Key-problems (described in terms of decline in state, either quantity or quality, of the environment)
Key problem 1 – Loss of wildlife habitat from inappropriate and unsustainable forms of landuse
Causes of the key
problems (describe
Scale of pressures
Underlying causes (list at
(quantify and/or describe
significance)
least 2 causes per pressure)
Medium significance
overall, but very
significant in sitespecific locations
Growing human &
livestock populations;
Encroachment of
settlements/livestock into
wildlife habitats
Promote local level
land- / resource-use
planning and
development to
improve efficiency of
land and resource use
Pressure 2 – Top-down Potentially could have
and weak land-use
very significant impact
planning efforts
on the viability of
individual
conservancies
Top-down tesettlement
and land-use policies;
Lack of consultation with
local communities and
stakeholders
Create awareness of
this threat with
conservancy
committees;
Influence communal
land boards through
provision of information
Pressure 3 –
Government policies
that promote food selfreliance despite longterm detrimental
consequences to the
environment
Politicians lack of
understanding of the
conservancy programme;
Politicians perception that
tourism and trophy hunting
is not benefiting
disadvantaged Namibians
Provision of information
and data to
Conservancy
Association and
NACSO to make
politicians aware of the
benefits of sustainable
use to rural
communities
pressures)
Pressure 1- Increasing
pressures on the
resource base
Very significant, major
impact on long-term
viability of wildlife
habitat
Possible responses
by the Project
Key problem 2 – Increasing conflicts between stakeholders using the wildlife resource base for
different purposes
Causes of the key
problems (describe
Scale of pressures
Underlying causes (list at
(quantify and/or describe
significance)
least 2 causes per pressure)
Very significant and
growing
Lack of understanding of
potential consequences of
uncoordinated harvesting;
Poor communication;
Education of committee
members;
Establish temporal
zones as well as spatial
zones;
Establish formal
communication
mechanisms between
competing resource
users;
Pressure 2 Very significant and
Conservancies mgtgrowing
zones not followed & or
enforced
Conservancies do not
understand the importance
of enforcing use zones;
Lack of awareness of
different use zones
Build knowledge and
conservancy support
capacity;
Increased awareness
of use zones through
signage and maps
pressures)
Pressure 1 – Different
methods of wildlife use
not being coordinated
Possible responses
by the Project
Key problem 3 – Conservancy management plans not well understood or implemented
Causes of the key
problems (describe
pressures)
Scale of pressures
Underlying causes (list at
(quantify and/or describe least 2 causes per pressure)
significance)
Possible responses by
the Project
Pressure 1 –
Insufficient consultation
on management plans
and zones
Medium significance,
but will become more
significant as
population pressures
grow and number of
wildlife related
enterprises increase
Too much emphasis
placed on working with
committees;
Lack of awareness of
zones by members;
Lack of engagement with
Traditional Authorities in
some instances
Promote increased
consultation and
endorsement of mgt
plans and zones
Pressure 2 – Weak
and inefficient
conservancy
management
structures in place
Medium significance
at this time, but will
become very
significant as
management
demands intensify
Lack of permanent
conservancy managers in
most conservancies;
Lack of resources to
manage large areas
Assist conservancies to
strengthen knowledge
base and mgt capacity;
Encourage allocation of
appropriate
conservancy income /
resources to cover mgt
costs
Pressure 3 – Lack of
legal enforcement
authority
Medium significance,
but will escalate with
growing pressures
Weak legal framework;
Limited acceptance of
conservancy mgt plans by
other ministries
Facilitate strengthened
policy / legislative
environment;
Key problem 4– Increasing incidents of human / wildlife conflict
Causes of the key
problems (describe
Underlying causes (list at
(quantify and/or describe least 2 causes per pressure)
significance)
Possible responses by
the Project
Pressure 1 –
Increasing wildlife
populations
Medium in
significance in many
areas, but very
significant in sitespecific conservancies
Increased predator
populations are leading to
increased livestock losses;
Increased in elephant
populations are leading to
increased conflicts around
water and crops
Assist with human /
wildlife mitigation
strategies;
Incorporate problem
animal removal
procedures into quota
setting processes
Pressure 2 – Poor
land-use planning
Potentially very
significant in some
areas
Top-down land-use
planning as promoted by
the MLR
Assist conservancies to
influence land-use
planning approaches
being employed by the
MLR
pressures)
Scale of pressures
Key problem 5– Inadequate flow of conservancy benefits reaching down to household level
Causes of the key
problems (describe
Underlying causes (list at
(quantify and/or describe least 2 causes per pressure)
significance)
Possible responses by
the Project
Pressure 1 –
Inadequate income
and benefits accruing
to conservancies
Medium in
significance overall,
but ranges from very
significant to low in
significance
depending on each
conservancy
Low densities of wildlife in
some conservancies;
Conservancies are not
effectively managing and
marketing their current
enterprise opportunities
Promote increases of
wildlife populations;
Assist conservancies to
develop wildlife
utilization enterprises
that generate increased
benefits
Pressure 2 –
Conservancy
committees are not
prioritizing flow of
benefits to
conservancy members
Very significant
Conservancy staff and
operating costs are too
high;
Conservancy committee
members prioritize their
needs over members’
Promote strengthened
conservancy benefits
flows to members
pressures)
Scale of pressures
needs
Key problem 6 – Inadequate systems to effectively regulate wildlife quotas and use
Causes of the key
problems (describe
Underlying causes (list at
(quantify and/or describe least 2 causes per pressure)
significance)
Possible responses by
the Project
Pressure 1 – Quota
setting system not yet
fully operational
Medium in
significance, but will
improve efficiency to
decentralize
Quotas not being
approved in a timely
manner;
Quota system not yet fully
functional;
Quota system not yet fully
understood by all
stakeholders
Assist MET and
conservancies to refine
and implement
improvements to the
quota setting system
Pressure 2 – Wildlife
harvest data not being
fully captured,
analyzed and reported
upon in timely fashion
Medium in
significance, but is
increasing in
significance as
harvest rates increase
Conservancies not
systematically capturing
all data;
Conservancies do not
understand how to use the
data for management
purposes yet
Strengthen conservancy
Event Book system
around sustainable use;
Provide training to
conservancies on data
analysis and application
to adaptive
management
Pressure 3 –
Low to medium in
Regulatory controls are significance now, but
overly centralized
will increase with time
Decentralization of
controls not yet done;
Conservancy and regional
MET staff lack appropriate
knowledge and skills to
implement regulatory
systems
Assist with the
introduction of
conservancy level
licensing and permitting
systems;
Train MET, NGO, and
conservancy staff on
decentralized regulatory
systems
Pressure 4 –
Medium in
Knowledge storage
significance
system not fully
developed and used
for adaptive
management purposes
as appropriate levels
(local, regional, and
national)
CONIFO not yet fully-user
friendly;
Training on CONINFO is
required
Support the continued
development and
application of CONINFO
pressures)
Scale of pressures