Namibia’s long-running dispute with European policymakers over trophy hunting imports is far from over, and according to former tourism minister Pohamba Shifeta, the stakes have rarely been higher.
Speaking about years of negotiations and diplomatic engagement, Shifeta described the growing push, particularly from parts of the European Union, to restrict or ban imports of legally hunted wildlife trophies as a “protracted struggle” that risks undermining decades of conservation gains across Africa.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental divide. African range states such as Namibia argue that regulated trophy hunting is a scientifically managed conservation tool that generates vital funding and incentivises communities to protect wildlife. Critics in Europe, often influenced by political campaigns and public pressure, view the practice as unethical and are increasingly calling for stricter import controls.
A decade-long diplomatic dispute
Shifeta said Namibia, alongside other African nations, has spent close to a decade resisting what it sees as externally imposed restrictions. While countries such as the United States and parts of Eastern Europe have generally remained open to trophy imports, opposition has been strongest in Western Europe.
“These campaigns have been used as political tools,” he said, pointing to the influence of green political movements in shaping public opinion and policy. “They are successful in their countries, but they undermine African conservation programmes.”
He said Namibia’s position has consistently been based on sustainability. Trophy hunting, he said, is strictly regulated, with annual quotas set using scientific data. In most cases, only older males beyond their breeding prime are selected.
“We call it conservation hunting,” he said. “It is done scientifically, sustainably and within clearly defined protocols. It has never harmed our conservation efforts.”
Conservation gains and funding
Namibia is widely regarded as one of Africa’s conservation success stories, particularly under its Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) programme. Since independence, wildlife populations have increased significantly, a trend Shifeta attributes to policies linking conservation with economic benefits for local communities.
He cited the recovery of elephant populations as an example. From fewer than 7 500 animals around independence, Namibia’s elephant population has risen to more than 24 000. The country also now holds one of the world’s largest populations of black rhino, with numbers having increased substantially over the same period.
“These are not accidents,” he said. “They are the result of deliberate conservation programmes that involve communities and provide real benefits.”
He added that in some communal conservancies, up to 70% to 80% of income is derived from trophy hunting. This revenue supports anti-poaching efforts, habitat management and community development projects.
“If you remove that income, you remove the incentive,” he said. “And without incentives, conservation becomes very difficult, especially for communities living alongside wildlife.”
Human-wildlife conflict
As wildlife numbers recover, Namibia has also seen an increase in human-wildlife conflict. Shifeta outlined measures introduced during his tenure to help manage these challenges and maintain community support.
Instead of a traditional compensation system, the government introduced incentive-based payments for wildlife-related losses. For example, farmers receive a fixed payout for livestock killed by predators, in some cases exceeding market value, to ensure rapid assistance.
“We simplified the system to avoid administrative delays,” he said. “If a cow is lost, the farmer can replace it without going through a long process.”
Support has also been extended to crop damage and to families affected by fatal wildlife incidents. While human life cannot be compensated, the state provides financial and logistical support for funerals and immediate needs.
“These are practical solutions to ensure people continue to live alongside wildlife,” he said. “Without them, coexistence would break down.”
International pressure
Despite these measures, Shifeta said international opposition is often driven by misinformation and a lack of understanding of African conservation systems. He pointed to repeated engagements with European policymakers, including high-level meetings in Brussels.
While some countries have moderated their positions following dialogue, others remain firmly opposed. “There is a perception problem,” he said. “Some people are made to believe that Africans are simply killing animals without a scientific basis. That is not true.”
He also criticised some non-governmental organisations, alleging that certain campaigns distort realities on the ground.
“Many of these voices do not understand how conservation works in Africa,” he said. “Some come from countries with no wildlife of their own.”
African coordination
In response, African range states have increasingly coordinated their positions in international forums. Shifeta said he had led delegations representing multiple countries in efforts to present a unified stance.
“We have to defend our model,” he said. “Because it works - not only for Namibia, but for global conservation.”
He warned that further restrictions could have unintended consequences, including reduced conservation funding, increased poaching and habitat loss.
As debate over trophy hunting continues, Namibia maintains that conservation must remain locally driven, scientifically based and economically viable.
Shifeta said external actors must take greater account of local realities. “We are not conserving for ourselves alone,” he said. “We are conserving for the world. But we must be allowed to use the tools that work for us.”
With potential new import restrictions under discussion in parts of Europe, the issue is likely to remain politically sensitive. For Namibia and other range states, the challenge will be ensuring their conservation model is understood beyond their borders.
