14. Living next to Etosha National Park:
The case of Ehi-Rovipuka

Table 14.3. Survey questions regarding experiences of living with wildlife asked to 40 respondents living in Otjokavare, Ehi-Rovipuka.

Villagers gave a variety of reasons about why wildlife is important to them, as shown in Figure 14.7. Most interviewees (60%) indicated that meat from wildlife was the reason for its importance to households. A closely related factor was the importance of wildlife for livelihoods and survival. The inherent beauty of wildlife, as well as its role in generating revenues for community projects, was also important: from a utilitarian perspective, the ranking of appearance and characteristics of animals ahead of benefits derived from wildlife was somewhat surprising. Villagers were additionally asked which wild animals they liked or disliked, and the reasons for their preferences (Figures 14.8 and 14.9). It is mainly the herbivores that were favoured, although 28% of the respondents indicated that they liked all wildlife. A few other species were mentioned only once as being liked by respondents, including warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), hares (Lepus capensis), leopard (Panthera pardus), rhino (Diceros bicornis bicornis) and mopane worms (edible caterpillars from the emperor moth Gonimbrasia belina).

Fig. 14.6 Importance ratings of wildlife to community households in Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy (n = 40). © Arthur Hoole, 2008, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Fig. 14.7 Graph showing reasons given for wildlife importance (n = 40). © Arthur Hoole, 2008, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Fig. 14.8 Graph showing wild animals that are liked by villagers (above) and stated reasons for their preferences (below). © Arthur Hoole, 2008, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

The wild animals that are disliked are mainly the predators (Figure 14.9), with 40% of the villager respondents noting they disliked all predators. Lions (Panthera leo) were specifically disliked more than any other individual species, followed by elephant (Loxodonta africana). The reasons given for disliking wild animals predictably centred on danger to humans (52.5%), livestock destruction (45%) and loss of property (32.5%). Indeed, the antipathy towards predators is noteworthy (see Chapter 8).
While not unexpected in terms of perceived and real threats posed by predators, this finding may have implications for accounting for the role of predators in overall ecosystems function and as animals of particular interest and attraction in wildlife viewing by tourists (as discussed more fully for lions in Chapters 17, 18 and 19). It was also interesting to note the ambivalence towards elephant. Almost a third of the respondents identified elephant as an animal they liked whilst 17.5% indicated they disliked elephant. This finding is at odds with some of the human-wildlife conflict (HWC) literature in Namibia that suggests elephants are only a problem for communities (also see Chapter 11). Perhaps inherent traits of elephant such as their dominant size, intelligence, as well as their ecological roles in creating habitats and water sources for other wildlife, explain their relatively high ranking as an animal appreciated by villagers.

Fig. 14.9 Graph showing wild animals disliked by villagers (above) and the reasons given for their dislike (below). © Arthur Hoole, 2008, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Villagers were additionally asked what causes increases and decreases in the numbers of wild animals. The vast majority (78%) identified rainfall as the main cause of increases, along with conservation practices including the control of hunting, conservancies and parks, monetary rewards, CGGs and monitoring (53%). Natural reproduction was mentioned once. Decreases were largely attributed to drought (85%) and uncontrolled hunting/poaching (33%). Predation, uncontrolled settlement, translocations of animals like black rhino away from the conservancy, and trophy hunting of prime male animals, were each mentioned once or twice as other factors causing decreases. Overall, villager responses show the prevailing role of reliable rainfalls and drought as principal determinants of wildlife numbers.17

Another topic related to problem animals. Villagers were asked how their ancestors had protected their livestock from wild animals, the results of which are summarised in Table 14.4. Responses reveal important differences in past practices from the more sedentary contemporary community life. Most respondents (73%) identified that herders stayed with the livestock and brought them into kraals at night in the past. Other responses emphasised a more active knowledge of predators by the ancestors that helped protect livestock.

Table 14.4. Methods employed by ancestors to protect livestock from wild animals (n = 40).

The following comments made by some villagers further capture the essence of the contrasts between present day care of livestock with past practices:

• ‘Today, no one herds the cattle. They are sent out on their own and the children are in school’;
• ‘Well, you can see, the people are just sitting around here in the village and the cattle move out into the fields by themselves’;
• ‘When there were problems with cheetah, they would take the calf of a donkey and put it in the kraals with the goats so that when the cheetah came, the mother donkey would make a lot of noise to protect her calf’.

Several other methods were employed in the community-based field research to further illuminate community perceptions and knowledge of wildlife. Local knowledge maps for seasonal wildlife distributions and poaching/problem wildlife incidents were prepared by three knowledgeable villagers engaged in wildlife management responsibilities with Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy (Figure 14.10). This documentation included how these incidents had changed from the start-up of Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy in 2001–2002 to the time of the research several years later. Notwithstanding the variability in individual mapping details, all maps display some common patterns of species occurrence. For example, springbok are consistently shown as dominant in the north part of the conservancy. This is a more open, less rugged area, consistent with preferred habitat conditions for springbok. Areas where lions are best seen are consistently shown along the south-east side of the conservancy. These observations are consistent with the findings of a study in these years reporting four lion prides living in western ENP, with two prides regularly breaking through the park boundary fence.18

Fig. 14.10 Maps illustrating local knowledge of wildlife distributions in Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy. © Arthur Hoole, 2008, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

These three participants were also invited to draw regional wildlife distribution maps for five species, as shown in the map legends (Figures 14.10 and 14.11). Brief mapping instructions were provided to the participants for the symbols and colours to be used to distinguish species, two different seasons, and the point data of wildlife incidents. Participants were asked to show the best areas for seeing the different species for the two different seasons. Each participant received the mapping guidelines through the community field interpreter, who was one of the mapping participants himself: they completed the maps independently of the lead researcher and of each other, following which we met as a group to verify the maps. The resultant maps display considerable variability in level of detail and no attempt was made to reconcile these differences. It was evident in the group discussion and verification session that each participant had paid different attention to details, especially in the regional wildlife distribution maps. It was also acknowledged by participants that Asser Ujaha’s maps of wildlife distributions were the most detailed and the others did not contest those additional details.

Fig. 14.11 Maps illustrating local knowledge of regional wildlife seasonal distributions by members of Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy. © Arthur Hoole, 2008, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Changes in seasonal distributions of wildlife from summer to winter seasons are detectable at the conservancy level (Figure 14.11). This is evident for lion, with greater movement and dispersal in the dry winter period compared to the wetter summer period. Dispersal changes are also evident for elephant. Springbok reverse the usual pattern of more species dispersal during the summer rainy season. They concentrate on short green pastures during the rains and disperse into smaller herds during the dry season. This is evident in the local knowledge maps, especially those of Asser Ujaha.

Hartmann’s mountain zebra are predominantly shown in the south-west reaches of the conservancy area. This is more rugged upland country and local knowledge of this animal’s distribution is quite consistent with the western science description of the mountain zebra’s preferred habitat (see Chapter 10). Elephant seem to be seen periodically throughout most of the conservancy area, but greater concentrations are evident in winter months to the north. Considerable overlap of areas where the five different species are seen is also evident for the conservancy area, as well as lines of wildlife movement, especially in the winter months. The lines of movement depicted are all in the area of the conservancy south of Otjokavare. In Asser Ujaha’s winter map of the conservancy area, lines of movement roughly correspond with the Ombombe River corridor and associated tributaries. The regional maps of Asser Ujaha (Figure 14.11) illustrate the importance of the Hoanib River watershed for wildlife, another aspect of local knowledge consistent with conservation understandings of the area (also Chapters 3 and 13). Generalised patterns of greater species dispersal in summer, as compared to winter seasons, are also evident in the regional wildlife distribution maps. Some of the maps show some wildlife linkages to the western parts of ENP, but the predominant pattern that emerges is the barrier effect of the park fence that runs along the entire western boundary of the national park.

Problem wildlife incidents in the last 5 years (see Figure 14.10) include attacks on livestock by wildlife or damage to property such as community boreholes or crops. Poaching incidents refer to unauthorised harvests or use of wildlife. The data obtained from the community mapping process shows only a few poaching incidents, ranging from six to 10 in number for 2001–2002 and from zero to 10 in 2006–2007. Gerson Uaroua was one of the three mapping participants and at the time of study was also a senior community game guard for Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy. He recalled more poaching incidents compared to the others. Regardless, the number of poaching incidents is low and the participants, in discussing findings with me, indicated that most were perpetrated by people from outside the conservancy villages. The number of sites shown for problem wildlife incidents in the last five years is relatively few. Hoole studied unpublished annual natural resource reports prepared by the CGGs for 2002 to 2005.19 The recorded number of poaching incidents correlated well with the local mapping results. Problem wildlife incidents in the field reports ranged from 145 to 279 livestock attacks per year, mainly by hyenas (Crocuta crocuta), lions, leopards, and to a lesser extent cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus). Very few crop damage incidents were reported, but elephants were implicated in several instances of water borehole damage (see Chapter 11). A study of human-wildlife conflict in the Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy found that spotted hyenas, leopards, cheetahs and lions caused the most problems (also see Chapters 17 and 19).²⁰

It is possible that participants in the mapping processes may not have wanted to reveal poaching incidents, although the close rapport developed with at least two of the three mapping participants suggests otherwise. Also, observations at the time of the research of low densities of wildlife associated with the semi-arid character of the area, alongside the natural resource report data and a general absence of references to poaching in the community interviews, confirms that poaching at the time of the research was not significant. Human-wildlife conflict incidents are more significant, especially livestock attacks. Much is made in literature about human-wildlife conflicts, and this is a preoccupation in the management programmes in ENP and with some NGOs (also see Chapters 11, 17, 18 and 19). The data reported here, combined with results from the likes and dislikes of different wild animals indicated by villagers in Section 14.4.2 suggest that there are indeed conflicts with predators. Lions and elephant frequently break through the western boundary fence of ENP and these animals are implicated in complaints about livestock and property damage.21 The area warden for western Etosha also mapped recurring places of fence breaks by lion and elephant and these are shown in Figure 14.12.

Fig. 14.12 Map showing recurring Etosha National Park fence break locations by elephant and lion, on the eastern boundary of Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy. © Arthur Hoole, 2008, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Villagers additionally confirmed that rules existed in the past regarding the utilisation of wildlife. These were made by the headman and were known by everyone. They included hunting only in the winter (well after the young had been born, during the earlier rainy season), which was also a time when it was cooler to keep meat fresh, and animals were fattened up. Hunters were not allowed to take females with calves—mainly male animals were taken—and females were not permitted to be hunted in the breeding season (see Chapters 12 and 15). Other rules mentioned were that animals could not be taken near water, hunting pressure would be reduced when numbers were depleted, and animals could only be hunted with the agreement of the household head. There was also a separation of hunting areas among different groups of hunters. Further enquiries were made about what happened when such community rules for using wildlife were not followed in the past. Many of the respondents indicated that there were no actions taken since people were on the move, they hunted with bows and arrows and could not kill a lot of animals. The headman was not nearby to enforce rules. A further 33% indicated they believed the headman and council would meet with reported violators, initially warn them and if there were repeat offences, fines in terms of payments to the headman in livestock would be made. Others noted that repeat offenders or those who could not pay fines in livestock would be beaten on the buttocks in public. Punishment was according to the seriousness of the deed. Many of the villagers interviewed did not know about what may have happened in the past when rules were broken, and did not know what the rules may have been.

An interesting exchange took place at the community report-back and verification meeting that encapsulates the dichotomy evident in villager awareness about past rules of use for wildlife. Preliminary findings were summarised that were similar to the descriptions above, but a young school teacher stated there were basically no rules for wildlife use before the conservancy, asserting that people hunted wildlife as they pleased. The headman was present, however, and he argued strenuously against the teacher’s comments, reiterating that there were indeed rules made by headmen in the past, and everyone knew these rules.

Manfred Hinz22 documents that rules for wildlife use in the past reflected an Indigenous conservation ethic and respect for wildlife. The social memory of those rules seems to have faded: while not evident in current conservancy institutional arrangements, a conservation ethic was undoubtedly a factor in the agreement of the headman and communities to institute the CGG programme and then form a conservancy. The wildlife laws of central government now prevail. Violators are reported to the MEFT or to the national police by CGGs or villagers at large, with a graduated system of fines and incarceration applied by the courts.

Field foods and their importance to communities was an oversight in the structured villager interview questions, however, many villagers identified field food as important to their households in discussions, with field food harvest one of the benefits they would like to enjoy within and from ENP. One key informant quoted an old ovaHerero saying that: ‘if you don’t gather field fruits the rains will not come’. The importance of field foods was also stressed by Asser Ujaha, the community assistant and interpreter in this research. He described how mopane worms are harvested from March to May, boiled and dried in the sun, then bagged and sold in Oshakati. Mopane worms are both a dietary staple and can be used in treatment of blood pressure. Mopane (Colophospermum mopane) leaves are chewed to relieve stomach ailments and the dung of mopane worms is used to heal wounds. He further described the use of Devil’s Claw (Harpagophytum procumbens) as a malarial fever treatment and pointed out trees harvested for various fruits near Otjokavare.

He also noted the harvest of wild honey in July and August by people in Otjetjekwa, in the north part of the conservancy. Bees are smoked out of tree hives and the honeycombs removed.23 Apparently, this practice has produced veld fires and there are government sponsored workshops to train how to safely harvest without killing the bees and starting fires. Asser Ujaha also related that smaller animals like rock dassie (Procavia capensis), porcupine (Hystrix africaeaustralis), and birds like wild dove, kori bustard (Ardeotis kori) and guineafowl (Numida meleagris) are used. Technically, some of these species are subject to government harvest regulation through quotas, but such harvest appears to be largely unregulated and is not high at any given time. Other villagers indicated that the low return of meat from the harvest of birds and smaller game does not warrant the effort to hunt or trap them intensively and therefore such use is more incidental.

Fig. 14.13 Combined field food and medicinal plant distribution maps of three women village harvesters: Sylvia Kavetu, Rosana Kavetu and Naangota Mavongara. © Arthur Hoole, 2008, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Given the apparent overall importance of field foods,24 a mapping exercise was carried out with three village women in which they were asked to map important areas for field foods (see Figure 14.13). Women were invited to prepare the maps because women play the main role in harvesting most field food, except for wild honey and hunting small game. Their maps were shared maps at an Otjokavare community report-back and verification meeting in which women participated. The accuracy of the mapping was roundly supported by all present, including the headman. The map shows the importance of the northern parts of Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy for wild honey, medicinal plants and other field food harvesting. Mopane worm harvest is shown as important over the entire area. It is also revealing that there are large areas of overlap into ENP, although the meanings of this overlap were not clarified: it remains uncertain whether they were mapping past extents of known harvest, known areas of potential harvest, or whether in fact they were revealing areas of actual harvest within the park. Such harvest in the park is illegal and it does not seem that the women were indicating that this was a widespread practice, but rather a potential opportunity and known value. Likely, there is some harvest of field foods going on in ENP, since this could be conducted clandestinely through breaks in the park fence (Figure 14.12).

One other method was employed to assess the level of awareness and attitudes about wildlife, the park and the conservancy amongst school children. The Grade 7 class of 34 pupils at the Kephas Muzuma Primary School was given a 30-minute drawing and basic question assignment. The school principal assisted in this process by translating the instructions to the class and being present while the assignment was completed. Each pupil was provided a blank sheet of paper and was asked to draw the main road in the area down the centre of page and the position of the school building, as demonstrated on the blackboard. They were then asked to draw anything they saw or were aware of on one side of the road (the side that ENP is on), and then to draw what they saw on the other side of the road, where the school is located (the community side of the road): see Figure 14.14.

Fig. 14.14 Representative sketch of knowledge about Etosha National Park and Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy by Grade 7 pupil at Kephas Muzuma Primary School in Otjokavare. © Arthur Hoole, 2008, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

In this process 26 of the 34 students included the park fence in their drawings, with most showing “community things” on the school side of the road and wildlife on the park side. When asked if they liked wildlife, 30 of the 34 participants said they did. The pupils were asked which animals they liked or disliked, and results were similar to those shown in Figures 14.8 and 14.9. Interestingly, more pupils liked elephants than disliked them, and more disliked rhino than liked them (contrary to findings shared in Chapter 8). The level of dislike for rhino is intriguing, given extensive efforts in the region by Save the Rhino Trust and other conservation agencies to restore endangered populations. The school teachers and my community assistant clarified that this was not surprising since children are taught by parents from a young age that rhino are dangerous when encountered in the field. The pupils were also asked (afterwards, separately from the mapping exercise) to name the national park in the area and the conservancy. Most (31 of 34) named the Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy correctly and most (29 of 34) correctly named Etosha National Park. This result suggests a high level of awareness among community youth about the park, the conservancy, conservation and the value of wildlife.

14.5 To conclude: Past and present in conservation in Ehi-Rovipuka

The research shared here is the outcome of attempts to learn more about how villagers in the park-adjacent Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy view wildlife conservation, and how they participate in, and benefit from, CBNRM, the conservancy and ENP. These insights were sought through a series of questions posed in the structured interviews with 40 villagers, as well as through participant observations, site visits, discussions with community informants, and memory mapping with community elders. Information elicited through this research illuminates both present and past land-use and mobilities through the conservancy and its wider landscape, as well community customs or rules for using wild animals prior to the formation of the conservancy.

Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy became established particularly in connection with the collaboration of the late Garth Owen-Smith (former Director of the NGO Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation, IRDNC) with headman Kephas Muzuma—illustrating the importance of leadership and cross-cultural communication in initiating community-based conservation. In fact, Kephas Muzuma was one of four headmen that Owen-Smith worked with during the 1980s, in the precursor CGG programme (see Chapter 2). The roles of government and NGOs, notably IRDNC, are also reinforced by the villager responses reported in Figure 14.15. There was a fairly high non-response to the question of conservancy start-up (15%), showing that a considerable proportion of respondents did not know this history. A community taskforce of 31 villagers had been created by the traditional authority headman and council, receiving training from IRDNC. This taskforce included both men and women who took the conservancy idea into the villages, built understanding and support for the concept, and helped negotiate the boundaries—described as a protracted process lasting three years. An ancillary question was asked about how the boundaries of the conservancy were established. Those that could reply (63%) recognised a process of negotiations with surrounding communities and TAs by the community task force. A relatively large proportion (43%) did not know how the conservancy boundaries had been formed. Important points of emphasis made by some villagers noted that boundaries defined rights of access to wildlife only and the conservancy included communities that agreed on sharing wildlife. Grazing, water rights and other resource access rights were perceived as not subject to the exclusionary role of the conservancy boundaries. The boundaries are well known at the community level; 80% of the villagers interviewed indicated they knew the boundaries, or at least, the different villages that made up the conservancy.

Fig. 14.15 Graph showing respondents’ perceptions of key players and contexts in initiating conservancy organisation. © Arthur Hoole, 2008, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.

Conservancy establishment clearly has both top-down and bottom-up dimensions (see Chapter 5).
The idea originated and was enabled from outside, and at higher levels of organisation than on the local community level. Yet, there was a high degree of self-organisation at the community level for the implementation of conservancy institutional arrangements, especially boundary negotiation. Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy has produced some early benefits for its members and a good deal of hope since its formation in 2001. The sustainability of the conservancy model hinges on institutional strengthening in financial management and transparency in governance, as well as strengthened villager participation in decision-making and priority setting for wildlife-based revenues earned by the conservancy. More culturally congruent and appropriate means for participation in decision-making and distribution of benefits are needed (as also argued in Chapter 5).
Constitutionally imposed policies and procedures by central government, such as the conduct of conservancy Annual General Meetings (AGMs) and attainment of set quorums at meetings, need to be replaced or complemented with more consensual decision-making and consultative processes, consistent with ovaHerero traditions. Villagers frequently mentioned the early days of many meetings and consultations at the individual village level, when conservancy formation was being considered and boundaries were being negotiated with neighbouring communities. These approaches have subsequently been diminished and replaced by AGMs and other mandatory features of conservancy constitutions dictated by central government. Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy has developed an apparently decentralised model of governance on paper, but at the time of the research was not being fully realised in practice.

Developing needed linkages with ENP is key to the future of the conservancy and community well-being. A theory of creating economic incentives for community conservation rests at the heart of CBNRM programmes in Southern Africa.25 Yet, the ovaHerero of Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy are actively participating in conservation with few tangible economic incentives to date. While certain future benefits sought by villagers are tied directly to economy, they are equally tied to cultural renewal,26 intrinsic values to conserve wildlife, and attaining a greater voice in natural resources management (also see Chapters 5, 6, 12, 13 and 15). Individual conservancies like Ehi-Rovipuka are quite localised wildlife conservation institutions, but connected with many other neighbouring conservancies and nested within the regional distributions and movements of wildlife, upon which each conservancy depends (see Chapter 3).
The rapid scaling-up in the numbers of conservancies suggests a commensurate need for scaling-up of regional institutions and collaborations. The management of wildlife must extend beyond the monitoring of populations to include monitoring and management of habitats (see Chapter 9), especially the connectivity corridors along ephemeral rivers. These conclusions reinforce certain others in addressing alternative approaches to protected areas that recouple social-ecological systems in the course of aiming for biodiversity conservation. More dynamic models are required that place less emphasis on the designation of parks, and more on needed collaborations and partnerships between park agencies, conservation NGOs and communities in living landscapes.

Berry, H.H. 1997. Historical review of the Etosha region and its subsequent administration as a National Park. Madoqua 20(1): 3–10, https://hdl.handle.net/10520/AJA10115498_453

Berry, H.H., Rocher, C.J.V., Paxton, M. and Copper, T. 1997. Origin and meaning of place names in Etosha National Park. Madoqua 20(1): 13–35, https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA10115498_454

Blaikie, P. 2006. Is small really beautiful? Community-based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34(11): 1942–57, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.11.023

Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy 2002. Annual Natural Resources Report. Otjokavare, Namibia.

Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy 2003. Annual Natural Resources Report. Otjokavare, Namibia.

Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy 2004. Annual Natural Resources Report. Otjokavare, Namibia.

Ehi-Rovipuka Conservancy 2005. Annual Natural Resources Report. Otjokavare, Namibia.

Hauptfleisch, M., Blaum, N., Liehr, S., Hering, R., Kraus, R., Tausendfruend, M., Cimenti, A., Lüdtke, D., Rauchecker, M. and Uiseb, K. 2024. Trends and barriers to wildlife-based options for sustainable management of savanna resources: The Namibian case. In von Maltitz, G.P., Midgley, G.F., Veitch, J., Brümmer, C., Rötter, R.P., Viehberg, F.A. and Veste, M. (eds.) Sustainability of Southern African Ecosystems Under Global Change. Berlin: Springer Nature, 499–525, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-10948-5_18

Hinz, W.O. 2003. Without Chiefs There Would be No Game: Customary Law and Nature Conservation. Windhoek: Out of Africa Publishers.

Hoole, A.F. 2008. Community-Based Conservation and Protected Areas in Namibia: Social-Ecological Linkages for Biodiversity. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Manitoba.

Hoole, A. and Berkes, F. 2010. Breaking down fences: Recoupling social-ecological systems for biodiversity conservation in Namibia. Geoforum 41(2): 304–17, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.10.009

Infield, M. 2001. Cultural values: A forgotten strategy for building community support for protected areas in Africa. Conservation Biology 13(3): 800–02, https://www.jstor.org/stable/3061464

Malan, J.S. and Owen-Smith, G.L. 1974. The ethnobotany of Kaokoland. Cimbebasia. (B) 2(5): 131–78.

NACSO 2004. Namibia’s Communal Conservancies: A Review of Progress 2003. Windhoek: Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations.

NACSO, 2006. Namibia’s Communal Conservancies: A Review of Progress and Challenges in 2005. NACSO. Windhoek.

Rudner, I. and Rudner, J. 1974[1899]. Journey in Africa Through Angola, Ovampoland and Damaraland 1895-1896 by P. Möller. C. Struik: Cape Town.

Stander P. and Esterhuizen, A. n.d. Detailed Survey on the State of Human Wildlife Conflict in Ehi-rovipuka and Omatendeka Conservancies. Ministry of Environment and Tourism ICEMA Project. Windhoek.

Sullivan, S. 1998. People, Plants and Practice in Drylands: Sociopolitical and Ecological Dynamics of Resource Use by Damara Farmers in Arid North-west Namibia, including Annexe of Damara Ethnobotany. Ph.D. Anthropology, University College London, http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1317514/

Sullivan, S. 1999. Folk and formal, local and national: Damara knowledge and community conservation in southern Kunene, Namibia. Cimbebasia 15: 1–28.

Sullivan, S. 2002. ‘How can the rain fall in this chaos?’ Myth and metaphor in representations of the north-west Namibian landscape. In LeBeau, D. and Gordon, R.J. (eds.) Challenges for Anthropology in the ‘African Renaissance’: A Southern African Contribution. Windhoek: University of Namibia Press, 255–265, 315–317.

Sullivan, S. 2005. Detail and dogma, data and discourse: Food-gathering by Damara herders and conservation in arid north-west Namibia. In Homewood, K. (ed.) Rural Resources and Local Livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa. Oxford: James Currey and University of Wisconsin Press, 63–99, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-06615-2_4

World Resources Institute, UNDP, UNEP and World Bank 2005. World Resources 2005: The Wealth of the Poor-Managing Ecosystems to Fight Poverty. Washington: World Resources Institute.