There is a clear divide in recommendations by Namibia’s delimitation commission when it comes to some targeted regions and communities.
It appears that the administrative control of Etosha is being aggressively moved towards the greater Oshana region which barely borders the park.
It is baffling how such a school of thought can assume and reconcile such a narrow position: the move has the potential to cripple the livelihoods of surrounding communities and the economy of the already impoverished Kunene region.
The deafening silence of governor Vipuakuje Muharukua on the issue leaves much to be desired; one could argue that to him an asset and the single biggest contributor to the region’s development is a mere afterthought.
Does the minister care?
REGIONAL ANCHOR
Etosha National Park is more than just a protected conservation area. It is one of Namibia’s most recognisable national treasures, a cornerstone of our tourism industry, and a source of pride for all Namibians.
Every year, thousands of local and international visitors travel to Etosha to experience its remarkable wildlife and landscapes.
Yet from time to time, discussions emerge suggesting that the park should be administratively moved from the Kunene region to the Oshana region.
Such a move is unnecessary and potentially counterproductive.
This is not an argument against the Oshana region. Nor is it a claim that one region deserves more recognition than another.
Rather, it is an appeal for careful, evidence-based decision-making that recognises the economic, historic and practical relationships that have developed around Etosha over many years.
One of the strongest reasons for maintaining Etosha’s current administrative association with the Kunene region is its role in the regional economy.
Towns such as Outjo and Kamanjab, for example, have developed as important tourism gateways to the park.
Lodges, guesthouses, fuel stations, restaurants, tour operators, craft markets, and numerous small businesses benefit directly from the steady flow of visitors.
These businesses employ Namibians, support families, and contribute to local economic growth.
Altering long-established administrative arrangements without a compelling policy justification could create uncertainty for regional planning and investment.
BEYOND BOUNDARIES
Equally important is the broader tourism network that has developed around Etosha.
Visitors rarely limit themselves to the park alone.
Many combine their visit with destinations such as Twyfelfontein, Palmwag, Grootberg, the Skeleton Coast, Epupa Falls, and other attractions in the Kunene region.
This integrated tourism circuit encourages longer stays and greater spending, benefiting communities across the region.
From a conservation perspective, Etosha does not exist in isolation. Wildlife moves across landscapes, not administrative boundaries.
Successful conservation depends on effective cooperation between the park, neighbouring conservancies, farmers, local communities and government institutions.
Maintaining stable administrative relationships can help support coordinated planning and long-term environmental management.
It is also worth remembering that communities surrounding Etosha have ties with the park going back generations. Many also have cultural, historical, and economic links to the area.
Their participation in tourism and conservation has helped make Namibia’s community-based conservation model internationally respected.
SHARED BENEFITS
None of this suggests that neighbouring regions should be excluded from benefiting from Etosha.
On the contrary, tourism generated by the park already supports economic activity far beyond the immediate surrounding areas.
Visitors often travel through multiple regions, purchase goods and services from businesses across the country, and contribute to Namibia’s economy.
Those who advocate for changing administrative boundaries may have legitimate reasons for raising the issue.
Perhaps they believe it would improve governance, planning, or service delivery. Such ideas deserve respectful consideration.
However, any proposal of this nature should be supported by clear evidence showing how conservation, tourism, local communities, and national development would all be better served.
If such evidence cannot be demonstrated, then stability should be preferred over unnecessary restructuring.
NATIONAL ASSET
Etosha National Park belongs to every Namibian. It is a national heritage site, not the exclusive property of any region.
The question is therefore not who owns Etosha but which administrative arrangement best supports conservation, regional development, and the national interest.
In my opinion, the answer remains clear.
Etosha should continue to be associated with the Kunene region while strengthening cooperation with neighbouring regions so that the benefits of tourism, conservation, and economic development are shared widely.
Rather than spending energy debating boundary or administrative changes, our national focus should be on improving tourism infrastructure, supporting community conservancies, creating jobs, protecting wildlife, and ensuring that all Namibians benefit from one of our country’s greatest natural assets.
That is a conversation worth having.
– Marius Patrick Uwu-Gaeb is an entrepreneur and an avid writer on socio-economic issues. The views expressed here are entirely his own.
