DEVELOPING THE COST OF LARGE CARNIVORE CONFLICT RAPID RESPONSE UNITS – A
NAMIBIAN CASE STUDY
by
Melissa J. Bauer
Dr. Luke Dollar, PhD, Advisor
April 24, 2015
Master’s project submitted in partial fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Master of Environmental Management degree in
the Nicholas School of the Environment of
Duke University
Executive Summary
Namibia, in Southern Africa, is home to half of the world’s remaining wild cheetahs and
provides valuable habitat for lions, leopards, brown hyena, spotted hyena and African
Painted wild dogs.
All six of these carnivore species find their population numbers
dropping. Namibia represents a unique conservation problem, though, because in Namibia
most of these animals (95% of cheetahs in the country, 87% of leopards, and 100% of
African Painted Wild Dogs) exist on privately managed lands, outside of official protection.
On these privately managed these animals come into large amounts of human/wildlife
conflict where 96% of surveyed farmers claimed to experience some amount of livestock
loss to carnivores within the last year and 60% of surveyed private land managers stating
they would shoot any carnivore on sight, given the chance.
In this climate real species conservation of these six species of carnivore will not be
possible only operating on protected lands and working with private land managers is
essential to species survival. To this end, a small team at the N/a ‘an ku se Foundation has
been working for years to establish a network of private land managers working with the
foundation on conflict mitigation strategies to frequency of fatal removal of carnivores
from the landscape.
In this study I went to Namibia to work the team. I worked to discover the conservation
benefit this team was accomplishing and the costs involved. I then set to quantify the
benefits achieved and cost involved in a return on investment scenario. I also used
geospatial data from inside Namibia and the IUCN to identify where in the country of
Namibia this mitigation might be needed most based on the number of carnivores species
present through the country. I also set out to estimate the approximate cost anticipated if
the team was to expand from its current operating area to being able to provide on-call
mitigation help for the entire country of Namibia.
As a result of my research in Namibia I found that the team is currently achieving an 80%
reduction of the lethal removal of carnivores on private land my land managers for a price
of $7.56/km2 over an area of 26,000 km2. This area encompasses 7% of all of the total land
mass of the country of Namibia.
Demonstrating demand, the number of outreaches
requested is growing at 15-20% growth per year, completely organically without any
advertising or the project. It was also determined that this service is needed, as at least one
species of carnivore is reported to be present in all of Namibia that is currently already
protected, in other words there is at least one species of carnivore present in all of the
privately managed lands in the entire country of Namibia. The price for nationwide
expansion team was found to be $816,412, of $2.31/km2. This price, when compared to
the annual operating budget of other carnivore concerned NGOs, is very competitive,
especially when considering the extremely high success rate. The nationwide figure is
based on several assumptions and is theoretical number, but is very worthy of further
exploration
More research is needed in Namibia, especially in regards to species density maps and
carnivore species population estimates. It is recommended that research into these areas
is encouraged to the international scientific community and the Namibia national
government. It is also recommended that the formation of a full time carnivore rapid
response team is vigorously pursued by the N/a ‘an ku se Foundation, possibly being
pitched to National Geographic’s Big Cat Initiative, a long standing funder of the
foundation’s current project. It is also recommended that education aimed at private land
managers and farmers be pursued by NGOs working within Namibia and the Namibian
government to help build tolerance of carnivores by land managers before conflict arises.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………i
Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………………………1
Methods………………………………………………………………………………………………………….7
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………………………9
Geospatial Analysis………………………………………………………………………………...9
Current Associated Benefits of Carnivore Conflict Mitigation Measures……10
Current Costs Associated with Carnivore Conflict Mitigation Measures……11
Financial Costs Anticipated if the Team was Expanded Nationwide…………12
Discussion…..…………………………………………………………………………………………………14
Recommendations…………………………………………………………………………………………16
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………..17
References…………………………………………………………………………………………………….18
Appendix……………………………………………………………………………………………………….20
Introduction
In our modern world, with shrinking wildlife habitat and increasing human populations,
large carnivores have proven to be among the most difficult groups of mammals to
conserve, (Mech, 1995). Their populations have been dramatically reduced during the last
200 years, with their large home range requirements and predatory behavior on both wild
prey and livestock bringing them in constant conflict with human populations, (Nowell &
Jackson, 1996). In Namibia in Southern Africa this presents a unique challenge where six
large carnivore species, i.e. cheetah Acinonyx jabatus, leopard Panthera pardus, spotted
hyena Crocuta crocuta, brown hyena Hyaena brunnea, lion Panthera leo and African Painted
wild dog Lycaon pictus, are all listed as decreasing by IUCN Red Lists, (IUCN, 2014). At the
same time the large majority of the distributions of these species fall outside of protected
areas, (Riggo R. et all, 2012, Lindsey et. al, 2013). Finding ways to promote coexistence
between people and carnivores on private land has thus proven to be essential for the six
large carnivore species.
43% of Namibia, or 356,533 km2, is managed by freehold farming and tourism, (Mendelson,
2006). The same area provides the major source of carnivore habitat, especially for
cheetah and leopard (Durant et al, 2008, Hentshel et Al, 2008). Namibia is known to have
the largest population of cheetahs occurring in the wild in the world, (Marker et al 2003),
yet, possibly counter intuitively at the same time, a recent study found that protected areas
encompass less than 5% of the wild cheetah population there, (Lindsey et al, 2013). These
animals are living on the privately help farmland. Leopards are well known to be the most
widely distributed of the wild carnivores in Namibia, however it is estimated that only 13%
of the leopard’s potential range in this country exists within protected areas, (Marker and
Dickman, 2005). Without the cooperation of land managers responsible for this land,
successful conservation of these species cannot be maintained only in government national
parks and protected areas. In addition, the continual growth of conservancies, from four in
1998 to 59 in 2012 suggested the diversifying of growing wildlife ownership, and suggests
that human and carnviores will come into contact more frequently in the future, and by a
larger portion of the Namibian human population, (Mosimane et al, 2013).
While found throughout private land in Namibia, occurrence varies among species and area
within the country.
In a recent large survey study researchers found the following
distributions: Cheetahs had the widest occurrence of the large carnivores, widely
distributed throughout the northern, central and south western parts of Namibia, all in
commercial farming areas. Leopards were almost just as widely distributed, though less
densely, and also extended their range into the far South of the country. Brown hyenas
were found to have a similar wide distribution like the leopards, but were even more
sparsely distributed.
Spotted hyenas were found in the northern, central, and
southwestern parts of Namibia, once again in commercial farm land but persisted on very
few farms in those areas. By far the most limited were lions and wild dogs with low
occurrences, and only in the extreme north east and north respectively, (Lindsey et al,
2013).
In the same study showing at least one carnivore species present throughout almost all of
the Namibian farmland, tolerance among farmers towards carnivores varied between
species. Farmers were most tolerant of leopards, and were found to be least tolerant of
lions, wild dogs and spotted hyenas, (Lindsey et al, 2013). Farmers, however, who also
wanted four other large carnivore species only desired lions and wild dogs. This suggests
that special circumstances, such as tourism or trophy hunting income, are required for
tolerance towards these species, (Lindsey et al, 2013).
The human intolerance towards the large carnivores, while sometimes based on unfounded
perceptions and historical prejudices, often represent real financial motivations. A survey
of 147 Namibian farmers from communal conservancies was published in Environmental
Conservation in 2013. Communal conservancies make up 16% of the total land of Namibia,
and almost half of all the freehold farming and tourism un-protected land, (Rust and
Marker, 2013). In the survey approximately one-third of all goat and sheep farmers
reporter making zero profit from their stock or lost more stock to predators annually than
were replaced by births. Also of the 147 farmers surveyed, 96% had suffered at least some
livestock depredation within a year of the survey, (Rush and Marker, 2013).
These costs shed light on one of the key problems associated with carnivore existence on
private lands in Namibia: the benefits disproportionally go to people not having to pay the
associated costs. This is an inherent problem with some of the standing wildlife policies in
Namibia.
In an environment lacking an over-arching approved and effective human-
wildlife conflict mitigation policy, the costs of conflicts are paid by local residents.
However, many of the benefits of wildlife populations go to the Namibian government and
international visitors, (Mosimane et a, 2013). This disproportionate distribution of costs
and benefits can further enhance resentment and hostility towards carnivores.
Unfortunately in the absence of human tolerance for the conservation of these large
carnivores, lethal control of the populations is often widespread on Namibian farmland,
most often without remorse or denial. This killing of carnivores isn’t limited to one species
or another. For example, 15% of farmers in a recent study reported to shoot leopards on
sight, given the chance, and without proof of livestock predation, and upwards of 60% of
survey respondents shoot the species given suspect, not proof, of predation, (Stein et al
2010). In the same study it was found that at least 29 lions per year are killed on lands
bordering Etosha National Park, with much higher numbers of kills expected but not
recorded, and one rancher interviewed bragged of shooting more than 200 cheetahs in his
lifetime, (Lindsey et al, 2013).
What’s interesting is that there doesn’t have to be actual physical or economic conflict with
carnivores for the species to be viewed as “conflict animals,” that need to be eliminated.
Schuman, Walls and Harley did a random sample of commercial farmers from several
cultural groups and both sexes. More than half, or 52.4%, of the commercial farmers
reported that carnivores are either a ‘big’ or ‘very big’ problem.
That problem was
perceived when no, or little, livestock predation haven taken place. 56.1% of farmers
stated carnivores have presented as a problem when the only evidence they had of
carnivore ‘conflict’ occurred after only sighting a carnivore itself, (Schumann et al, 2012).
The perception of a problem, regardless of whether livestock depredation had taken place,
is a sufficient motivator for famers to desire the removal of all carnivores from their land.
In many cases it has been found that simply seeing carnivore or its tracks was motivation
enough to take action against the animals, (Schumann et al, 2012).
In this climate, it is not surprising that despite intensive conservation efforts overall
carnivore species are declining, (IUCN, 2014). As stated before the IUCN lists all six
aforementioned species are at risk or declining.
Lions are estimated to have an
approximately 30% species population reduction over the past two decades, approximately
three lion generations, (Bauer et al, 2012). Cheetahs have disappeared from 67% of their
historic range on the continent of Africa, and at least a 30% reduction in their population is
suspected of the past 18 years, or 3 generations, (Durant et all, 2014). Leopards still
remain wildly in sub-Saharan Africa, but have been disappeared from at least 36.7% of
their historical range and are listed as near threated and decreasing, (Hentschel et all,
2008). African Painted wild dogs, a species that historical data indicates were formally
distributed throughout sub-Saharan Africa, is in serious danger listed as endangered by the
IUCN.
Also listed as still declining currently African Painted wild dogs are estimated as
only having approximately 1,400 mature animals left, (Woodroffe and Sillero-Zubiri, 2014).
Further complicating matters, wild dogs have been reintroduced to Etosha National Park
six different times, all unsuccessful, and are therefore completely dependent on private
lands for survival. (Woodroffe and Sillero-Zubiri, 2014). Once endemic to almost the entire
country of Namibia brown hyena populations in the country are now estimated to only be
between 522-1187 animals and are considered decreasing, (Wiesel et al, 2008). While
spotted hyena is listed as ‘least concern’ by the IUCN, the is a continuing decline in
populations both outside protected areas and due to persecution through shooting,
trapping and poisoning and habitat loss, (Honor and Mills, 2008).
While these numbers might paint a bleak picture, they also present a unique opportunity.
Expanding conservation work beyond that national parks and striving for higher
cooperation with private land managers and farmers could possibly achieve real,
measurable effects on carnivore populations. Research has shown that carnivores can coexist with high human densities if an appropriate management policy if put in place and
enacted. Linnell, Swenson and Anderson published an article in Animal Conservation
arguing that where effective regulation of human behavior there should be no strong
correlation between human density and carnivore extension. Their research implicates
that large carnivore conservation, to be effective, requires establishment of effective
wildlife management structures, (Linnell et al, 2001).
In the study of costs associated by carnivore depredation in which 96% of survey
responders reported at least some livestock depredation, herders and livestock guardian
dogs were not often used. When livestock guardian dogs were used, however, almost all of
the animals utilized were small or medium sized dogs, not an adequate size for deterring
large predators, (Rush and Marker, 2013). In the Schumann et al study from Oryx 40.8%
of farmers wished to have all carnivores removed from their farmland, but in contrast
famers who looked upon carnivores as having an ecological role on the farms were less
likely to want all carnivores removed, carte blanch, (Schumann et al, 2012). This in of itself
provides a wonderful educational opportunity as it is well documented that without top
predators controlling the populations of smaller predators, there may be a small predator
population release, causing more damage than good. This problem is currently being faced
throughout Namibia and South Africa where jackal and caracal populations are rising after
the extirpation of large carnivores across many commercial farming areas. This is being
found to cause significant damage to sheep and goat farms, (Rust and Marker, 2013).
In another example of where further education is needed, perceived loss of livestock
attributed to carnivores may be higher than actual losses to emerging farms, as many have
little knowledge of carnivore ecology and behavior and are not able to correctly identify
causes of livestock loss (Schumann et at, 2012). There have been many published studies
that confirm the tendency of famers to exaggerate losses or to attribute livestock losses to
carnivore depredation regardless of the loss can be verified to that cause or not (Marker et
al, 2003).
In contrast, when livestock management is applied often livestock losses to carnivores can
be reduced. When combined with general ecological knowledge training, management
training can prove to be effective, as demonstrated, people who are more knowledgeable
about carnivores tend to be more tolerant (Rust and Marker, 2013). The challenge lies is
shifting the conversation with farmers away from carnivore removal towards proactive
livestock management techniques.
This would require training in carnivore ecology and
kill identification, to replace inaccurate perceptions of loss with accurate verification, and
training in livestock management techniques. In addition farmers and land managers need
to have information made accessible to them about different way to recoup financial losses,
including tourism and trophy hunting, and in a last resort lethal control, in a judgment free
setting.
One initiative, the N/a ‘an ku se Carnivore Conservation Research Program lead by
researcher Florian Weise, utilizes a model with focus on building long-term relationships
with farmers and free-hold land managers by providing them with multiple co-habitation
options.
Mr. Weise and N/a ’an ku se staff carry out intensive and repeat consultations
with the people responsible for on-site carnivore management on private farms, most of
which have reached out to government and other NGOs in the past, (F. Weise, personal
communication, 2014). Despite disappointing results from government sources and other
NGOs these land managers still show a willingness to tolerate and co-exist with carnivores,
and a motivation towards non-lethal carnivore management whenever possible, (F. Weise,
personal communication, 2014).
Some of the options discussed in these consultations
include education about improved livestock husbandry, capture-mark-release and
subsequent joint monitoring of carnivores (especially cheetahs and leopards), or
translocation of conflict animals as a last resort. These consultations are provided yearround, on a 24-hour on-call basis, free of charge to the land managers.
In the six years since this program has been initiated in 2008, Mr. Weise and his team have
conducted 250+ consultations, all with land managers who have reached out in an effort to
find successful methods of cohabitation with carnivores.
On some properties 20+
consultations have been provided by Mr. Weise and his team, aiming to fine-tune carnivore
management strategies (F. Weise, personal communication, 2014).
This method has
proven successful, as demonstrated by large (and often repeat) demand for the services,
and also by data possessed by Mr. Weise including the difference in numbers of carnivores
trapped and killed reported by the land managers for the two years before their initial
consultations with N/a’ an ku se and for the number of carnivores persecuted post
consultations. These results are consistent with research suggesting that when a sense of
ownership over human-wildlife conflict is achieved by land managers, and an
understanding of the role of carnivores, more positive attitudes of the carnivores by land
manages can be achieved, (Schumann et al, 2012). These long-term relationships build on
research that finds that farmers with involvement in active carnivore management, instead
of removal, and education about conservation promotes more positive attitudes regarding
carnivore problems and less human-carnivore conflict, (Schumann et al, 2012).
While marked conservation results and stronger relationships can be found around N/a’ an
ku se research sites, due to logistic constraints vast parts of Namibia’s private farmlands
are left with little effect by this effort. For effective nation-wide conservation of large
carnivores using this approach, I propose the formation of a full time carnivore response
team. This team would build upon the work of Mr. Weise by offering immediate response
and on-site consultations to all private land managers in Namibia in response to perceived
or actual conflict with carnivores - free of charge, and with the possible effect of both
encouraging positive cohabitation between humans and carnivores and making marked
conservation efforts in Namibia for all six large carnivore species there.
Methods
Research into building a carnivore rapid response team in Namibia was broken down into
three basic research questions:

How cost effective are the practices currently being implemented by the N/a ‘an ku
se Carnivore Conservation Research Program and what kind of results are they
experiencing?

Would this proposed team be needed for the entire country?

What are the anticipated costs if this program were to be expanded from the current
size to coverage for all of Namibia that would need it?
To answer these questions time was spent in Namibia at the N/a ‘an ku se Carnivore
Conservation Research Program at their headquarters outside of Windhoek, Namibia
during the summer of 2014. Time was spent collecting data and doing informal interviews
with the staff there about the program. Data was collected in regards to financials of the
organization and costs associated with the various projects there including incoming
grants from organizations such as National Geographic’s Big Cat Initiative.
Informal
interviews were conducted with Mr. Florian Weise, the chief researcher associated with the
project, Dr. Rudie van Vurren, the co-found and president of the N/a ‘an ku se Foundation,
Stuart Munro, a long time field researcher associated with the project and Dara Barrett, the
head of the finance of the N/a ‘an ku se Foundation. The informal interviews consisted of
gathering expert opinion on the current project’s status, delegation of the foundation’s
incoming grant money as associated with this specific project, delegation of the
foundation’s existing resources as associated with this specific project, and anticipated
additional resources needed to expand the project.
Informal interviews were also
conducted with conservation experts back in the United States about anticipated resources
needed to expand the project, including with Dr. Luke Dollar of National Geographic and Dr.
Stuart Pimm the Doris Duke Chair of Conservation Ecology at Duke University.
The
resulting information from these interviews was used to assemble a list of current costs
associated with the project, the current success rates being achieved by the team and a list
of resources that would need to be assembled for successful nationwide implementation of
the project.
Back into the United States, geospatial data was assembled from the online Namibian
database http://www.the-eis.com/ and from IUCN about the known ranges of the six
carnivore species. Geospatial data was also collected showing the locations of the already
protected land in Namibia. This geospatial information was assembled to build visual tools,
maps, identifying ranges of the six considered carnivore species on non-protected land.
The ranges were combined to show what parts of Namibia had the highest number of
carnivores species present. Species density, in addition to species presence, data was
attempted to be incorporated into this project but unfortunately after an exhaustive search
it was concluded that this data was not available.
Also back in the states a database of 14 different resources that are needed for a carnivore
rapid response team was built. This database consisted of the amount of the resource
currently being utilized, the amount of the resource that would be needed to cover the
entire country, and the costs of acquiring that resources if acquired at the current time in
Namibia. Actual costs accrued were used when that information was available from the
N/a ‘an ku se Foundation. However, when the prices were not able to be sourced from the
N/a ‘an ku se Foundation, or those prices were deemed unrealistic, quotes were sought
from outside the organization. Quotes for resources were requested from in-country
vendors in Namibia, at current market prices, whenever possible. When a range of prices
within quotes were found a final price of the mean of the spread of quotes was used in final
financial calculations. Those quotes, along with results from the informal interviews about
resources currently being utilized on the project were combined to assemble a close as
possible current estimate of the associated costs currently being spent on the carnivore
response team.
The same quotes, combined with the results from the interviews in
Namibia and in the United States were used to estimate the anticipated price of such a team
with full nationwide Namibian utilization.
Finally, a price comparison was sought between the price of this team and other
conservation efforts currently in use, both in Namibia and locally here in North Carolina.
The annual operating budget from the Cheetah Conservation Fund in Namibia, the
International Snow Leopard Trust and the Carolina Tiger Rescue were obtained from their
publically available tax records. In addition, the combined amount of the salaries of the top
three paid employees of the World Wildlife Fund, Conservation International, the Wildlife
Conservation Society and Panthera for 2013 were obtained from those organization’s
publically available tax records. A comparison was made between our estimated total
annual operating budget for the nationwide utilized carnivore rapid response team and
those two sets of financial numbers.
Results
Geospatial analysis
Geospatial representations
of
ranges
for
the
6
considered species were
assembled onto one map
to
find
an
consideration
area
for
of
the
proposed team. Areas that
were already considered
protected were taken out
of the considered area and
excluded. Figure 1 to the
right shows the resulting
map. As shown, there is
reported to be at least one
considered
carnivore
species present in all areas
Figure 1. Carnivore Range Distribution in Namibia
of Namibia outside of protected areas. There also appears to be the highest density of
number of species in the northern and eastern parts of the country.
Current Associated Benefits of Carnivore Conflict Mitigation Measures
Through in country interviews with the management and staff of the N/a ‘an ku se
Foundation I was able to obtain information about the history, current implication and
reported effectiveness of the carnivore mitigation work they were doing. As reported by
Dr. Rudie van Varren, president of the N/a ‘an ku se Foundation, Florian Wiese, head of the
research department 2006-2015, Stuart Munro, assistant/current director of the research
department, and Dara Barrett, CFO of the N/a ‘an ku se Foundation I was able to assemble
the following information.

The N/a ‘an ku se Foundation has been working with farmers on the reduction of
the lethal removal of carnivore species on the farmer’s land for 7.5 years. This
program has not been officially formalized within the foundation, rather is one of
several missions of the foundation and is not a stand-alone project.

Detailed records have been kept by Florian Weise as to the number of farmers him
and his team have worked on. Mr. Weise would not fully release those records to
me as they are the basis for his upcoming PhD thesis but he would give me
highlights and is anxious to include research involved in this Master’s Project into
his PhD.

In the past 7.5 years the team working out of the N/a ‘an ku se Foundation has
worked with 221 different land managers, reporting a total of 375 separate lethal
carnivore removals before working with the mitigation team. Those 221 different
land managers represent a total area of approximately 26,000 km2 of land. This
represents approximately 7% of the total area of Namibia.

The farmers report an 80% reduction in the lethal removal of carnivores on their
lands after working with the mitigation team.

The outreach/mitigation team at N/a ‘an ku se Foundation have been experiencing a
15-20% growth in the program during the last 7.5 years. If the same growth rate is
assumed to continue, it would take approximately 14 years before the study area of
26,000 km 2 would expand to the entire country of Namibia.
Current Costs Associated with Carnivore Conflict Mitigation Measures
Resources that were either currently being utilized, or were anticipated to be needed if the
program were identified. Those 14 things were:

Staffing (later broken down into prime responders and an office manager)

4 wheel drive double-cab large bed truck able to carry at least two people and a
carnivore cage

Vehicle maintenance including fuel, insurance, maintenance, wear and tear and tires

Flying costs if a property could only be reached by plane

Office space rent

Water Utility service for office Space

Electric Utility for office space

Office Phone for office space

GPS carnivore collars and that are able to be access for daily downloadable location
points

Anticipated Housing and care of animals if the animals needed to be translocated

Laptop, including internet service that can be accessed in the field for collar location
downloads

Satellite phones and service

Carnivore trap cages
After identifying those 14 different costs, quotes for each item were located. Those quotes,
and their associated sources can be found in the appendix of this report. The current
utilization and anticipated need for those resources were then calculated.
Through in country interviews with the management and staff of the N/a ‘an ku se
Foundation I was able to obtain information the amount of resources currently being
utilized in their farmer outreach/mitigation work. As reported by Dr. Rudie van Varren,
president of the N/a ‘an ku se Foundation, Florian Wiese, head of the research department
2006-2015, Stuart Munro, assistant/current director of the research department, and Dara
Barrett, CFO of the N/a ‘an ku se Foundation I was able to assemble a list of the current
assets being deployed to achieve that 80% reduction in the lethal removal of carnivore
species. In regards to the 14 different associated costs:

The mitigation measures do not currently include a full time staff member. It is
currently being handled part time by a few different staff members. When added
together that is estimated to be about ½ of one full time prime responders
responsibilities and billable time.

Several different vehicles are used on mitigation calls, as the team currently uses
whatever vehicle is available when needed, but when added together that equals
approximately the full time utilization of one truck.

The team is currently housed within the N/a ‘an ku se Foundation's headquarters on
their own property. Therefore rent, electricity, water and an office phone should
not be considered a current cost.

All calls are being driven into, not flown, so flying costs need not be considered at
this time. This, however, would change when the mitigation expands nationwide,
especially to the northeastern part of Namibia as this part of the country has the
highest number of species present, but is mostly inaccessible by roads.

While the team has had to translocate animals due to farmer mitigation, the
associated animals have almost exclusively ended up on the N/a ‘an ku se property.
This associates the animal with one of the foundation’s other missions and therefore
the costs should not be associated with current mitigation costs. However, this
could not be sustained on a nationwide level so translocation costs would have to be
considered in the future.

The foundation does not currently have a satellite phone.

While the foundation does have carnivore trap cages and laptops, they are used in
all the different missions of the foundation, not just this one specific project, and
therefore weren’t considered in the current cost figure.

The team is currently employing about 40 GPS carnivore collars with associated
download fees for mitigation strategies.
All of the above factors, and their associated quotes were aggregated to come up with a
final cost of the mitigation being used to achieve an 80% reduction in the lethal removal of
carnivores over 26,000 km2. I estimate that costs to be $196,639.90, or $7.56/km2.
Financial Costs Anticipated if the Team was Expanded Nationwide
The 14 costs different resources were then expanded to estimate the anticipated yearly
cost of the team that would be needed if the team were being utilized nationwide. After
consulting expert opinion both inside Namibia and here at Duke University the following
list of assumptions were constructed:

If current utilization encompassed ½ of one full time member for 7% of the country
than expansion 13x for the entire country would need 7 full time members. This
could best be accomplished by having 6 full time prime responders and 1 full time
office manager.

Office space would be needed, though not large as most of the work would be done
either on the phone on location on the private land. The office would best be located
in Windhoek, Namibia’s capitol, as the city has the best infrastructure in the country
and is also centrally located within the country. Costs for electricity, water, rent,
and an office phone would therefore need to be considered.

Each responder would need a truck, dedicated carnivore trap cage, laptop, and
satellite phone

Approximately 6 calls per year would need to be flown into. This would allow the
team to access parts of the country with high numbers of species present and are
not easily accessible by roads.
These assumptions and the associated quotes were once aggregated to determine an final
estimated anticipated cost. This figure came to $816,412.70 in 2015 United States Dollars.
When divided out by the square kilometers of all the private lands in Namibia, this figure
comes to an estimated anticipated cost of $2.31/km2 to achieve the same level of 80%
reduction in lethal carnivore removal.
Discussion
In a country with such conservation potential as Namibia, finding successful conservation
mitigations is vital to the survival of species. Conservation measure in southern Africa have
been going on for decades, though, and aid organizations do not have an unlimited budget.
It is, therefore, of the upmost important to discern not only the most effective conservation
measures in terms of ecological value, but also in terms of return on investment. This
ensures that for every dollar spent in species conservation carnivores, and other species in
peril, are getting the most amount of “bang for the buck.”
The anticipated estimated annual budget of $816,412 includes a lot of assumptions, but it
also has factors built in that could make this figure quite lower. For example, built into this
number is the purchase of all of the resources at once, a circumstance highly unlikely to
take place. Several resources, including trucks, laptops and satellite phones would not
need to be purchased every year and would be acquired gradually as the team grew.
It’s also important to recognize the limitations of this estimate. While the team is currently
accomplishing an 80% reduction in lethal removal, that success is primarily being achieved
in the middle parts of Namibia. As shown through the geospatial analysis, when the team
moved into the more northeastern and northwestern parts of the country it would be
bound to have more conflict dealing with lion and African Painted Wild Dogs.
The
mitigation strategies most successful in cheetah and leopard mitigation might have to be
adjusted in these geographic areas.
In addition, as discussed earlier, while range
distributions were able to be built into this study for the 6 species of carnivores, it was
impossible to take into account species density throughout the ranges. This could have
significant impacts in the amounts of conflict that would arise and further adjustments
would become critical.
Despite the financial
figure’s limitations it
makes
for
an
interesting comparison
between
this
theoretical number and
the
money
already
being spent by other
conservation
organizations.
2
Figure 2: Comparison between proposed annual operating budget for
carnivore rapid response team as compared to other carnivore-concerned
NGOs
and
3
comparison
Figures
show
a
between
the estimated cost of
the
carnivore
rapid
response team covering
the entire country of
Namibia as compared
to the annual operating
budget
of
other
carnivore-related NGOs
and the estimated cost
compared to the top
three salaries of some
of
the
conservation
Figure 3: Comparison between proposed annual operating budget for
carnivore
rapid response team as compared to top 3 salaries international
respectively.
conservation NGOs
organizations,
largest
Both figures show that, while highly theoretical, a team that is achieving such high lethal
removal success rates is has such a high rate of return that it is worth of exploration and
expansion, at least on a trial basis.
Recommendations
In a country with limited ecological knowledge, more research is needed in this area. For
example, the first leopard density database and map is just now being assembled and will
probably take years to assemble. Species density geospatial analysis is critical not only for
leopards but all of the discussed carnivore species to be able to address the areas most in
need of mitigation. Further, while population numbers are estimated for all six species of
carnivores discussed, those numbers are highly debated. While conservation is undeniably
needed for all species of carnivores, until true population numbers can be established it’s
difficult to measure the population benefits of reduced fatal interactions between these
animals and land owners.
In addition, while it does not fall under the scope of this project, it is worth noting that the
carnivore rapid response team does not come into action until there is already conflict
between private land managers and carnivores. Perhaps this problem could be addressed
before conflict arises. As discussed in the introduction surveyed farmers view carnivore as
a problem even before livestock is killed. Education into the behaviors of these animals
could help build tolerance among the land managers and perhaps might build an
understanding that killing animals on sight can sometimes make predation worse instead
of better.
Despite limitation and further research needed, it is strongly recommended that if funding
can be secured, forward movement on this proposed carnivore rapid response team is
pursued. As a current grantee to National Geographic’s Big Cat Initiative, further funding
should be explored to build the team, at least to the point of one full time staff member,
housed either at N/a ‘an ku se or independently. If positive growth in this program is
maintained the possible conservation benefits to the carnivore species in Namibia could be
unprecedented.
Acknowledgements
A special thank you to everyone involved in this project, including everyone at the N/a ‘an
ku se Foundation and the National Geographic’s Big Cat Initiative, especially Florian Weise,
Rudie van Vurren, Stuart Munro and Dara Barret. A very special thank you goes out to Dr.
Luke Dollar, my advisor on this project for providing expert opinion and direction and
without whom completion would not have been possible, and Dr. Stuart Pimm who helped
make the project possible and provided invaluable feedback. In addition, thanks go out to
Karen Kirchoff and the entire CPDC staff at the Nicholas School of the Environment, the
Nicholas School’s Environmental Internship Fund, and the Nicholas School’s International
Internship Fund for providing funding that makes the research trip to Namibia possible.
References
Bauer, H., Nowell, K. & Packer, C. 2012. Panthero Leo. In: The IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species. Version 2014.1 www.iucnreslist.org. Downloaded on 16 July 2014.
Durant, S., Marker, L., Purchase, N., Belbachir, F., Hunter, L., Packer, C.,
Breitenmoser-Wursten, C., Sogbohossour, E. & Bauer, H. 2008. Acinonyx
jabatus. In: The IUCN Red List of Threated Species. Version 2014.1
www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 14 July 2014.
Hentschel, P., Hunter, L., Breitenmoser, U., Purchase, N., Packer, C., Khorozyan, I.,
Bauer, H., Markter., Sogbohossou, E. & Breitenmoser-Wursten, C. 2008. Panthera
pardus. In: The IUCN Red List of Threated Species. Version 2014.1
www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 14 July 2014
Honer, O., Holekamp, K.E. & Mills, G. 2008. Crocuta crocuta. In: The IUCN Red List
of Threated Species. Version 2014.1 www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on
14 July 2014
Lindsey, P, Havemann, C, Lines, R, Palazy, L, Price, A, Retief, T, Rhebergen, T, Van der Wall, C
(2013). Determinants of Persistence and Tolerance of Carnivores on Namibian
Ranches: Implications for Conservation on Southern African Private Lands. PLos ONE
9(1): e52458. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052458
Linell JDC, Swenson JE, Anderson R (2001). Predators and people: conservation of large
carnivores is possible at high human densities if management policy is favourable.
Animal Conservation (4): 345-349.
Marker LL, Dickman AF (2005). Factors affecting leopard (Panthera pardus) spatial ecology,
with particular reference to Namibian Farmlands. South African Journal of Wildlife
Research 35 (2): 105-115.
Marker LL, Mills MGL, Macdonald DW (2003). Factors influencing perceptions of conflict and
tolerance toward cheetah on Namibian farmlands. Conservation Biology 17: 12901298.
Mech, L.D. (1995). The challenge and opportunity of recovering wolf populations.
Conservation Biology, 9: 857-868.
Mendelsohn, John. (2006). Farming Systems in Namibia. Research & Information
Services of Namibia. ABC Press, South Africa.
Mosiame AW, McCool S, Brown P, and Ingrebretson J. (2013). Using Mental Models in the
anlaysis of human-wildlife conflict from the perspective of social-ecological system in
Namibia. Fauna & Flora International, Oryx 48(1), 64-70
Nowell, K. & Jackson, P. (1996). Wild cats: status survey and action plan. Gland, Switzerland,
IUCN.
Riggo R, Jacobson A., Dollar, L., Bauer H., Becker, M., Dickman A., Funston P, Grooom R,
Henshcel P, de Lonh H, Lichtenfield L, Pimm S (2012). The size of savannah Africa:
a lion’s (Panthera leo) view. Biodiversity and Conservation DOI 10.1007/s10531012-0381-4.
Rust NA, Marker, LL (2013). Cost of Carnivore Coexistance on communal and resettled land
in Namibia. Environmental Conservation 41(1) : 45-53.
Stein AB, Fuller TK, Damery DT, Sievert L, Marker LL (2010). Farm Management and
Economic Analysis of Leopard Conservation in North-Central Namibia. Animal
Conservation 13: 419-427.
Schumann B, Walls JL, Harley V (2012). Attitudes towards carnivores: the views of emerging
commercial farmers in Namibia. Fauna & Flora International, Oryx. 46(4), 604-613.
Wiesel, I., Maude, G., Scorr, D. & Mills, G. 2008. Hyaena brunnea. In: The IUCN Red
List of Threated Species. Version 2014.1 www.iucnredlist.org Downloaded
on 14 July 2014
Woodroffe, R. & Sillero-Zubiri, C. Lycaon pictus. In: The IUCN Red List of Threated
Species. Version 2014.1. www.iucnredlist.org Downloaded on 14 July 2014.
Appendix
Figure A1: Map of Protected Areas of Namibia
Figure A2: Known Lion Range in Namibia
Figure A3: Known Leopard Range in Namibia
Figure A4: Known Cheetah Range in Namibia
Figure A5: Known Brown Hyena Range in Namibia
Figure A6: Known Spotted Hyena Range in Namibia
Figure A7: Known African Painted Wild Dog Range in Namibia
Table A1: Table of Costs Associated with Carnivore Rapid Response Team
Current Resource
Use Covering
26,000 sq. km with
80% reduction in
lethal carnivore
removal
Salary of Office
Manager
Not currently
needed
Salary of Prime
Responder
1/2 Total Salary of
head of research
department
currently allocated
to this specific
project
Vehicle (needs to be
double-cab, large bed
4wd truck)
Total of 1 full time
truck use currently
associated with this
project
Associated Costs
Anticipated
Resource Needed
for Nationwide
Coverage
Anticipated Associated
Costs (in 2015 values)
N/A
Equivalent of one
full time worker
(might have to be
two part time
workers as is a
365/day a year job)
to answer phones
and sent out daily
collar updates.
Expert opinion is
anticipated fair
salary would be 50
NAD/hr.
8 hours paid a year
*365 days/year * 50
NAD/hr. = 146,000
NAD/ year
1/2 Total Salary of
240,000 NAD/year =
120,000 NAB/year
Aggregated Expert
Opinion is that by
expanding program
13 times, would
need 6 full time
responders, each at
240,000 NAD/year
6 * 120,000 NAD/year =
720,000 NAD/year
1 full size 4wd off-road
truck = 300,000 NAD
1 truck per
responder, this
would be if
purchased them all
at the same time,
which in
practicality
wouldn't probably
be the case
6 trucks * 300,000 truck
= 1,800,000 NAD
Notes
These estimates are
based on estimated
salary expectations as
should reasonably
expected for this line of
work in Namibia. These
numbers are from Flo
and Rudie who did a
survey of
conservationists and
land managers in
Namibia and their
willingness to pay
Sent out e-mails to
around 25 dealerships in
Namibia asking for
quotes on 3/4/15, based
on averages from quotes
received
Vehicle maintenance
such as gas,
insurance, repairs,
possible auto club
membership, vehicle
registration, spare
tires, etc.
Flying costs
Rent of Office Space
in Windhoek
30,000 km
driving/year,
Naankuse calculates
their mileage
including fuel,
maintenance, and
tires, wear and tear,
and insurance at 12
NAD/km). 30,000
km is the number of
miles associated
with this project in
2014.
area currently
operating in, can
drive into all calls
N/A as currently
operating out of
Naankuse's
headquarter,
therefore costs
already part of
existing Naankuse
infrastructure
30,000 km * 12
NAB/km = 360,000
NAD/year
Assuming same
mileage per
responder as
current usage for
all 6 responders
30,000 km * 12 NAB/km
* 6 responders =
2,160,000 NAD/year
Assuming same mile per
prime responder as
current usage.
N/A
Assuming, based
on informal expert
interviews a need
for 6 fly-in
calls/year
If we estimate 6 flying
call outs, for far-flung
locations, a year that
would come out to a
total of NAD 84,000
The cost of flying with
the plane comes in at
approximately NAD 3500
per flying hour. The
average flying time to go
on a call-out to dart &
collar a carnivore
appears to be about 4
hours.
N/A
Assuming would
need relatively
small office space
in Windhoek. Took
average rent
published by
Namibian
government for
100 m2 of office
space (2013
published data)
N$65-$120/m2 * 100
m2 office = N$6,500 N$12,000 year.
Average is 9,250
NAD/year
assuming 100 m2 space,
with no rent increase.
Figures from "Cost of
Doing Business" from
MET Namibia
Water for Office
Space in Windhoek
N/A as currently
operating out of
Naankuse's
headquarter,
therefore costs
already part of
existing Naankuse
infrastructure
Electricity for Office
Space in Windhoek
N/A as currently
operating out of
Naankuse's
headquarter,
therefore costs
already part of
existing Naankuse
infrastructure
Office Phone for
Office Space in
Windhoek
N/A as currently
operating out of
Naankuse's
headquarter,
therefore costs
already part of
existing Naankuse
infrastructure
N/A
40 collars/year
currently in use
40 collars * $3,300 per
collar for collar plus
daily download fees
(quote from Siri track)
= $132,000 US
Collars and download
fees of such
N/A
N/A
N$19,47 – N$46,63
per month for 15
mm to 20 mm 8 12
months = N$233.64
- N$559.56 year
Basic charge:
N$48.00 - N$228
per month *12 =
N$576 - N$2,736 /
year
100 collars + daily
download fees:
$US 3,300 * 100 =
$333,000 Sir track
ARGOS GPS collars
Average is 396.60
NAD/year
assuming lowest amount
of water consumption,
Figures from "Cost of
Doing Business" from
MET Namibia
Average is 1,656
NAD/year
Probably would be on
the low end, as using not
much electricity.
Assuming no increase in
electricity charges
through year 3, Figures
form "Cost of Doing
Business" from MET
Namibia
$389 NAD/mo plus one
time set-up fee of 218
NAD for 300/min 1.5
GB internet at 150 SMS
a month for 24 month
package - total per year
is 4,886NAD
Quote from MTC, can
adjust if more use of
data is needed
$330,000 US
Gathered expert
consensus that entire
expanded team would
need approx. 100 new
collars a year as new
animals + replacement
costs.
Housing and care of
animal if needed to
be translocated, until
time that it can be
released
Laptop including
internet service that
can be accessed in the
field for collar
location downloads
and communication
of those locations to
farmers
Phone that can be
used in rural areas of
Namibia, possibly
satellite phone and
service
all translocations
associated currently
filter into Naankuse
Foundation's ecotourism model
already part of
existing Naankuse
infrastructure
don't currently have
this
N/A
Gathered expert
consensus is would
need average of 3
leopard and 2
cheetah
translocations per
year
N/A
Need one laptop
per responder and
one for office.
Obviously this
accounts for buying
them all at the
same time, which is
not what would
happen
N/A
Would need six
satellite phones,
one for each
responder. Once
again, in
practicality these
would not all be
bought at the same
time
3 leopards @ $US3,140
= 2 cheetahs @
US$6,898 = $US 23,216
(This figure is probably
a VERY, VERY high
estimate)
Cost of 5 translocations
a year: 3 leopard, 2
cheetah, based on
average translocation
costs based on Flo's
paper "Financial Costs of
Large Carnivore
Translocations Accounting for
Conservation"
7 laptops @ NAB$4,599
* 7 = NAD 32,193
Quote from Gadget
Namibia for Proline
"Smart" Notebook
including PROLINE
W945TU N2830 14" 2GB
HD 500GB Sata. Their
laptops go up to
Intel Celeron N2800,
Windows 8.1 Bing, their
prices go up to
NAD$17,857 for 13"
Apple MacBook Pro
Purchase 6 phones @
US$1,720 plus 400 min
each/month
@US$1.25/min. 400
min/mo *12 months * 2
phones= US$46,320
Quote from
rentasat.com.za for
Iridium cell phone.
Recommended from
MET as the only kind of
phone with true
nationwide coverage.
(Rent a Satellite South
Africa)
Carnivore cages
currently do not
have any cages
specifically allocated
for this project
$ 196,639.90
Total
Divided by coverage
Price per sq. km. for
80% reduction in
lethal removal of
carnivores due to
human/wildlife
conflict with private
land managers and
farmers
N/A
Expert opinion
agrees would need
approx. 6 cages
year so each
responder can
have one. Most
farmers having
worked with
already have trap
cages themselves.
Currently covering
26,000 sq. km.
divided by 26,000
$
7.56
Approximately
354,00 sq. km.
privately managed
in Namibia
6 cages * 12,000 ZAR =
72,000 ZAR
From research found
that most cages are
handmade in country so
hard to price. Flo paid
12,000 ZAR/piece for
custom traps made in
2014 so going with that
figure.
$ 816,412.70
Based on 4/19/2015
exchange rates 1.00 USD
= 12.0668 NAD/ZAR
divided by 354,000
$
2.31
Price per sq. km drops
significantly, mainly due
to significant drop in
collars needed/sq. km,
based on lots of
assumptions though