by Madeleen Duvenhage
From the rural reaches of Namibia’s expansive wilderness to the often monotonous moments spent collating data at a cluttered desk, Richard Freyer’s work rarely follows a routine. As a Control Warden with the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT), Freyer is part of a team tasked with maintaining one of Namibia’s most delicate balances: conserving wildlife while supporting the people who live alongside it. Each year, Freyer contributes to setting wildlife quotas, a cornerstone of sustainable resource management in the country. These quotas are not arbitrary numbers: they are based on field data, aerial surveys and close cooperation with all 86 communal conservancies in Namibia. This annual process then determines quotas for the next threeyear cycle.
“The reality of conservation, he emphasises, “is that every choice carries weight. Not just for wildlife, but for the people who share the land.”
The quotas are guided by the Quota Setting Coordinating Committee, a body within Namibia’s Department of Natural Resource Management. The committee brings together representatives from the Directorate of Wildlife and National Parks, the Directorate of Scientific Services, and the Namibian Association for Conservancy Support Organisations (NACSO), while also consulting closely with conservancies and hunting operators. According to Freyer, this collaborative approach ensures that quotas are based on solid data, practical experience and a shared commitment to environmental balance and community benefit.
But Freyer’s role extends far beyond policy and numbers. As the officer managing the Problem Animal Control Programme, he confronts one of conservation’s most complex challenges: mitigating conflict between people and wildlife. It is where livelihoods, safety and the needs of the community often intersect. He admits that confronting the on-the-ground realities of human-wildlife conflict can be “emotional” work, and one that requires empathy.
So, what exactly qualifies an animal as a “problem animal”? Freyer emphasises that it is not the species itself that is at fault, but the individual that repeatedly causes harm. A lion that occasionally preys on livestock is not automatically labelled a problem, but one that repeatedly returns to farms or settlements may be. The same principle applies to elephants, leopards, hippos and crocodiles: the programme targets the conflict-causing individuals, not the species as a whole.
Once a report is received, the response process begins immediately. Wardens investigate and verify the incident, then implement appropriate strategies depending on the situation. Non-lethal interventions, such as deterrents or relocation, are preferred, while removal or destruction is only considered as a last resort. The Namibia Professional Hunting Association (NAPHA) is informed through a private WhatsApp group that includes outfitters. This ensures rapid dissemination of crucial information without causing public alarm. “We don’t want the animal to create more havoc”, Freyer notes, highlighting the need for swift action to secure a PH.
Translocation is a key component of this programme. In the northwestern region, for example, a lion was recently captured and relocated to Bwabwata National Park, demonstrating that problem animals are not only hunted but also safely moved to reduce conflict. Each intervention is carefully documented and monitored to prevent recurrence and minimise ecological impact.
A recent real-life example of where this system worked effectively involved a farmer in the ≠Khoadi-//Hôas Conservancy who lost 35 sheep in a single night. The problem-causing animal, a lion, was removed and hunted, resolving the immediate threat to the community’s livelihood. The programme has not been without its critics. But Freyer maintains that one needs to – put simply – listen. “We must consider people’s side of the story, especially to someone who has just lost their entire income in one go. How do you put food on the table? Get your kids through school? These are the real, tangible hardships and we need to examine both sides of the story.”
For Freyer, working in the field has shaped a perspective that cannot be gained from behind a desk. “It’s easy to make assumptions, if you’re not out in the field. I have been to meetings in communal conservancies. One must listen. It’s always going to be a difficult decision”, he says. “The reality of conservation”, he emphasises, “is that every choice carries weight. Not just for wildlife, but for the people who share the land.”
The Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism’s mandate has always been clear: to conserve wildlife while prioritising communities. “We need our conservancies. The one cannot exist without the other”, Freyer explains, underscoring the interdependence of healthy ecosystems and thriving local communities in Namibia.
As for losses caused by wildlife, Freyer clarifies: “We don’t compensate, but we give an off-set not related to market value.” In Namibia it is not government policy to provide full compensation to farmers for livestock or crop losses resulting from wild animals. Past compensation schemes implemented elsewhere have often proved problematic and susceptible to abuse, highlighting the need for alternative approaches that both mitigate losses and encourage self-reliance among communities.
Under the Human-Wildlife Conflict SelfReliance Scheme, payments are made to partially offset the impact of livestock losses, with rates deliberately set below the full market value of the animals. The scheme also provides specified payments for crop damage and, in cases of human injury or death, support to affected families. While the government cannot be held legally responsible for the death of a person caused by a wild animal, it acknowledges a moral responsibility to assist families by covering basic funeral costs.
Freyer points out that impactful conservation relies not only on policies and fieldwork, but also on comprehension. “Familiarise yourself with Namibian laws and policies which are available to the general public, before being quick to post negative comments. It has a ripple effect”, he stresses.
Greater understanding of these frameworks helps build trust and accountability among all stakeholders. By promoting awareness and encouraging constructive dialogue, Namibia can continue to strengthen its conservation efforts and ensure that decisions made in the field are supported and appreciated by the broader public. “Wildlife-human conflict will always be there, but we can learn to manage it better.”
From the 2026 issue of Huntinamibia
We were kneeling in the hot sand. It was early April, yet the sun was burning down on us mercilessly. Poldi was sitting behind me. It was his second visit to Namibia and therefore he now knew that in Africa, too, the scorching heat and biting flies do come to
From the rural reaches of Namibia’s expansive wilderness to the often monotonous moments spent collating data at a cluttered desk, Richard Freyer’s work rarely follows a routine. As a Control Warden with the Ministry of Environment, Forestry and Tourism (MEFT), Freyer is part of a team tasked with maintaining one
I walked in circles around the fallen old warrior for several minutes, studying the scars and characteristics that told the 14- year story of a rugged life lived in the furtherest shag of Mozambique’s northern Zambezi Delta. From the prominent snare marks encircling his neck and right hindfoot, to the
