sightings, and gathering evidence of elephant movements from their numerous foot patrols, including those in the highlands.

Our study employed semi-structured interviews with 34 game guards across six conservancies (see map), complemented by extensive field walks to ground-truth the common findings. This information enabled us to estimate the total elephant population in the highlands and gain a deeper understanding of elephant movements and behaviour, including which plant species the elephants prefer to eat.

Location of the highlands between Etosha and the areas inhabited by desert elephants

The low density of elephants means that they are not often spotted in the vast highlands landscape

The game guards confirmed that the elephant population in the area has been growing over the last 10-20 years, potentially due to the more reliable water supply. More boreholes have been drilled for people and livestock, and solar-powered pumps mean that water is always available. Almost all of the game guards frequently observed elephants walking up the steep mountain slopes to find their favourite trees, such as softwood trees in the Commiphora genus and the African star chestnut. The game guards’ information was confirmed through field walks to observe trees that have been browsed by elephants in the highlands, including high on cliff-tops.

The work with game guards involved participatory mapping to capture their knowledge of routes taken by elephants and areas where elephants were not known to occur. This fitted well with the second research study, which used satellite tracking data from three of the highland elephant herds. The matriarchs of these herds were collared as part of a larger study of elephant movements across the entire Kunene Region, designed to provide early warnings to farmers and villages when elephants are nearby.

It is interesting to see how local knowledge, combined with satellite technology, can provide such an accurate picture of elephant movements in these inaccessible areas. There are several cases where the movements of collared elephants align with the main elephant corridors identified by game guards (see map on p.59). For example, the valley from Okarindi Komutati to the Omunua Ndjai cattle post in Okangundumba Conservancy was noted by game guards as a common elephant route, which was confirmed by satellite data.

Top image: Elephant dung (circled) near the edge of a tufa cliff above Otjisakamuka in Omatendeka Conservancy, next to a Commiphora glaucescens tree, April 2021.

Bottom image: The cliff at Otjisakamuka showing the location of the tree and elephant dung in the previous photo.

On their way from one feeding area to another, elephants cross through villages, drink at troughs with livestock, and amble tranquilly through herds of goats and cattle. Understanding the movement pathways is crucial for conserving elephants and mitigating human-elephant conflict. Planning settlements or crop fields to avoid these movement areas will reduce conflict, while conservation efforts can focus on keeping and enhancing this landscape connectivity.

elephant movements from

These highland elephants seem to be uniquely adapted mountaineers, just as the desert elephants have adapted to extreme climate conditions and little food and water. In the highlands, elephants favour specific plants only found on the slopes and tops of the mountains. This initial research opens an exciting door to a better understanding of the nimble and secretive elephants of the Kunene Highlands.

We have many questions to guide our future research. Are they specially adapted? What threatens their existence? How will climate change, increased human activity, and water availability shape their ecology? Do they sometimes move out of the highlands to connect with the desert elephants in the west, as well as with the Etosha elephants in the east? Are the increasing numbers a concern to the special tree species they feed on? Are there ways to avoid conflict with crop and vegetable farmers? And will their range expand northwards to the mountains near the Kunene River?

This research was made possible through funding from Michael Wenborn, the Oppenheimer Generations Fellowship in People and Wildlife, and the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism.

The valley between water points Okarindi and Omunua

is regularly used by elephants, according to community game guards and confirmed by satellite data.

Comparison of

satellite data (for three herds) and elephant movement routes commonly known by game guards

Ndjai

Morgan Hauptfleisch is Director of Research at the Namibia Nature Foundation, Oppenheimer Generations Research Fellow in People and Wildlife, Extraordinary Professor at North-West University and Adjunct Professor at the Namibia University of Science and Technology. Michael Wenborn is an independent researcher and PhD candidate at Oxford Brookes University.

CONSERVATION CONTROVERSIES: THE VISTA FROM THE SUMMIT OF MOUNT STUPID IS VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE VIEW FROM THE VALLEY OF DESPAIR

By: Morgan Hauptfleisch, Namibia Nature Foundation, Oppenheimer Research Fellow in People and Wildlife

Marcus Westburg

Knowledge of wildlife behaviour, how animals care for their young, how they communicate with each other, and other cute and interesting facts are common in nature guidebooks, magazine articles, and safari guide rhetoric. The eco-tourism experience is about giving the animal a place in our hearts. Conversely, knowledge of ecosystem processes, energy flow, homeostasis, genetic bottlenecks, and carrying capacity is not well understood by the general public, as it is seldom explained outside of scientific writing and lecture halls. The last thing an avid tourist on safari wants to hear about is how a six-carbon sugar is converted into two molecules of pyruvate, allowing an elephant to locomote.

A love of animals, combined with a limited understanding of ecology, is possibly one of the root causes of many vitriolic debates about wildlife conservation. My teenager would call it a clap-back battle – a mud-slinging contest by camouflaged keyboard ninjas on social media. Some of the topics that incite these debates include elephant culling, trophy hunting, and alien invasive species extermination (especially if the species is a ‘cute’ mammal). I will attempt to unpack two of these topics affecting biodiversity conservation in southern Africa: trophy hunting and elephant management.

Trophy hunting and the Dunning-Kruger effect

The narrative around trophy hunting is driven by equally vociferous pro- and anti-hunting activists on social and traditional media. Meanwhile, economic and ecological statistics are hidden in scientific journals alongside thousands of unrelated writings.

A group of scientists from the University of Reading in the UK randomly selected 500 social media posts about the trophy hunting debate. They found that 350 of these opposed trophy hunting, and only 22 advocated for it. The other 128 either had a neutral view or their stance could not be determined. The general tone was unsurprisingly classified by the scientists as hostile, while 7% of the posts were classified as abusive. The posts were largely considered to be unproductive in terms of exchanging ideas and opinions. They further characterised four archetypes opposing trophy hunting: the activist, the condemner, the objector, and the scientist. Only the objector and the scientist allowed for any form of productive discussion.

The problem with social media is that information is provided in snippets of around 20 words, making it easy to retain in memory. If a reader were to digest the first 10 social media posts in the example above, it is quite likely that they would feel supremely confident about the “facts” presented, especially the persuasive ones. This leads them to steadily climb up “Mount Stupid”.

Let me explain what I mean by Mount Stupid. In 2011, two scholars of psychology – David Dunning and Justin Kruger – published their research on why people with little knowledge or competence in a particular subject are overconfident in their understanding of that subject. Their resulting graph (see next page) is now known as the Dunning-Kruger effect.

The Dunning-Kruger model shows that as we move from no knowledge to a little knowledge, there is a dramatic rise in our confidence: we think that we have mastered the subject and therefore form a strong opinion. As we educate ourselves further, however, our confidence tumbles down the mountain, reaching the “Valley of Despair”. Here we discover the complexity and nuance of the subject and start to realise that we know very little. Often, the scientist is clawing his or her way out of the valley, somewhere towards the “Slope of Enlightenment”, but their confidence is nowhere near that of those left behind on the crest of Mount Stupid. Without trying to gain more knowledge on the subject, those on the mountain are seldom budged.

From the anti-hunter’s mountaintop, it is overwhelmingly evident that the hunter poses a threat to the animal, and its demise will result in the loss of a sentient being to the earth, likely threatening the species with extinction. The act is savage and cruel, equal to murder. It is equally clear from the hunter’s mountain that hunting is a sport that is good for conservation and economics and that the opposing view is elitist, idealistic, and even neocolonial.

Upon further investigation, however, the complex context of communities coexisting with wildlife can be better understood. Hunting provides job opportunities, meat, and economic benefits, which increase tolerance for the species’ long-term existence. This comes at the cost of a living creature, which was wild and free until the trigger was pulled. But does the loss of that individual result in a weaker or stronger gene pool for the population? Does it affect the viability of the species? What roles do ethics, motivation, social and economic status, or other factors, play in the hunter’s actions to benefit or harm conservation? These are the questions that scientists grapple with in the Valley of Despair.

One way to test the effect of an action, such as hunting, is to compare “treatment” and “control” scenarios, where the thing being evaluated is either present (treatment) or absent (control). Namibia has allowed trophy hunting since 1967 on freehold lands and 1996 on communal lands, and is therefore our treatment. Kenya outlawed trophy hunting in 1977, making it a controlled activity. In Namibia, wildlife populations have increased substantially since the 1970s, particularly outside formally protected areas where hunting is permitted. In Kenya, wildlife populations declined by 68% between 1977 and 2016.

This prompts us to ask: Does Namibia have stable or growing populations because of hunting, or does hunting occur because

there are healthy wildlife populations, or is it a coincidence? To further add to the complexity, Namibia and Kenya have changed in many ways besides just allowing or not allowing hunting – human population growth, changes in legislation on related matters (e.g., land ownership), and their years of independence are just a few of the many differences between the two countries. This comparison did not happen in a controlled laboratory setting!

The Dunning-Kruger Confidence-Competence graph

Wallstreet Mojo

Morgan Hauptfleisch

Trophy hunting is clearly not a topic to be judged in the court of Instagram or Hello magazine. The complexities need to be translated into hypotheses, tested, and accepted or rejected, leading to new knowledge and further scientific advancement. This should move us a little further up the Slope of Enlightenment.

Too few or too many elephants? Another case for Dunning-Kruger Returning to the first point made in this article, elephants are one of the major attractions for tourists visiting Africa. They are the main characters in storybooks, films, and commercials. They are indeed magnificent, gentle, wise, and intelligent creatures. Any thought of interfering with their existence or population numbers through lethal means is, therefore, horrifying and inhumane to a large proportion of humans. To compound matters, only a fragment of the savanna elephant’s historical range throughout Africa is still occupied by elephants today, and many subpopulations across the continent are in

decline. It is, therefore, understandable that elephant-lovers on Mount Stupid believe that all elephants must be saved at all costs.

Proceeding to the opposite peak of Mount Stupid, a farmer in the Kalahari who wakes up one morning to a destroyed borehole and reservoir, flattened fences, and a stripped crop field sees a marauding herd of beasts that stole his livelihood. There may not have been elephants there in that farmer’s lifetime, so he imagines that there must be far too many of them.

A debate has been raging for decades about the need to reduce elephant populations in certain parks and reserves across southern Africa. Between the 1960s and 1990s, elephants were regularly culled in Namibian and South African parks if they were thought to have exceeded the park’s carrying capacity. As elephant numbers grow within parks and cause increasing conflict with humans outside the

Morgan Hauptfleisch

parks, culling is again becoming an option. There is, however, public sentiment that it is cruel and barbaric, and killing individuals of a species that is globally under threat goes against conservation principles.

To push the needle of knowledge and understanding of the elephant debate towards the Valley of Despair, we need to consider some complexity: if the African elephant population (see map) is considered by region or country, there are vastly different conservation management priorities in each. In many parts of West and Central Africa, elephant populations are small and isolated, with poaching for ivory being a common occurrence. Here, active preservation of each elephant, including protection against poaching, is critical.

In southern Africa, however, the situation is different. Elephant populations have increased, in some cases dramatically. In the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA), there are over 220,000 elephants, 62% of all savanna elephants. Human-elephant conflict and loss of tree diversity and structure are the major concerns in this area. A 35-year study of vegetation in Chobe National Park documented a steady decline in riparian forest and woodland vegetation. The riverine forest disappeared completely between 1985 and 1998. There seem to be far too many elephants to maintain that ecosystem.

Elephant distribution throughout Africa Bamse, from the African Elephant

Marcus Westburg

The focus on too few or too many might be the wrong angle. Historically, elephants were seldom confined to one area for very long. In his 1934 book Mammals of South West Africa, Captain Shortridge noted that elephants were “tireless walkers” that “cover hundreds of miles trekking backwards and forwards from one drinking place or feeding ground to another”. They would gather in large numbers in areas where good rains had fallen, but only till the surface water dried up and they needed to move on. This resulted in a natural grazing rotation system, giving vegetation time to recover and reducing over-use.

In Namibia’s Kunene Region, Shortridge noted that “elephants were wet season migrants to southern Kunene”. Today, with borehole water available throughout the area, the Kunene elephant population has grown and become resident. Their permanent presence can be argued to be a man-made phenomenon. Increased human-elephant conflict across much of Kunene’s farmland has been widely reported, and damage to vegetation is being observed.

A long-term solution proposed by the renowned elephant scientist Rudi van Aarde and others is re-establishing space and corridors for elephants to move over long distances. This is easier said than done. Africa’s human population has grown from just under 285 million in 1960 to over 1.5 billion today. Is there enough space for elephants and us? Can we realistically make enough space for elephants to move as they would have historically? If there are clear overpopulations of elephants, why should culling and hunting be forbidden at the cost of biodiversity and ecosystem balance? In such cases, conservationists need to actively manage wildlife (including elephants), and all available options need to be considered, including lethal ones. In some cases, not acting quickly results in devastating habitat destruction and starvation of wildlife, including elephants.

One example is Madikwe National Park in South Africa, a 75,000-hectare fenced park surrounded by densely populated rural

settlements. In 1992-93, the population of 219 elephants was thriving. Over the years, the negative effects of a growing elephant population became evident. A few were caught and relocated to other parks, but a government policy banning culling, largely driven by a fear of international uproar, meant the population continued to grow.

A drought in 2024 pushed Madikwe’s elephant-damaged vegetation over the edge. Pictures of skeletal, starving elephants hit the headlines. The NSPCA charged Provincial Park Management with animal cruelty for poor management. The elephant population has reached over 1,600 animals, which is one elephant every 43 hectares. Imagine the effect on the ecosystem. Finding a home for the excess elephants, or even the logistics of catching and relocating such a large number of animals, is impossible. It is clear that culling is needed in addition to translocations, contraception, feeding, and other options.

In an age where a buffet of information, opinion, facts, and lies is available, and sometimes even forced upon us, it’s easy to reach Mount Stupid rapidly and condemn the actions of conservationists. To truly understand issues such as hunting or culling and make positive contributions towards preserving our biodiversity and ecosystems, we need to leave the false clarity from the mountaintop and descend into the Valley of Despair with studious and critical thought. Ultimately, science needs to regain its popularity and importance to generate targeted and objective knowledge to drive management and public education.

Morgan Hauptfleisch is Director of Research at the Namibia Nature Foundation, Oppenheimer Generations Research Fellow in People and Wildlife, Extraordinary Professor at North-West University and Adjunct Professor at the Namibia University of Science and Technology.

Rachel Futter

By: WWF Namibia’s Wildlife and Landscape team

At dawn in the Kwandu Conservancy, an elephant pads silently across the floodplain. Unseen by human eyes, its image is captured by a hidden lens nestled in the underbrush. This photo is more than a marvel; it is proof that conservation is working.

Namibia’s biodiversity is under increasing pressure. Poaching, habitat degradation, and human-wildlife conflict threaten the delicate balance of our ecosystems. However, in the Zambezi Region, a quiet transformation is underway. Thanks to the Wildlife Credits initiative, supported by Germany’s Development Bank (KfW), FirstRand Namibia, The Lion Recovery Fund, and Distell, communities are using technology to protect wildlife and reimagine conservation.

From tradition to technology

Namibia has long been a global leader in community-based conservation. Since the 1990s, communal conservancies have empowered local people to manage and benefit from their natural resources. Today, camera traps are adding a new layer to that legacy. Using new-generation camera traps that submit images in realtime, we can already gain valuable insights into wildlife activity across Bamunu, Sobbe, and Kwandu Conservancies. These motionsensitive devices quietly capture animals in their natural habitats, helping conservancies confirm the presence of species and monitor biodiversity. From buffaloes to towering elephants, the cameras are

Wildlife Credits rewards conservancies for maintaining wildlife corridors

FAO/David Mansell-Moullin

Sobbe Conservany community game guards

FAO/David Mansell-Moullin

Giraffe and many other species benefit from the wildlife corridors established in communal conservancies

Wildlife Credits payments to conservancies are based on evidence provided by camera traps

WWF, Namibia WWF, Namibia

Elephants and people live side-by-side in communal conservancies

revealing patterns in population size, habitat use, and movement, providing critical data to guide conservation efforts.

“We are already seeing a rich stream of data flowing in through the online platform. It is a promising sign of how conservation technology can truly empower communities to protect biodiversity,” says Matthew Walters, WWF Namibia Programme Officer for Science and Technology. Furthermore, camera traps act as silent guardians across conservancy landscapes, capturing the movements of wildlife and detecting human activity. By recording species presence and alerting community game guards to unexpected human intrusion, they help monitor biodiversity while serving as an early warning system against illegal activities. This dual function strengthens protection efforts and ensures that core wildlife areas within conservancies remain safe and undisturbed.

Camera traps may capture the movements of Namibia’s wildlife, but it’s the people behind them who bring the wilderness to life. Game guards and community members read the land like a living map, placing cameras where footprints whisper stories and trails hint at hidden journeys. Their instincts, honed by generations of tracking and protecting, turn technology into a powerful ally in conservation. In Namibia, conservation is not just about tools. It is about trust, tradition, and the tireless footsteps of those who walk in the wild.

Conservation that pays

In Namibia’s communal conservancies, wildlife is more than a symbol of natural beauty; it is a vital part of the local economy. It is a source of income. Through Wildlife Credits, conservancies receive performancebased payments for verified sightings of key species and the protection of wild spaces.

Notably, when camera traps capture images of species listed on the IUCN Monitoring List, conservancies earn bonus payments in addition to their standard Wildlife Credits, further reinforcing the value of preserving endangered wildlife. This approach rewards communities for maintaining healthy ecosystems and protecting biodiversity.

Camera traps are essential to the Wildlife Credits model. By capturing clear, time-stamped images of species like elephants, lions, and African wild dogs, they provide verifiable data that confirms their presence in each conservancy. These species all have significant value for

Tin cans attached to fences is one way that local people try to reduce elephant incursions into their crop fields

conservation, but can cause high levels of human-wildlife conflict by damaging crops, killing livestock, and causing other problems. Wildlife Credits helps communities to live with and conserve these species.

Besides verified sightings of particular species, Wildlife Credits rewards conservancies for maintaining wildlife corridors and zones. For instance, the Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy receives payments through the Kunene Lion Project for tolerating and conserving desert-adapted lions in a region prone to human-wildlife conflict. Meanwhile, the Kwandu Conservancy earns credits for preserving vital wildlife corridors that support the movement of elephants and predators. The better a conservancy protects and documents its biodiversity, the greater its financial reward, thus incentivising communities to actively safeguard their natural resources. This ensures conservation efforts are recognised and sustained.

This system establishes a direct connection between conservation and community benefits. Funds earned through Wildlife Credits are managed by the conservancy itself, allowing the community to decide how best to reinvest them, whether in ranger patrol uniforms, infrastructure, or education. It ensures that conservation efforts are practical, measurable, and led by local communities.

Looking Ahead

Imagine a Namibia where conservation is an integral part of everyday life, where wildlife thrives, and communities grow stronger. Lions roam freely, elephants carve paths through the savannah, and each image captured tells a story of resilience, renewal, and community dedication to conservation.

Namibia’s wildlife is more than a national treasure; it is a living legacy. By championing community-led conservation, promoting sustainable land use, and harnessing tools like camera traps, we take meaningful steps toward protecting that legacy for generations to come.

Join the movement today. Every action counts in preserving Namibia’s wildlife and supporting the communities that protect it. To learn more or support this initiative, visit: www.wildlifecredits. com or contact info@wildlifecredits.com.

FAO/David Mansell-Moullin

FAO/David Mansell-Moullin

J. Kemper

Balancing livelihoods and sustainable fisheries management

By: Neil Shaw and Jessica Kemper

For centuries, conservation and capitalism have been framed as opposing forces. Today, however, a new paradigm is emerging: ecological protection is being recognised as the foundation of long-term prosperity. The central issue, especially for marine environments facing overfishing and declining fish stocks, is whether true economic resilience can be achieved only through sustainable ecosystem management.

In the 1950s and 60s, the rich Benguela Current ecosystem formed the backbone of the pilchard (also known as sardine) industry, with an estimated biomass between 4 and 11 million tonnes in the northern Benguela ecosystem off Namibia. Fishing efforts there peaked in the late 1960s, but declined rapidly from the early 1970s as pilchard stocks collapsed. By 1980, eight of the 11 pilchard canneries had closed, with upwards of 3,000 jobs lost. Fishing efforts in Namibia continued to sustain the pilchard industry, albeit at extremely low levels, but pilchard stocks failed to recover.

This article highlights the importance of maintaining a healthy marine ecosystem, which is critical to ensuring that an equilibrium amongst diverse species – from minute plankton to fish to top predators such as seabirds – is maintained. The collapse of a keystone species has the potential to disrupt the Benguela Current ecosystem, leading to an unhealthy state with repercussions not only for top predators but also for people and livelihoods.

The Benguela Current Ecosystem

Namibia and South Africa are struggling to strike a balance Recognising the severity of the collapse and its repercussions on the health of the northern Benguela ecosystem, Namibia introduced a moratorium on pilchards in 2018, with the benchmark for reopening set at one million tonnes of biomass and fish of two or three year classes represented, a cautious target aimed at stock recovery. Yet in July 2025, the Cabinet authorised a quota of 10,000 tonnes, despite scientific advice and without transparent evidence that the benchmark had been achieved.

While the decision reflects real socio-economic pressures, including high unemployment and industry lobbying, it raises questions about transparency and consultation: Which stakeholders were involved in shaping this outcome? How were the competing needs of industry, small-scale fishers, and conservation weighed? The process itself remains opaque, leaving observers concerned that short-term expediency may again override long-term sustainability.

Across the border, South Africa provides a case that followed a different trajectory. In March 2025, BirdLife South Africa and the Southern African Foundation for the Conservation of Coastal Birds (SANCCOB) won a landmark High Court ruling compelling the government to enforce year-round no-take zones around six African Penguin breeding colonies. These zones directly restrict pilchard and anchovy fisheries in areas of critical ecological overlap. The ruling mandates annual reviews through 2035, embedding accountability and transparency into policy. This approach demonstrates how governance mechanisms – legal challenge, judicial oversight, and stakeholder mobilisation – can create structured processes that balance industry activity with ecological imperatives.

The South African experience illustrates the importance of holding the line until genuine recovery is secured and soundly documented. For conservationists, the case has emerged as a critical inflection point, demanding unwavering commitment to prevent species extinction.

Namibia’s challenge is not the absence of protection measures, but how these are implemented and enforced. Since 2009, the Namibian Islands’ Marine Protected Area (NIMPA) has safeguarded critical breeding and foraging grounds for African Penguins, Cape Gannets, and cormorant species through zoned management that restricts a range of activities, including fishing.

On paper, this represents one of the strongest conservation commitments in Africa. Yet MPAs cannot function in isolation. The productivity of NIMPA depends on the health of the wider northern Benguela system, particularly the recovery of pilchard stocks that seabirds and fisheries alike rely upon. Without effective regional management to ensure pilchard biomass targets are reached and sustained, the protections offered by NIMPA risk becoming negligible. In other words, protecting one particular area cannot offset unsustainable harvest decisions that affect the whole Benguela ecosystem.

Ultimately, governments across the Benguela Current system face the same difficult balancing act: safeguarding marine ecosystems while supporting jobs, food security, and economic growth. In Namibia, where unemployment remains high, pressure to reopen the pilchard fishery is understandable in the short term. This tension is illustrated by the Secretary of Benguela Infinite Fisheries & Harvesting Association in Lüderitz: “…some days, our fishermen go out and there is nothing for them to catch. As an association, supporting over 200 members, our fishermen need to be able to access key fishing areas”.

Conservationists warn of species extinction if stocks fail to recover; industry seeks to keep canneries viable; government faces intense pressure to stimulate employment. The central question remains whether lifting the moratorium now will deliver short-term relief at the cost of undermining long-term recovery – and with it, the very resource base that Namibia’s people and economy ultimately depend upon.

Is history repeating itself? The Namibian experience serves as a cautionary tale: delaying decisive action can deepen ecological collapse and amplify socio-economic consequences. The lesson is clear. Protective measures, however unpopular in the short term, can safeguard both biodiversity and the long-term viability of fisheries.

African Penguin feeding chicks

J. Kemper

Harder (mullet) fishermen – Second Lagoon, Lüderitz

J. Kemper

The dire state of the Benguela Current Ecosystem

Two recent scientific reviews of food limitations for seabirds in the Benguela Current ecosystem, one by Jean-Paul Roux and colleagues in 2013 and another by Robert Crawford and colleagues in 2022, stressed that safeguarding keystone species such as pilchards is critical for the survival of many other species. Top predators like the African Penguin, Cape Gannet, and Cape Cormorant are in severe decline primarily due to the lack of good-quality fish.

These articles argue: 1) a clear correlation between decline in pilchards and reduction in breeding success among endangered and critically endangered seabirds, and 2) that the increased abundance of jellyfish can be attributed to the collapse of pilchards within the Benguela Current ecosystem. This underscores the fundamental link between forage fish abundance and the viability of higher predators in the system, as depicted in the images below.

The main energy flows toward fish production and fisheries in the northern Benguela. The pilchard (sardine) was the main link between primary and secondary producers and fish, fisheries, and predators during 1950–1970. (Source – Roux et al. (2013))

the

Roux J-P, et al. (2013). Jellyfication of marine ecosystems as a likely consequence of overfishing small pelagic fishes: Lessons from the Benguela. Bulletin of Marine Science 89(1): 249-284.

As demonstrated by Namibia and South Africa, there are multiple ways to safeguard such keystone resources. Spatial measures include South Africa’s no-take zones around certain areas and Namibia’s notake zone for some species from the coastline to 200 metres water depth (known as the 200m isobath). According to Matti Amukwa, Chairperson of the Namibian Fishing Confederation, “The 200m isobath restrictions were introduced for scientific reasons. The shallow waters are the spawning grounds for most of the commercial species in Namibia” (as quoted in the New Era, 2022). There is also an important role for protected areas such as NIMPA or other habitats or ecosystems that are crucial for the structural and functional health of a marine ecosystem, such as “Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas” (some of which may be transboundary), provided they are carefully designed and well managed.

Temporal measures include well-enforced species-specific fishery moratoriums or seasonal closures (as is the case for hake and rock lobster in Namibia), while other management actions, apart from a robust, transparent quota system based on solid scientific data, may include fishing gear restrictions or bycatch limitation measures. Such initiatives, provided they are effectively implemented, monitored, and regularly assessed, have been widely documented to restore near-extinct species, safeguard key habitats and ecosystems, rebuild and increase fish stocks, and provide refuge for threatened species.

Working towards a common goal

Marine conservation and fisheries management cannot succeed in isolation; they must work together, or we risk losing both biodiversity and livelihood opportunities. At this point, the stakes could not be higher: critically endangered seabirds teetering on the brink of extinction and crashed pilchard stocks that struggle to recover are clear signs that the Benguela Current system is unwell. Unless this situation improves, we will face devastating long-term socio-economic consequences for communities that rely on the fishing industry.

Are we doing enough to safeguard our resources while ensuring the fishing industry can benefit sustainably? Strategic, well-informed interventions, including well-designed and monitored no-take zones, buffer areas, and temporal closures, offer a clear path forward. Namibia’s 2018 pilchard fishery moratorium demonstrates the power of foresight: temporary sacrifice today can yield thriving stocks tomorrow. Similarly, initiatives such as the Benguela Current Convention (BCC) and the NIMPA+ project show that collaboration between governments, conservationists, and industry is not just possible, it is essential – at local, national, and international levels.

The lesson is undeniable: protecting marine ecosystems is not a zerosum game. When approached strategically, conservation safeguards biodiversity, sustains fisheries, and strengthens coastal economies. The time to act is now. If we seize this moment, we can ensure that southern Africa’s rich marine resources continue to support both nature and people for generations to come.

Acknowledgements

We thank the Executive Committee of NAMCOB for their input and Dr. Jean-Paul Roux for his valuable insights, contributions, and permission to use images from his studies. https://namcob.org.na/

Crawford RJM, et al. (2022). Food limitation of seabirds in the Benguela ecosystem and management of their prey base. Namibian Journal of Environment 6A: 1-13.

After

pilchard (sardine) stock collapse in the early 1970s, most of the energy flow (yellow arrows) was diverted to jellyfish, detritus, benthic recycling, and bearded goby during 1980–2010. (Source – Roux et al. (2013))

NCE Supports

Assessing Namibia’s Energy Options

By: Chris Brown & Gail Thomson

Namibia stands on the cusp of change in its energy sector. Oil, bush biomass, and green hydrogen are appearing on the horizon, making coal, hydropower, solar panels, and wind turbines seem like yesterday’s news. Promises of jobs and economic growth come thick and fast from some of the new sectors, leaving the average member of the public reeling and uncertain about which option (or options) to support.

As we stand at the crossroads, Namibia must decide which energy future will best serve its people. To do that, we need to look beyond the press releases, the hype, and the exaggerated promises, and base our assessment on reality and evidence in an even-handed manner. This guide to various energy options aims to inform Namibian citizens and policy-makers about the potential benefits and pitfalls associated with each form of energy. We also consider an option that has been generally overlooked in the past: nuclear power.

As we assess each source of energy, we keep in mind Namibia’s unique context that tips the balance one way or the other for each industry. Namibia is in desperate need of jobs, and its economy is faltering. High economic inequality and a critical housing shortage in urban areas are among the numerous socio-economic challenges that need to be addressed.

The availability of natural resources also plays a key role. Sunshine and thorny bush (the latter in central parts of the country) are abundant, while freshwater is rare and precious. Finally, Namibia hosts significant populations of plants and animals (biodiversity) that are important from conservation, environmental stability, and tourism perspectives, which should not be sacrificed for energy, ‘green’ or otherwise.

ARE COAL AND FOSSIL FUELS DYING?

Due to the strong link between the use of fossil fuels and climate change, there is pressure on governments worldwide to find alternatives to coal and oil. These sources of energy also contribute to air pollution, which can lead to health issues for individuals residing near power plants and in urban areas with high concentrations of fuelburning vehicles. The global shift away from these ‘dirty’ sources of electricity is a positive development, but Namibia must be cautious in its approach to transitioning to cleaner energy, ensuring it aligns with its own developmental needs.

Currently, Namibia imports coal, diesel, petrol, and other fuels to produce electricity and power the transport sector. The price of oil is determined on a global level, which puts Namibians at the mercy

of geopolitical issues that cause spikes in the oil price. Reducing the nation’s reliance on imported coal and fuel derived from oil is a good idea for both environmental and developmental reasons.

Our conclusion: Move away from coal and oil imports as soon as practical.

WILL OIL EXPORTS BENEFIT ALL NAMIBIANS?

Although oil imports should be reduced as much as possible, Namibia could become an oil exporter. Recent explorations off the coast of Namibia have sparked hope among many, with several major oil companies showing interest in exploiting these deposits. While joining the ranks of oil-producing nations goes against global pressure to move away from fossil fuels, it is hard to argue that Namibia should not be allowed to exploit this highly valuable resource. This is especially true when wealthy, industrialised nations that have caused the current situation and have benefited for decades from this resource continue to exploit fossil fuels in their jurisdictions.

The potential costs to the local environment are nonetheless worth noting ‒ oil spills, while rare, can be catastrophic for marine life. Water pollution and possible impacts on commercially important fish stocks must be taken into consideration. On the positive side, the large multinational oil companies showing interest in Namibia are aware of how to mitigate these impacts and are subject to global scrutiny to maintain good environmental practices. Potential oil spill mapping and response plans are part of each EIA for oil exploration, and Namibia has an oil spill disaster management plan in place, working with the oil exploration sector, neighbouring countries, the international community, and local NGOs.

The current discussions surrounding oil focus on local content policies and contracts to mandate Namibian ownership and create jobs, yet this is a distraction from more pressing issues. The nature of the industry is such that relatively few local jobs should be expected, while local ownership clauses are likely to benefit a few well-connected individuals rather than the whole country. If managed this way, economic inequality is likely to increase, and we can expect Namibia to come under the ‘resource curse’ that plagues several other oilproducing countries.

If the government receives about US$20/barrel of oil produced, it could nearly double current tax revenues. The real question that all Namibians should be asking is how this massive budget expansion will be used. Namibia needs to learn from oil-rich countries that

Gail Thomson

have generated widespread, long-lasting, sustainable benefits from oil revenues (e.g., Norway and its sovereign wealth fund) and apply these ideas at home. A long-term fund that provides proper housing and sanitation for the urban poor, invests in excellent education and healthcare, builds a strong, diversified, and resilient economy, and invests in the environment and sustainable practices (among other priorities) would be more useful than granting a few local elites ownership over oil production companies.

Conclusion: Focus more on benefit sharing than ownership issues. The government has a poor track record in this regard. A national focus, transparency, accountability, and robust institutional structures are necessary to ensure the wise use of oil revenue.

POWERING A DRY COUNTRY WITH FRESH WATER?

Namibia’s biggest local source of electricity is the hydroelectric power plant at Ruacana Falls on the Kunene River. The amount of electricity produced is dependent on water flows, which are in turn affected by multiple environmental (e.g., drought) and human (e.g., water extraction upstream) factors.

Another hydropower dam is planned on the same river downstream of Epupa Falls near Marienfluss. The environmental and cultural impacts of such dams can be high, while the amount of energy produced could be highly variable. Climate change predictions suggest that we should prepare for longer and more severe droughts. Meanwhile, river flow models predict an overall decline in river water volume of 25-35% due to climate change. It is therefore likely that the reliability of electricity produced from hydropower will decline in the future.

Conclusion: Given the high negative impacts of dams and the reduced reliability of hydropower, this is not the best option for Namibia, as there are better alternatives.

ARE THERE DRAWBACKS TO SOLAR AND WIND?

The abundant sunshine across Namibia and windy conditions on the coast appear to be the solution to all energy woes, but this is not entirely true. Solar farms and wind turbines can play a supporting role at a local level (e.g., powering a mine or shopping mall) or by contributing to the electricity grid. Even more so than hydropower, however, these sources are intermittent. Even with Namibia’s brilliant blue skies, the sun always sets. Wind is even less reliable than sunshine ‒ even Lüderitz has calm days.

The key challenge for these intermittent forms of energy is storage. Battery technology is constantly improving, but it remains a critical limitation that prevents solar and wind from entirely replacing energy

from conventional power plants. Solar panels and the current batteries used for these systems require rare earth minerals, thus increasing the demand for mining. Procuring rare earth minerals and manufacturing solar panels have been respectively linked with child labour in the Democratic Republic of Congo and slave labour in China, as well as severe environmental degradation and radioactive contamination from the thorium that is always associated with rare earths.

After 25-30 years, panels and turbines become so inefficient that they must be replaced, yet it is difficult and expensive to recycle them. Wind turbines incur an additional environmental cost for birds and bats that become entangled in their blades, making them a less attractive option for development near important bird areas. Wind turbines may also detract from the natural beauty of a particular landscape, thus affecting tourism if they are built in tourist hotspots.

Solar farms have fewer drawbacks than wind turbines, since they can be built anywhere that gets sufficient sunlight (most of inland Namibia). Parts of southern Namibia that are becoming less suitable for livestock due to frequent droughts would be ideal for solar farms. If the solar farms are located on the southern communal lands, the communities living in these areas would become shareholders in these operations, thus generating jobs and income.

Conclusion: Solar power can make a significant contribution to Namibia’s energy needs, particularly when combined with a strong and reliable base load generation.

GREEN HYDROGEN: SMOKE AND MIRRORS?

Green hydrogen has been introduced to Namibians as a highly profitable idea that is expected to create 250,000 jobs, at a time when the economy is struggling and unemployment rates are high. Yet the basis for these claims is flimsy, given what we know about hydrogen as a source of energy. Hydrogen has been explored in many countries as a potential source of power, but it has proven to be inefficient, expensive, and challenging to store. Green hydrogen, in particular, is prohibitively expensive compared to using normal electricity or fuel.

As a result of these technical and economic issues, global enthusiasm for hydrogen is waning. In July 2025 alone, over US$16 billion in potential investment in hydrogen production and use projects was withdrawn from the sector, as major hydrogen projects were cancelled or shelved. Since then, BP has cancelled its US$36 billion investment in renewables and green hydrogen in Australia, and the EU has fallen far behind its planned green hydrogen production and import targets of 10 million tons each, with the gap between ambition and reality widening, and only 17% of these targets likely to be achieved by the end of this decade.

Germany, which is a key player in the Namibian hydrogen sector, has also recently halted several green hydrogen projects. Plans to convert two steel plants in Germany to use hydrogen were cancelled as the developer realised the huge costs associated with using hydrogen rather than other forms of energy and handed back €1.3 billion in subsidies. A German energy company has reportedly withdrawn from its agreement to purchase green ammonia from the Hyphen project. From a Namibian perspective, it is unlikely that the green hydrogen sector will generate significant employment opportunities or yield sufficient profits to generate tax revenue. Relatively small hydrogen projects that aim to produce green hydrogen and ammonia as a fuel for shipping (possibly the most sensible use of hydrogen) could create a few jobs and generate minor taxable revenue, but are unlikely to

Olga Ernst

occupy more than a small “niche” in the carbon-neutral energy mix. By contrast, the large-scale hydrogen-ammonia plans in southern Namibia, slated to supply steel plants in Germany, are likely to come at an immense environmental cost while producing something that steel plants will not buy. The Namibian government should not invest any taxpayer money in this plan for economic reasons, and should not proceed with it for environmental and human rights reasons.

Conclusion: Expectations for green hydrogen in Namibia are significantly overstated and do not align with global market realities. It plays a very small role in Namibia’s energy future.

BUSH BIOMASS: DEFORESTATION OR SUSTAINABLE ENERGY AND RESTORATION?

The dense thickets in the central regions of Namibia reduce farm productivity and have long been considered an ecological problem to be addressed. It reflects rangeland degradation resulting from poor farming practices, including wrong grazing systems and the exclusion of fire. In a recent development, the bush (an indigenous woody pioneer invader species) is being viewed as an economic opportunity for the energy sector. Namibia hosts an estimated 1.5 billion tonnes of standing woody biomass, approximately 30% of which could be harvested sustainably and in a carbon-neutral manner. There is growing evidence that restoring bushy rangelands to open savanna ecosystems is not only beneficial for productivity and biodiversity, but also for water infiltration and soil carbon sequestration.

This biomass can be used to produce electricity for Namibia’s domestic use and be exported as charcoal, a form of green energy, to other markets. Domestically, NamPower is constructing a 40MW power plant near Tsumeb, which will convert bush into electricity and supply the national grid. For export, the SteamBioAfrica project is exploring ways to convert biomass into a cleaner-burning, ‘green’ coal that can be sold to European markets. When biomass is superheated, it produces biochar, which is known to improve soil structure and productivity, thereby restoring degraded rangeland soils.

The labour-intensive nature of bush harvesting and processing means that these biomass businesses could create more jobs in rural areas than farming alone. The industry also creates space for entrepreneurship, as there are many potential uses for bush that have yet to be explored.

Conclusion: Bush biomass presents an economic opportunity and a potential contributor to Namibia’s domestic energy mix and exports, with numerous potential environmental benefits.

GOING NUCLEAR—IS IT FEASIBLE, AND HOW WOULD WE DO IT?

Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest forms of energy, with even lower greenhouse gas emissions than solar and wind power when the whole system is taken into account (e.g., production and disposal of materials, known as cradle-to-grave). Contrary to popular opinion, nuclear energy is also safe ‒ besides a few well-publicised disasters caused by earthquakes (Fukushima, Japan) and accidents at outdated facilities due to human error (Chernobyl, Russia) ‒ when measured as the number of deaths per terawatt-hour of energy produced globally, nuclear safety is comparable to wind and solar. The 820 deaths in the coal energy sector and 613 deaths in the oil energy sector, for each death in the nuclear energy sector, are seldom publicised.

Due to its high energy content, the environmental footprint of nuclear energy, including mining, enrichment, power plant operations, and

waste storage, is relatively small compared to most other energy sectors, particularly renewable energy and, in particular, green hydrogen. For example, the Torness Nuclear Power Station, just 52 km from Edinburgh, Scotland, surrounded by small farms, produces twice Namibia’s peak electricity demand on just 20 hectares. Another major consideration is that nuclear energy does not require backup energy sources that are essential for renewables. When the sun does not shine, and the wind does not blow, expensive back-up options need to be on standby, such as gas-powered facilities. These backup generators and their associated running costs are seldom factored into the energy costs provided by proponents of renewable energy.

Disposal of nuclear waste remains a challenge that is continually being improved through research and engineering. It is now possible to reuse nuclear rods multiple times, reducing the amount of waste produced. Since some nuclear waste products are radioactive, they must be stored in a safe container for extended periods. However, with ever more effective reuse, the amount of waste that needs to be stored is largely reduced. The best current options for storage are deep underground containers in seismically stable, sparsely populated areas.

For Namibia, the key hurdle to overcome for developing a nuclear power plant is investment. The initial capital requirements are high, and it would make sense to develop a plant with co-investment from other governments and private financiers. Other hurdles include the current lack of local expertise in the nuclear field and an inadequate legislative framework; however, with proper planning and commitment, these too can be overcome.

The size of Namibia’s grid is another obstacle if a conventional nuclear power plant were to be considered. However, the current trend to develop small modular reactors (SMRs) will also allow countries with a small grid, such as Namibia, to utilise nuclear energy. SMRs could indeed become a game changer across the entire continent of Africa.

Given the similar electricity situation of Botswana and Namibia, we suggest that Botswana is an ideal government partner. The electricity produced by a relatively small (covering 20 hectares) nuclear power plant is sufficient to meet the demands of both Namibia and Botswana, and to be exported to neighbouring countries. Both countries would become independent of the South African electricity supply and be able to reduce electricity costs for their people.

Nuclear power plants require substantial amounts of water to maintain their cooling systems at an optimal temperature for operation. Suitable locations for a Namibian powerplant are therefore limited to the

Matthias

Bruhin

OLC solar energy power plant near Arandis

coast (using desalinated water), near one of the perennial rivers in the north or south, or next to Namibia’s largest and currently unused dam: Neckartal. Each of these options should be explored during a thorough, fully consultative feasibility study.

Conclusion: Nuclear power is a promising medium- to long-term solution for Namibia’s domestic energy needs and is likely to enable the country to become a net exporter of carbon-neutral electricity.

INTEGRATING ENERGY SOLUTIONS WITH WATER AND AGRICULTURE

The development of nuclear base-load energy, integrated with the Ruacana hydropower plant, the new biomass plant near Tsumeb, and other existing power sources, would provide a consistent source of energy (base load) that increases the amount of solar energy the grid can support. Increasing solar power supply without a strong base load can lead to grid instability and subsequently higher consumer costs. A reliable and resilient national energy system is crucial to attracting foreign investment and driving Namibia’s economic growth.

A further requirement for economic growth is secure water. The Okavango and Zambezi River systems face the same limitations as the Kunene – a 25 to 35% reduction in flow due to climate change and increasing upstream demands for water for irrigation and urban

development. Building Namibia’s water future on these river systems is a high-risk and short-sighted approach.

Rather, we could utilise our proposed integrated nuclear, hydro, biomass, and solar energy system to desalinate seawater for use in the central coastal regions and pump it to central Namibia. As with the nuclear partnership, Namibia could work with Botswana on desalination and pumping. Once water has reached Windhoek, it can be gravity-fed most of the way to Gaborone, the capital of Botswana. This water development would allow both countries to expand their high-value crop production in suitable locations along the new pipeline.

FINAL THOUGHTS

In the near future, Namibia should aim to transition its domestic energy use from imported coal and fuel to a mix of nuclear and renewable energy sources, guided by an integrated energy policy and strategy, working in collaboration with Botswana. The most promising and environmentally-friendly options are existing hydropower, bush biomass, solar power, and nuclear. This makes more sense than destroying a national park and its biodiversity for high-risk, high-cost, no-gain “green” hydrogen for Germany and other parts of Europe. We should prioritise Namibia’s energy needs first, while retaining export options with our surplus energy.

In our proposed scenario, Namibia’s electricity would be almost entirely carbon neutral. Surplus energy could be sold to the Southern African energy grid, helping the region meet its energy needs and reduce its carbon footprint. It could also be used to produce carbonneutral hydrogen and ammonia, which can be sold to industrialised countries that may still wish to purchase such energy.

In terms of energy exports and revenue generation, offshore oil, nuclear power, solar, and bush biomass are the best options.

The exploitation of marine oil deposits, if proven commercially viable, must be carefully managed to limit environmental impacts and maximise broad-based economic benefits. By investing in nuclear power, biomass, and solar energy, Namibia will position itself as a longterm exporter of carbon-neutral energy while supplying its domestic needs at an affordable rate for its citizens.

The relative safety and cleanness of different sources of energy.

Gail Thomson

Hydrogen fuel station at Cleanergy Solutions near Walvis Bay

Promoting and supporting conservation of the natural environment.

A membership-based organisation established as a voluntary association to support and promote the interests of environmental NGOs and their work to protect Namibia’s environment, biodiversity and landscapes. The NCE currently has 80 members and associate members, comprising environmental NGOs and individuals running nationally significant environmental projects and programmes.

Also proudly supported by:

Anchor Sponsor: