Can lions and farmers coexist? Experts are cautiously optimistic

Etosha National Park in Namibia is home to one of Africa’s most iconic animals, the lion. These big cats roam the open grasslands and woodlands, thriving in what should be a sanctuary. Yet, beyond the park’s protective boundaries, the landscape turns deadly.

A recent long-term study from the University of Georgia reveals the extent and complexity of human-lion conflict in this region. Between 1980 and 2018, 698 lions were killed due to interactions with people in the areas surrounding Etosha.

This number likely doesn’t reflect the full picture. Many deaths go unreported, making the crisis even graver than it seems. Why are lions dying in such large numbers? What makes Etosha’s borders so perilous?

The study uncovers the layers of environmental change, historical injustice, and social tension that now shape the future of one of Africa’s top predators.

“It was environmental. It was cultural. It was climatic,” said Dipanjan Naha of the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory.

Lions in an ecological trap

Etosha National Park serves as a population source for lions. But the areas beyond its perimeter, farmlands, conservancies, and village lands, act like population sinks.

These surrounding zones draw lions with the promise of prey and water, only to deliver lethal encounters with people. The study identifies this as an ecological trap, a place that appears rich in resources but is ultimately dangerous.

Lions often cross Etosha’s perimeter fence during the cold dry season, which runs from May to August. Water sources inside the park shrink. Prey becomes scarce. Lions, driven by hunger, head into neighboring farmlands where livestock and game animals graze.

“As soon as the lions get out of the park, they are in trouble with the farmers,” noted Naha.

Conflict flares as lions attack livestock, and farmers respond with deadly force. With no system to compensate livestock loss, shooting becomes a survival strategy for many landowners.

Conflict-related lion deaths

The roots of this conflict go deep. Prior to the establishment of Etosha, the Greater Etosha Landscape (GEL) was inhabited by indigenous Hai//om and !Xun San communities.

These hunter-gatherers had long coexisted with lions. But by the early 20th century, European settlers displaced these communities. They introduced firearms and private farms, viewing predators as threats to be eliminated.

Land once used communally turned into private holdings. Over time, tolerance for carnivores eroded. The cultural shift from cohabitation to confrontation hardened the region’s approach to wildlife.

This legacy continues today, as conflict-related lion deaths remain concentrated in private freehold farms owned by descendants of those settlers.

Seventy-seven percent of conflict-related lion deaths between 2001 and 2018 occurred on farms. Another 13 percent occurred in conservancies, and only 7 percent in private game reserves.

Most lions didn’t die in deep wilderness but on the edges, where the wild and human worlds meet uncomfortably.

Farmers’ lethal response to lions

From 1980 to 2000, rainfall in the GEL region declined. Droughts became frequent, forcing a shift in farming practices. Many farmers transitioned from raising livestock to managing game farms. These new farms needed less water but had even less tolerance for predators.

Game animals are valuable. Losing one to a lion is costlier than losing livestock. With this economic pressure, farmers responded quickly and lethally to any lion sighting. As lions continued to roam outside Etosha in search of prey, the frequency of fatal encounters grew.

The study revealed that lion deaths were highest during the cold dry season, the same time that lions most often left the park. It also found a troubling increase in lion deaths over the decades, peaking in 2017 with 67 deaths.

Younger male lions were especially vulnerable. These lions leave their natal territories in search of new ones and often end up in risky, unfamiliar zones.

Male lions died more often

Sixty percent of reported lion deaths were males. This reflects the natural behavior of male dispersal. Males travel widely, often through farmlands and conservancies. They face increased danger during this journey, especially in human-dominated areas.

The loss of males isn’t just a numbers issue. It disrupts social structures within lion populations. Without stable coalitions, prides become vulnerable. Infanticide may rise. Cubs are left unprotected.

Entire prides may even abandon safer areas to escape aggressive newcomers, increasing their chances of conflict with humans.

These effects ripple across generations, weakening the lion population over time. Removing even a few males can trigger cascading damage to pride stability and reproductive success.

Danger zones exist around Etosha’s borders

Using spatial modeling, researchers identified hotspots of lion mortality around the park. These included parts of the eastern, southern, western, and north-western edges of ENP.

Many of these danger zones overlap with wildlife corridors that lions use to move between Etosha and regions like the Skeleton Coast and Kunene.

Interestingly, areas with more vegetation such as dense woodlands and shrubs had fewer lion deaths. Woody cover provides concealment, allowing lions to move undetected. But most farmlands lacked this vegetation. This made it easier for humans to spot and shoot lions.

The study also found that ecological traps often formed in areas that contained both livestock and wild prey. To a lion, this looks like prime habitat. But it comes with an invisible cost, human hostility.

Fences and a fractured future

Etosha’s perimeter fence, built to stop disease, added another layer of complexity. It cut off migration routes for herbivores, concentrating prey within the park.

At the same time, it left the surrounding lands exposed to hungry predators. “Areas around the park are kind of an ecological trap for them.” Dipanjan Naha

The fence also intersects with the Veterinary Cordon Fence, locally known as the Red Line. This line divides commercial farms from communal areas and restricts meat trade across it.

The economic divide fuels further intolerance. Farmers south of the line, under more trade pressure, are more likely to resort to lethal action.

High livestock density, low vegetation, and poor compensation schemes all increase the chances of lions getting killed. Combined with colonial land policies and climate change, these factors make conservation intensely difficult.

Farmers sharing spaces with lions

“There has to be more integrated conservation where humans and wildlife can share spaces,” said Naha.

Fencing alone will not save Etosha’s lions. In fact, it may increase their risk. Lethal control methods are also proving ineffective. Instead, the study suggests a blend of land sparing, protected reserves, and land sharing, sustainable cohabitation with humans.

Local communities should be included in monitoring, ecotourism, and conservation efforts. Lions bring potential income through wildlife tourism. Creating incentives for people to protect rather than kill lions is key.

With better planning, compensation schemes, and education, it’s possible to reduce human-lion conflict. Spatial risk maps from the study can help direct conservation action to the most affected areas.

This research, published in Global Ecology and Conservation, paints a sobering picture. Yet, it also offers a path forward. If we can understand the intersecting forces of ecology, culture, and economy, we might yet build a future where lions and people both thrive on the edges of Etosha.

—–

Like what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter for engaging articles, exclusive content, and the latest updates. 

Check us out on EarthSnap, a free app brought to you by Eric Ralls and Earth.com.

—–