Report
Mid-Term Review of LIFE-II and
Assessment of the Namibia
National CBNRM Programme
October 2001
Task Order No. 846
Contract No. PCE-I-00-96-00002-00
Mid-Term Review of LIFE-II and
Assessment of the Namibia
National CBNRM Programme
Final Report
Prepared by
Brian Child
Kara Page
George Taylor
Bob Winterbottom
Klemens /Awarab
with
Paul Bartel, AFR/SD
and
Curt Grimm, AFR/DP
Prepared for
USAID/Namibia
October 2001
Environmental Policy and Institutional Strengthening Indefinite Quantity (EPIQ) Contract
Partners: International Resources Group; Winrock International; and Harvard Institute for International Development
Subcontractors: PADCO; Management Systems International; and Development Alternatives, Inc.
Collaborating Institutions: Center for Naval Analysis Corporation; Conservation International; KNB Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Inc.; Keller-Bliesner Engineering; Resource Management International, Inc.; Tellus Institute;
Urban Institute; and World Resources Institute
i
Contents
Acronyms....................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive Summary....................................................................................................................... vi
1. Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Scope and Purpose of the Mid-Term Review.................................................................. 1
1.2 Organization of the Report............................................................................................... 1
2. The Conservancies.................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Achievements................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Tensions between CBNRM Programme Requirements and Funding Realities .............. 6
2.3 Strategic Recommendations............................................................................................. 6
3. CBNRMóAchievements, Challenges and Moving to the Next Level ................................. 11
3.1 Achievements and Challenges....................................................................................... 11
3.2 Strategic Recommendations for Moving the Programme to the Next Level................. 16
4. The WWF Transition .............................................................................................................. 31
4.1 From Management to Mentoring................................................................................... 31
4.2 Grant Management......................................................................................................... 31
4.3 Technical Support .......................................................................................................... 31
4.4 Institutionalisation of the Team Approach .................................................................... 32
4.5 Regional Links and Learning......................................................................................... 33
Annex A Areas of Operation for Nacso Partners ....................................................................... 39
Annex B Recommendations for USAID.................................................................................... 40
1. LIFE and USAID Program Priorities.....................................................................40
2. The Regional Importance of LIFE.........................................................................40
3. Life after LIFE-II ...................................................................................................40
4. Transboundary Natural Resource Management.....................................................41
5. From Management to MentoringóImplications for Performance Monitoring
and Reporting.........................................................................................................41
6. Inter-SO Coordination and Synergy ......................................................................41
7. Program Implementation Mechanisms beyond 2002 ............................................42
8. Contracting Options beyond April 2003................................................................43
9. CBNRM Coordination and Information Sharing...................................................43
10. GEF Biodiversity Conservation and Integrated Ecosystem Management 
through the Namibia National Conservancy Program...........................................43
11. A USAID/Namibia ENV Virtual Team.................................................................44
Annex C The Conservancies...................................................................................................... 45
1. Institutional Foundations for CBNRM Achievements ..........................................46
ii
1.1 Growth of Conservancies.................................................................................46
1.2 Building on Success: Instituting Participatory Democratisation .....................49
1.3 By Way of Explanation: Alternative Local Governance Structures................50
1.4 Recommendations............................................................................................56
2. Wildlife Recovery and Natural Resource Management ........................................59
2.1 Trends in Wildlife Populations ........................................................................59
2.2 Evaluating These Trends in Monetary Potential..............................................60
2.3 Implementation of Management Systems........................................................61
3. Commercial Opportunities and Conservancy Sustainability .................................62
3.1 Progress in Commercial Development ............................................................62
3.2 Conservancy Sustainability..............................................................................63
3.3 Tourism Potential.............................................................................................66
3.4 Factors Limiting the Growth of the Tourism Sector........................................67
3.5 The Safari Hunting Sector ...............................................................................71
3.6 Community Tourism Initiatives.......................................................................73
3.7 The Craft Sector...............................................................................................74
3.8 Strengthening the Business Enterprise and Institutional Team .......................74
4. Support, Coordination and Control Systems for Conservancies ...........................77
4.1 Analysis of Demand for ServicesóAnd the Management of This Demand...77
4.2 Delivery of Services to Conservancies ............................................................78
4.3 Performance Monitoring..................................................................................80
4.4 Drive towards Bottom-Up Demand-Driven Control Systems.........................82
Annex D CBRNM Policy Issues ................................................................................................ 84
1. Introduction............................................................................................................84
2. The Policy Framework for CBNRM in Namibia...................................................84
3. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Existing Policy Framework..............................86
4. Policy Implementation Issues of MET Guidelines and Procedures.......................88
5. CBNRM Policies in Other Sectors ........................................................................89
6. Agriculture, Desertification and Land Tenure .......................................................90
7. Land Policy and Land Use Planning......................................................................91
8. Towards a Stronger Policy Framework for CBNRM ............................................92
9. Policy Implementation and Related Institutional Issues at the National Level .....94
10. Establishment of a CBNRM Unit in MET.............................................................95
11. Suggested Role for NACSO ..................................................................................97
12. Reflections on Performance Monitoring for CBNRM...........................................98
13. Summary of Key Recommendations on Policy.....................................................99
Annex E Conservancy Economics........................................................................................... 101
1. Privatising, or De-Nationalising, the Wildlife Resource .....................................101
2. Wildlife's Comparative Advantage......................................................................101
3. CBNRM and Resource Pricing............................................................................101
4. Wildlife Profitability and Conservancy Sustainability ........................................103
5. The Potential of Tourism in Conservancies in Namibia......................................105
6. Solutions ..............................................................................................................106
7. Economic Assessment of Program ......................................................................107
iii
Annex F Institutional Development and Capacity Building.................................................... 110
1. Gap Analysis of Capacity in Key Service Areas .................................................111
2. Capacity Building and Training Approaches.......................................................131
3. Collaboration Mechanisms ..................................................................................134
Annex G CBRNM Support Systems, Tools and Methods ....................................................... 136
1. Introduction..........................................................................................................136
2. Programme Achievements...................................................................................136
3. Issues, Concerns, Gaps ........................................................................................138
4. The Importance of Local Development/NRM Plans in CBNRM........................141
5. Integrated Planning Workshop and FIRM...........................................................142
6. Progress in the Integration of Local Development and NRM Planning ..............143
7. NRM Planning: Meeting Anticipated MET Requirements .................................144
8. Suggested Approaches for an Integrated Development Planning Process ..........146
9. Recommendations for Strengthening the CBNRM Planning Support Systems ..149
10. Summary of Key Recommendations ...................................................................152
Annex H Internal Sources of Finance for the CBRNM Programme........................................ 153
Annex I LIFE and the RCSA-funded Transboundary Natural Resource Management
Program..................................................................................................................... 156
Annex J Workshop To Review Findings and Recommendations of the Mid-Term Review
Team ......................................................................................................................... 160
Annex K People Contacted ...................................................................................................... 164
Annex L References................................................................................................................. 168
iv
Acronyms
AWF African Wildlife Foundation
CASS Centre for Applied Social Sciences, University of Zimbabwe
CBNRM community-based natural resource management
CBO community-based organization
CBTE community-based tourism enterprise
CGG community game guard
CRM community resource monitor
DEA Department of Environmental Affairs, MET
DFID Department for International Development, UK
DOF Directorate of Forestry
DRFN Desert Research Foundation of Namibia
DRM Department of Resource Management, MET
FENATA Federation of Namibian Tourism Associations
FHI Family Health International
FIRM Forum for Integrated Resource Management
GPTF Game Product Trust Fund
GRN Government of the Republic of Namibia
IRDNC Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation
LAC Legal Assistance Centre
LIFE Living in a Finite Environment, USAID/WWF
MAWRD Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development
MET Ministry of Environment and Tourism
MFMR Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources
MLR Ministry of Lands and Resettlement
MTI Ministry of Trade and Industry
NACOBTA Namibia Community-Based Tourism Association
NACSO Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations
NANGOF Namibia Non-Governmental Organizations Forum
NAPCOD Namibian Programme to Combat Desertification
NDT Namibian Development Trust
NNDF Nyae Nyae Development Foundation
NORAD Norwegian Development Agency
NRM natural resource management
PAC problem animal control
PLASS Programme for Land and Agrarian Systems (University of Western Cape)
PTO permission to occupy
RCSA USAID/Regional Center for Southern Africa
RF Rossing Foundation
RISE Rural Peopleís Institute for Social Enterprise
SARDEP Sustainable Animal and Range Development Programme
SMA Social Marketing Association
TBNRM trans-boundary natural resources management
v
USAID US Agency for International Development
WILD Wildlife Integration for Livelihood Diversification
WWF World Wildlife Fund
vi
Executive Summary
This report summarizes the findings of the Mid-Term Review of USAID/Namibiaís Living in a
Finite Environment (LIFE)-Phase II program, including an assessment of the Namibia National
Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) Programme. LIFE is
implemented by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and partners under a cooperative agreement
with USAID.
Namibiaís CBNRM Programme, with active support from LIFE, has made remarkable progress
in the short eight years of its existence:

 Sufficient policy reforms have been made to empower communities economically,
organizationally and to provide a sense of identity and control.

 The resource base, especially wildlife populations, has recovered dramatically, providing the
base for financially viable conservancies.

 Communities have recognized the potential value of conservancies. Fourteen have succeeded
in the rigorous process of formation and are now registered. An additional 35 have embarked
on this process, with several close to approval.

 Local communities in communal areas have mobilized as conservancies and organized
themselves to monitor natural resources, and adopted constitutions to govern themselves.

 With support from MET, NGOs and other organizations conservancies have begun to benefit
directly from game hunting and community-based tourism enterprises.

 Namibia has developed a very productive partnership of eleven organizations working
together to move the program forward.

 Sufficient capacity has been established within older conservancies to facilitate their
networking and learning from each other on issues of common importance.

 A great deal of knowledge about CBNRM, a concept incorporating considerable political,
social, economic, organizational and ecological depth, has been developed and
institutionalised.
The Review Team finds that the investments to date in CBNRM have been highly worthwhile
and effective. The longer term success of the programme, however, will depend on specific
measures and additional investments being made to build a sustainable, profitable, democratic
wildlife-based rural economy on the solid foundation so far developed.
In partnership with others, USAID has laid the foundation for a major wildlife-based tourism
industry. Protection has created an expanding wildlife resource, while community institutions are
in place around which to organize a sustainably managed pro-poor tourism industry.
The present value of this industry is roughly US$10 million annually, with community benefit
still being restricted to wages (US$1 million annually). As noted, the cornerstones (wildlife,
institutions) are now in place for major growth. With careful investment and prioritisation,
largely of business enterprise and institutional development capacity, tourism could earn US$35ñ
40 million annually from conservancy areas. If sound negotiation ensures US$3ñ4 million
vii
accrues to conservancies in user fees, with a similar amount paid out in wages, this will
contributeUS$115 per capita income to the 60,000 people living in viable conservancies
doubling the average annual income for a rural Namibian from US$100 to US$215.
The programme has contributed to a multi-fold increase in wildlife populations, and to a social
foundations and the active protection of desert elephants and rhino. A rough estimate is that the
annual harvestable value of wildlife to the landholder in Northwest Namibia (assuming all policy
limitations are removed) has increased from US$65,000 in 1980 to US$2 million in 2000,
enough on its own to justify USAID support.
Additionally, the programme has empowered 14ñ49 communities (100,000 people) with
additional rights, information and knowledge, and earning potential. It has also supported the
development of ten functioning NGOs, half of which are now headed by previously
disadvantaged Namibians.
Finally, the process has created capacity, knowledge, and an understanding of how CBNRM can
work on the ground. The value of the Namibian programme as repository of knowledge and a
cornerstone for the continued expansion of CBNRM once regional macro-conditions are again
conducive to devolution and democratisation is inestimable.
The Review Team sees a tremendous opportunity to build on the success achieved to date by the
programme. There is a rapidly increasing demand for support to emerging conservancies, as
more and more local communities seek to take advantage of the policies enabling them to benefit
directly from wildlife and use the establishment and legal recognition of a conservancy as a way
to regain greater control over their land and other natural resources. Local communities are
enthusiastically responding to the opportunity to use CBNRM as a means to promote integrated
sustainable development at the local level.
At the same time, a steadily increasing number of NGOs and other support organizations are
joining forces and strengthening their partnership to promote and support CBNRM. In the past
two years, the National Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO), which
includes the Ministry of Environment and Tourism as a member, has established a Secretariat to
service its membership, fostered a number of working groups to address key issues, hired staff,
set up an office, won funding, organized a planning conference and developed a strategic vision
for the association and the national CBNRM programme. Following a major restructuring, the
Ministry of Environment and Tourism is also poised to expand its role in supporting the national
programme, through the staffing of a CBNRM Support Unit with 29 field officers to be placed
around the country.
In order to fully capitalise on the opportunities and momentum that has been generated by the
evolving national programme, the Review Team recommends that the partnership consolidate its
good practices throughout the national program, and then undertake a significant shift in
programme vision and scope. This shift is needed to address a number of issues, gaps and
challenges that have arisen over the past few years, or which can be anticipated in the years
ahead, as donor funding is reduced and the WWF/LIFE technical support team is phased out.
viii
The Review recommends that the CBNRM Programme place conservancies centre stage. The
programme needs to move from committee-based NRM to community-based NRM, with a
renewed focus on building accountable, democratic structures and transparent, equitable
management systems at the grass roots. This, and the likely declining availability of donor
resources, will require significant changes in tactics and approaches in order to meet the new
challenges of strengthening conservancy institutions by democratising them to be accountable to
their constituencies. On the important issue of institutional sustainability, there is an over-riding
recommendation that the empowerment of conservancies with rights, knowledge, training and
benefits must be accompanied by a sound process of democratisation that ensures downward
accountability to rural people. If not, the programme faces ultimate collapse through the
disenfranchisement of people from their wildlife and secure rights to additional natural
resourcesówhat Murphree has christened ìaborted devolutionî.
Using the dramatic expansion of wildlife resources over the past 15 years, the programme needs
to move expeditiously and confidently to unlock these major financial opportunities for the
Conservancies. Achieving these commercial opportunities will ensure the financial sustainability
of Conservancies. In anticipation of self-funding, autonomous conservancies, and as a response
to the ballooning demand for services, it is recommended that the programme reorient its
delivery system to be more demand-driven, efficient and integrated at the local level.
More emphasis is likely to be needed on organizational development, facilitation and conflict
management, use of participatory methods and social analysis, transparent and democratic
management systems, financial planning, the purchasing of technical support services, and the
strengthening of conservancies as integrated community development institutions. To guide and
control this process, peer-review performance monitoring must be institutionalised at
conservancy, regional and national levels.
In tandem with a more focused effort to achieve financial sustainable conservancies, the systems
supporting integrated development planning and NRM need to be consolidated and simplified to
ensure that the conservancies have the tools, knowledge and control systems to use their natural
resources sustainable. Local communities will also need to be equipped to address potential
conflicts over land use, especially from livestock grazing and other locally important livelihood
activities. Simplified, integrated development plans will play a key role in guiding management,
and should consider the equitable distribution of benefits, and a wide array of production
activities, including local crafts, harvesting of veld products and traditional farming.
Nationally, the NACSO Secretariat and its member organizations need to move more quickly
toward implementing CBNRM as a rural development strategy by expanding their membership
to more community development organizations and programmes and by learning from the ones
already participating in the partnership. Specifically, they should add partners with strengths in
local financial management, and the institutionalisation of bottom-up governance systems.
In addition, continued support for policy reform and further strengthening of the legislative and
institutional framework for CBNRM is needed to ensure that policy gaps are addressed, and
sectoral policies are harmonized in support of CBNRM. To this end, the Review Team
recommends a number of actions by MET, other GRN ministries, NACSO and its members.
ix
These include inter-ministerial coordination to support CBNRM as a rural development strategy;
further devolution of rights to manage the use of other natural resources besides wildlife;
legitimisation of community-based zoning and land use planning; recognition of local authority
to control access and to exclude inappropriate or destructive use of natural resources, including
tourism; and an enhanced role of conservancies and other community-based organizations
committed to CBNRM in regional development planning.
More attention needs to be given to the empowerment of communities and local level
coordination of planning and the provision of services, together with the development of key
performance indicators that can be used to orient activities at all levels. The oversight functions
of MET and donors need to recognize the need for adaptation, flexibility, innovation and
increased ownership at the local level. This looser approach paradoxically will require tighter
performance monitoring to keep it on track.
As the second phase of the LIFE programme comes to a close, it is vitally important that the
LIFE team focus on a number of priority activities aimed at ensuring a smooth transition, hand￾over and phase-out of their technical and financial support. The Review Team recommends that
particular attention be given to institutionalising the team approach throughout the partnership to
providing support services in three key areas: social/institutional development and capacity￾building, NRM planning and community-based tourism/business planning/enterprise
development. LIFE also needs to focus on developing the capacity of the CBNRM Unit in MET
(including supporting the position of the head of this Unit at Deputy Director level for several
years), to continue to work with NACSO and its members to strengthen further the partnership,
and to support the emergence of the regional and national conservancy Associations. LIFE can
also make a strong contribution to the documentation of lessons learned, and to the re-integration
of the Namibian CBNRM programme into the stimulating and much-needed intellectual dialogue
on CBNRM that is underway in the region. The partnership also needs to work together to
examine gaps in services, internal coordination and efficiency of service delivery, especially in
the areas of training and field support. A well-designed performance monitoring system provides
an affordable and practical mechanism to achieve this.
The Review Team also recognized the need for the further diversification of funding sources for
the programme, and the expanded mobilization of internal resources for the programme. The
deliberate recognition and launching of a National CBNRM Programme that is truly national in
scope and an integral part of Namibiaís efforts to promote sustainable development, together
with expanded communications and public relations efforts and a carefully elaborated
sustainable financing strategy, should also help to raise the profile and level of political support
for the programme.
The following strategic recommendations are aimed at strengthening the programmeís support to
the further development of sustainable conservancies:
1. Participatory DemocracyóDevelop a programme-wide emphasis on strengthening
conservancies as participatory democracies based on control by the constituency acting
through sound, constituted, accountable, transparent, democratic and equitable village-level
institutions.
x
2. Financial SustainabilityóSet in place plans for each conservancy to achieve financial
sustainability as soon as possible.
3. Re-prioritisation of the planning processóSimplify the conservancy planning process, with
an emphasis on improving livelihoods by achieving financial, institutional and natural
resource sustainability.
4. Performance and compliance monitoringóImplement comprehensive, but simple,
performance and compliance monitoring and control systems.
5. Delivery systemsóReview and revise support delivery systems to lower costs and increase
impact
6. Regional AssociationsóSupport emergence of conservancy associations as the programmeís
lead agency and primary mechanism of advocacy.
In addition, in order to enable the national programme to move to the next level in terms of
consolidating programme leadership and ownership, institutionalisation of cost-effective and
efficient CBNRM support services, strengthened partnerships, and increased programme
sustainability, the following strategic recommendations are proposed:
1. Establish and launch the National CBNRM Programme
2. Staff and support the CBNRM Unit
3. Restructure the National Programme placing conservancies in the lead
4. Strengthen the CBNRM partnership to provide cost-effective capacity-building services and
demand-driven technical support more efficiently
5. Reorient and expand support for the national programme to address critical emerging issues
and to increase the programmeís relevance to the governmentís sustainable development
priorities
6. Get economic benefits flowing to conservancies
7. Strengthen existing rights and secure additional rights for the conservancies
8. Develop a more robust system for monitoring and communicating programme
accomplishments
9. Proactively manage the LIFE transition
10. Secure funding for the medium term and financial sustainability over the longer term
Finally, the report presents a Proposed Action Plan for WWF/LIFE and National CBNRM
Programme Stakeholders that outlines action items and a timeframe to implement the
recommendations of this review.
1
1. Introduction
1.1 Scope and Purpose of the Mid-Term Review
The objectives of the Mid-Term Review of the LIFE-II program are to:
1. Determine the capacity of various Namibian institutions and organizations to carry out a variety
of services that will sustain the Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM)
program when:
a) WWFís Cooperative Agreement is completed on October 31, 2002
b) after USAIDís investment is completed in September 2004
2. Determine if sufficient support components are in place that will sustain CBNRM in the long￾term
3. Develop concrete directions and a strategic plan for the final two years of LIFE II based on the
assessments, analyses and recommendations
The Review process and the report that has been produced as a result of it are distinctive in several
ways. The audience for the report is not just USAID and WWF/LIFE but all of the Namibian
CBNRM Programme partners. The Review Team worked under the guidance of a Review
Committee comprised of representatives from USAID, the GRN Ministry of Environment and
Tourism (MET), WWF/LIFE, the Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF) and the Namibian Association
of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO). The scope of the review included both USAIDís
Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE)-II program as well as the broader national CBNRM
Programme with which it is inextricably linked. A key part of the review process was an all day
Workshop for CBNRM Programme Partners hosted by the Review Team. The purpose was to
ìworkshop the recommendationsîóto present key findings and draft recommendations and solicit
feedback and suggestions. Details on the workshop have been included in annex J. The report has
incorporated valuable suggestions from the workshop as well as from regular debriefings and
discussions between the Review Committee and the Review Team.
1.2 Organization of the Report
The Main Report includes the reamís assessment of achievements to date, challenges and key
strategic recommendations at two levels: the conservancies and the National Programme. The
strategic recommendations are designed to challenge program implementers and help move the
CBNRM programme in Namibia to the next level. The report also includes a section on the
WWF Transition and a Proposed Action Plan for WWF/LIFE and National Programme
Stakeholders 2001ñ04. Additional observations, analyses and recommendations have been
included in the annexes and are cross referenced in the main text. Annex B is addressed to
USAID.
The Review Team is indebted to the dozens of people who have so generously given of their
time as well as to the authors of a wealth of earlier studies covering the LIFE program and
CBNRM in Namibia.
2
The term conservancies in this report refers to communal conservancies, as these have been the
focus of LIFE. For an discussion of both communal and freehold conservancies, and some
excellent ideas that the Review Team fully endorse on how they could work more closely
together, readers are referred to the GEF program document.
3
2. The Conservancies
2.1 Achievements
The CBNRM Programme has made remarkable progress at the conservancy level in the short
eight years of its existence.

 Sufficient policy reforms have been made to empower communities economically,
organizationally and to provide a sense of identity and control.

 The resource base, especially wildlife populations, has recovered dramatically, providing the
base for financially viable conservancies.

 Communities have recognized the potential value of conservancies. Fourteen have
succeeded in the rigorous process of formation and are now registered. An additional 35
have embarked on this process, with several close to approval.

 Local communities have mobilized as conservancies and organized themselves to monitor
natural resources, and adopted constitutions providing for sustainable resource use.

 With support from MET, NGOs and other organizations conservancies have begun to benefit
directly from game hunting and community-based tourism enterprises.

 A great deal of knowledge about CBNRM, a concept of considerable political, social,
economic, organizational and ecological depth, has been developed and institutionalised.
Additional details on these and other achievements are found in annexes D, E, F and G. Annex C
provides a detailed assessment of progress and challenges at the conservancy level.
Strong community response. There is an accelerating response by communities to the
opportunities offered by the 1996 amendment to the Wildlife Ordinance and LIFE programme
support. At least 32 communities
are sufficiently organized to manage
grants and related funding. By 2001,
14 were formerly registered as
conservancies, 9 were in the final
stages of application, 11 have
initiated applications and 14 have
registered interest in the concept
(total of 49 communities). Formal
registration represents 32,550
people on 5.7 million hectares.
Sixteen conservancies are
constituted, and a further 18 are
preparing constitutions.
Wildlife protection and monitoring.
Increased participation of local
communities, the presence of
Figure 2.1 The Increasing Numbers and Value of
Wildlife in Northwestern Namibia
Wildlife Status and Trends in Kunene
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1980 1990 2000 Potential
Number of Animals
Biomass (x100kg)
Value (N$x100)
4
organizational structures in at least 32 conservancies, systems for protecting and monitoring
resources (Community Game Guards, Community Resource Monitors, Environmental
Shepherds), and more NRM compatible land use practices, provides the basis for improved
wildlife and NRM management. A high-level indicator is the multi-fold increase of wildlife
populations in the northwest (figure 2.1) and increasing populations in Caprivi and Nyae Nyae, a
consequence of reduced poaching and increased cognisance of wildlifeís requirements.
Innovative, visually-based natural resource monitoring systems are being developed, and
management is being systematized (e.g. vehicle count of the entire northwest). Increasing
wildlife populations and improving management systems are providing a basis for sustainable
use and the generation of benefits.
Community-Based Tourism Enterprises (CBTEs). Reflecting the comprehensive training, support
and financing systems established by NACOBTA, 27 CBTEs (campsites, rest camps, craft
centres, information centres, guides) generated revenue by 2000. Annual turnover to September
2000 was N$1.5 million, creating 163 permanent and 38 temporary jobs, usually in areas of
chronic underemployment.
Community-Private Sector Partnerships. More leverage and skills to negotiate partnerships.
Three facilitated negotiations provide annual income to conservancies of more than N$250,000
(5ñ12% of turnover) compared to an industry average of under 0.5% or N$10,000. There is
potential to negotiate some 70 such ventures. This experience with negotiating and contracting
provides the beginnings of progress in high-end enterprise development.
Safari Hunting Partnerships. For the first time, communities have developed five partnerships
with trophy hunting outfitters, worth just under N$800,000, and breaking new ground for
conservancies. Similarly, trophy and/or own-use quotas have been issued for six conservancies,
and while these are ultra-conservative (representing a high financial opportunity cost) they
provide a base from which to identify and resolve constraints.
Delineation and Empowerment. Progress has been made in organizing and empowering local
communities through identifiable and more cohesive social units, accountable management
committees, local decision-making, the development of shared visions and development
strategies, information sharing, considerable capacity-building, devolution of rights, and
recognition from neighbours and outside authorities. Much remains to be done to build on this
progress and fully institutionalise it.
Organized communities with a much improved (and still improving) resource base, provide the
foundation to build financially sustainable organizations and livelihoods, through community￾based tourism and NRM initiatives but particularly through equitably negotiated partnerships
with the private sector.
This all provides the foundation off which to build vigorous, sustainable partnerships between
confident communities and private sector investment and partnerships. By making communities
and their members better off, strong incentives are created for economic growth, empowerment
and sustainable natural resource management, including biodiversity conservation.
5
A transformational movement of the scale and breadth of CBNRM can not be accomplished in
ten years. It involves a fundamental shift from state controlled resource management, to the
democratisation and privatisation and devolution of resource management at the level of self￾defining communities.
While much progress has been made, the work of the CBNRM support organizations (IRDNC,
RISE, NDT, etc.) and others needs to continue if both the established and emerging
conservancies are to benefit from the improved management and sustainable utilization of the
wildlife and other natural resources in their conservancies. As the following table makes clear,
despite the impressive progress made to date with substantial levels of funding and
organizational effort, the conservancy program is just beginning to reach many important
benchmarks, and the majority of the conservancies have not yet been able to fully capitalize on
the potential benefits of the program.
Table 2.1
Status of Progress with Selected Activities Number
Emerging conservancies, not yet registered 34
Conservancies with active natural resource monitoring 28
Conservancies with bank accounts 17
Conservancies with constitution in use 16
Registered and established conservancies 14
Support for crafts 14
Office established for staff and meetings 11
Campsites developed 10
Conservancies with regular, well-attended annual general meetings 10
Conservancies with democratic sub-units 8
Conservancies with more than US$100,000 in annual income 5
Safari hunting organized 5
Development plan and/or NRM plans under preparation 5
Game hunting (own use) and meat distribution underway 4
Local employment from guiding for tourism 4
Exclusive High Cost Joint Ventures negotiated 4
Conservancies with Benefit Distribution Plan in use 3
Natural resource management plans prepared 3
Conservancies that regularly forward NR monitoring data to government agencies 1
Natural resource management plans that have been formally reviewed, approved
and recognized by relevant government agencies
1
Financial self-sufficient (income covers recurrent cost expenditures) 1
Conservancies with functional performance monitoring and reporting system 0
Adaptive resource management system based on a completed management plan in
place and operational
0
Integrated development plans prepared, adopted and implemented in collaboration
with relevant government services
0
Access to/use of commercial credit 0
Source: Namibia Nature Foundation Database
6
This work of the CBNRM Programme in conservancies is a rare success, but needs further
investment to become sustainable. While it demonstrates great promise, the considerable gains
made will be difficult to sustain without further support. Ideally, donors should reinforce and
reward success. The reality is that they may well not do so.
2.2 Tensions between CBNRM Programme Requirements and Funding Realities
There are strong demands for the CBNRM Programme to do more at the conservancy level,
given the rapid growth in geographic demand and the pressures for increasing sophistication and
integration of resource and institutional management. This requires a shift from a wildlife
conservation paradigm to one based on general community organization and development. The
programme is likely to have to achieve this with lower inputs: donors are withdrawing from
Namibia and CBNRM. This implies a major direction shift in the programme, and a greater
emphasis on sustainability. The following strategic recommendations are provided in light of this
reality.
Hastening the process is not without risk. Fortunately, the strong groundwork provides a basis
from which to tackle these challenges. With this introduction, we provide six strategic
recommendations for work at the conservancy level. Supporting explanations, justifications, and
analysis is provided in annex C
In summary, it has been a great start:

 But it needs to all be based on sound, democratic, participatory organizations.

 Then, it needs to take advantage of the opportunities for commercial enterprise
development to make money and achieve financial sustainability.

 But, ensure sustainability, especially the wildlife and resource base.

 And also, keep the social dimensions and dynamics clearly in view and monitor
these to insure equitable impacts.

 Last, but not least, the programme needs to develop grassroots legitimacy and the
democratic ability of its constituents to empower themselves
2.3 Strategic Recommendations
1. Participatory Democracy
Develop a programme-wide emphasis on strengthening conservancies as participatory
democracies based on control by the constituency acting through sound, constituted,
accountable, transparent, democratic and equitable village-level institutions.
Conservancy organizations are in place that provide a basis for natural resource management,
and are partially democratic in nature. To avoid the problem of ìaborted devolutionî that has
afflicted most regional CBNRM programmes after the withdrawal of strong, caring, informed
over-sight, and to provide fundamentally sound democratic institutions as the basis for
development, it is recommended that bottom-up accountability and democracy be developed as
quickly as possible, using carefully constituted Village-level organizations as the basic building￾block of conservancies. This principle should be reinforced by all partners, and through all
7
interventions, including conservancy formation, constitution development, grants, education of
individuals about democratic rights, and the development of transparent revenue sharing
systems, with the latter being a powerful tool to drive bottom-up accountability.
2. Financial sustainability
Set in place plans for each conservancy to achieve financial sustainability as soon as possible.
Recognizing the impending phase-out of external funding, steps should be taken in each
conservancy to develop and implement plans that assure financial sustainability within three to
five years (wherever possible). The analysis of tourism, hunting and other commercial
opportunities suggests that this is entirely possible, but must become a driving priority of the
programme. Naturally, developing strong financial flows without first ensuring institutional
accountability is a two-edged sword, so this step should follow the first recommendation. In
cases where the conservancy cannot become financially sustainable, but support is justified on
the basis of poverty alleviation, the reversal of past discrimination and/or biodiversity
conservation, other sources of funding should be sought and/or trust funds established to ensure
long term funding.
3. Re-prioritisation of the planning process
Simplify the conservancy planning process, with an emphasis on improving livelihoods by
achieving financial, social/institutional and natural resource sustainability.
The current planning process needs to be simplified to answer the basic question, ìWhat does
this conservancy need to do in order to become sustainable as soon as possible?î
This will bring organizational development and financial planning centre stage, organized around
community livelihood and development priorities. In most cases, this will lead to tourism
planning and the strategic development of enterprises, with high-value tourism and hunting
partnerships with the private sector likely to be where the most value can be added fastest.
Community enterprises can then be developed around these commercial nodes. The transition to
viability will require an investment in planning tourism and in negotiating conservancy-private
partnerships. We recommend that the programmeís capacity in this regard be increased,
including careful attention to the distribution of benefits to community members.
As communities are already aware, sustaining production and conserving the natural resource
base requires an investment in monitoring natural resource planning and management. The
excellent start made by the ëvirtualí NRM support team should be consolidated, but simplified.
4. Performance and Compliance Monitoring
Implement comprehensiveóbut simpleóperformance and compliance monitoring and control
systems.
The devolution of responsibilities and rights to use and sustain wildlife, and the flow of the
revenues that are starting to flow from them, will only be sustainable if sound social,
institutional, financial and NRM processes are in place. Thus the ëloosenessí of devolution
should be accompanied by ëtightnessí with respect to conformance with democratic, financial
8
and resource management principles. This requirement for accountability requires much
improved performance-conformance monitoring systems, the power of which is enhanced
considerably when they use both visualization and peer pressure.
Led by NNF, the partnership should establish a focused and manageable conformance￾performance monitoring system, preferably based on five (or so) key performance areas with no
more than three or four indicators for each area. Allied to this, a critical review process should be
built into the programme using Namibian resources as well as through an alliance with a strong
regional research institution with a mandate for strategic research in key programme areas,
especially socio-institutional impact.
5. Delivery Systems
Review and revise support delivery systems to lower costs and increase impact
Consideration should be given to reviewing and revising support delivery systems to lower costs
and increase impact (e.g., through activators/trainers/monitors based at conservancy level, which
lowers costs and increases contact time). Whenever possible, communities should be enabled to
demand-drive this support. Possibilities include providing communities with a quota of support
days (on the basis of performance), and allowing them to decide which support they desire.
Invoking such ëmarket forcesí will better allocate resources, and will also provide a good
indicator of the status of conservancy mindset and priorities.
6. Regional Associations
Support emergence of conservancy Associations as the programmeís lead agency and primary
mechanism of advocacy.
The emergence of regional level conservancy associations should be supported, with the
intention of creating strong and legitimate advocacy and interaction at both the Regional and
National levels. The NACSO partnership should assist the conservancy associations to take the
lead role in the programme, empowering communities to advocate for stronger rights over the
management of natural resources. The NACSO partnership should expect to become a
supporting rather than a lead player, with a strong role in providing information and support.
The over-riding strategy should be to rapidly empower communities economically and with
information (with the proviso that they are institutionally soundóas outlined in
recommendation 1) and to trust them to drive the programme and to deal with key limiting
factors such as policy, legislative and other issues.
Finally, there is the question of what strategy should be taken to address the many coordination
and policy issues that could retard the progress of the national CBNRM programme. The
strategic approach recommended by the Review Team is to assist communities to generate
revenue (and so empower themselves), to provide information to them about the factors limiting
progress, to help them monitor this progress, and then to trust that communities will address
these issues themselves through their various networks. The sustainability of this approach again
depends on the establishment of participatory democracy outlined in recommendation 1. It also
requires that communities become self-developing, equal partners in this process and that every
9
effort be made to avoid the creation of dependency (and to reverse dependencies where they
have developed in the current programme)
The final directional recommendation concerns the strategic use of programme funding to
maximize the number of conservancies brought to sustainability within the next five years.
Recommended strategy for overall programme support and direction:
1. Direct field support should be increasingly emphasized as the cornerstone of the programme.
The people in conservancies should be placed centre stage as the ëclientsí of the programme.
2. Improved support can be provided at lower cost by re-organising delivery systems around
conservancy-based facilitators/monitors, with the objective of halving costs (efficiency) and
simultaneously doubling (at a minimum) contact time with communities (effectiveness).
3. These considerable savings should then be re-directed towards developing the institutional
and financial sustainability of conservancies through:
ï the strengthening and deepening of the institutional framework for the democratisation
process (ensuring that all voices are heard),
ï the continued development and implementation of plans aimed at integrated local
development and sustainable use of natural resources, and
ï the development and implementation of plans aimed at financial sustainability, including
tourism planning and negotiation.
4. At conservancy level, a drive for sustainability should be promoted by generating awareness
of the phasing out of direct financial support.
5. At a central level, a Business Enterprise and Institutional Team should be created. The team
requires strengthening in tourism planning/business negotiating, adding institutional/social
and hunting sector management capacity and developing a virtual team of partners and
trainees in the public, private and NGO sectors so as to be able to support the anticipated
growing demand from conservancy to establish a pathway to financial sustainability.
Achieving these directional changes is complicated by the partnership nature of the national
programme. Different partners, and their supporting donors, often have slightly divergent goals,
some being strongly orientated towards environmental conservation and others towards rural
development, with so far rather limited action on the area of proposed emphasis: financial
sustainability. This recommendation requires a substantial change in emphasis within the
programme partnership, and therefore creates the challenge of negotiating changing roles, and
financial allocations and priorities, within the partnership. The use of a facilitator (with strong
background in organizational development and financing) should be considered in support of this
process, together with measures to diversify and challenge the present models (e.g., exposure to
alternative models through visits and use of expertise with divergent experiences).
The present partnership benefited greatly from regional exposure in the early phases of the
programme. The combination of acquiring the role of leading CBNRM conceptual development,
of workloads dictated by adherence to short-term targets, of the breakdown of regional
networking initiatives, of the absence of a quality critic within the programme (such as CASS
and PLASS), and of Namibiaís geographic position, means that this external stimulation and
constant questioning has been somewhat lost. Given the maturity of the programme in terms of
confidence and the handling of constructive criticism, and its organizational competence and
10
ability to both question new ideas and to quickly incorporate good ones into the programme, this
learning process should be re-incorporated into the design of the programme. Organizations that
fail to build a culture of learning and adaptation are unlikely to be sustainable and seldom thrive.
11
3. CBNRMóAchievements, Challenges and
Moving to the Next Level
3.1 Achievements and Challenges
With the groundwork and challenges at the conservancy level laid out in the preceding section,
the Review team now turns its attention to the national level to examine the policy and
institutional framework and support systems within which the CBNRM programme has been
operating.
The teamís analysis, findings and recommendations are presented in three parts:
1. A synthesis table that captures many of the CBNRM Programmeís achievements, as well as
pending issues, concerns and challenges to be addressed.
2. Strategic recommendations that provide direction for moving the National Programme
forward to the next level, and
3. Supporting analyses and more detailed recommendations included as annexes to the report:

 Annex DóCBNRM Policy and Legislation

 Annex EóThe Economics of CBNRM

 Annex FóInstitutional Development & Capacity Building for CBNRM

 Annex GóCBNRM Support Systems, Tools and Methods

 Annex HóInternal sources of finance for the CBNRM programme
12
Table 3.1 Overview of the Achievements and Challenges for the National CBNRM Programme
Programme
Area
Achievements Issues, Gaps, Concerns, Challenges
Programme
Coordination
and
Leadership

 Strategic planning, programme coordination and policy
analysis capabilities of MET/DEA were a major factor in
the initial success of the programme

 Leadership from LIFE team has been critical to continued
success and many achievements of the programme

 General level of professionalism, planning, timeliness and
financial control is impressive

 Who is looking after CBNRM strategic planning and
programme management?

 Concerns with rate and process of phasing out LIFE
technical support, and associated capacity building and turn￾over

 Tensions between increasing level and broader nature of
demands for support services and declining resources, limited
capacities
CBNRM
Policies and
Legislative
Framework

 Elaboration of progressive, innovative Wildlife Utilisation
Policy based on lessons learned in the region and pilot
CBNRM activities

 ìTool boxî widely disseminated and utilized to familiarize
local communities with policy, legislation and registration
procedures

 Guidelines prepared for preparation of conservancy
Constitutions and organization of management
committees

 Transfer of wildlife management rights from State to local
communities has triggered widespread interest in
community-based integrated development planning and
CBNRM

 Proactive dialogue with MET on draft tourism and parks
and wildlife legislation

 Other line ministries and natural resource sectors also
shifting towards CBNRM and recognition of community￾based organizations with rights to manage natural
resources

 Wildlife legislation doesnít empower Conservancies to control
access to all natural resources or to control tourism; land tenure
issue still pending

 Policy framework does not support and legitimise community
based integrated development planning

 conservancies lack legal basis to ensure compliance with
zonation, management plan

 Inconsistencies in applying current legislation

 Risk of aborted devolution and reversion to centralized
oversight and control over NRM

 Weak mechanisms to share information about related policy
initiatives in support of CBNRM; risk of policy fragmentation
and inconsistencies among line ministries
13
Programme
Area
Achievements Issues, Gaps, Concerns, Challenges
Institutional
Development
and Capacity
Building

 Impressive collaboration among programme partners

 Increasing number of CBNRM support organizations and
increased capacity within them

 Black Namibians rising through middle management into
leadership positions

 Expanding geographic coverage, with designated lead
support organization in each region

 Creation of Namibian Association of CBNRM support
organizations

 Facilitating emergence of conservancy associations at
regional level (and eventually national)

 Provision of extensive capacity building support, with a
focus on monitoring, NRM planning and tourism
development

 Increasing emphasis on training of communities (vs.
support organizations)

 Recognition of need to expand (further) beyond wildlife to
other NR and rural development

 Capacity limited in critical areas including institutional/
organizational development, communication, facilitation,
conflict management skills and monitoring (See Table 1
Critical Services and Table 2 Partners in the CBNRM
Programme)

 Insufficient technical support capacity in business/tourism
enterprise development to assist the conservancies is attaining
financial sustainability

 Relatively weak involvement and commitment of GRN
institutions to CBNRM

 Need to continue to broaden scope and capabilities of support
organizations, to include more organizations with rural
development related capabilities and orientations

 Programme would benefit from greater professional diversity
and creative intellectual tension; currently rather closed, inbred,
with limited exposure to CBNRM innovations elsewhere

 Need for more attention to integrated development planning
and benefit distribution plans

 Gap in institutional assessment skills, especially for
conservancies

 Attention to social organization, gender, equity and related
issues hasnít been sustained as programme evolves

 Relatively less emphasis on training related to institutional
development

 Performance monitoring and information tracking systems not
fully established and functioning

 Planning and monitoring system may not integrate community
socioeconomic realities and information needs

 Insufficient effort on documenting and sharing lessons learned

 Need more deliberate strategy to address HIV/AIDS

 Need to analyse cost effectiveness of training; inefficient to
continue with direct training
14
Programme
Area
Achievements Issues, Gaps, Concerns, Challenges

 Demand for programme support has grown beyond target areas,
but bulk of programme resources are still focused in targeted
areas

 Need to strengthen ties to educational institutions to increase
candidates oriented to CBNRM training

 Human resources development advisor at MET not supported
Economics of
CBNRM

 Dramatic increase in numbers and value of wildlife
resources

 Promotion of policy reforms regarding community
benefits from wildlife based tourism (CBT)

 14 conservancies earning income from crafts; 10
conservancies with campsites; 5 with safari hunting
organized; 4 joint ventures negotiated

 Groundwork on JV negotiation and contracting in place

 Only one conservancy is financially self-sufficient

 Conservancies reaping less than 0.5% of tourism turnover
compared to benchmark of 10%

 Inability to control access by all tourism operators results in
considerable ìleakageîóloss of potential income from CBT
that could accrue to conservancies

 Possible to quadruple economic benefits from wildlife related
tourism while reducing negative environmental impacts
CBNRM
Support
Systems,
Tools and
Methods

 Establishment of highly effective community based
wildlife protection and NR monitoring

 Innovative use of ìevent booksî, posters and other tools
for training and monitoring

 Systematic use of quarterly planning meetings to increase
local participation in reviews of progress and work
planning

 Efficient support for mapping boundaries, compilation of
inventory information, GIS data

 Impressive level of collaboration in organizing and
reporting on game counts in the NW

 Systems developed to support game translocations

 Useful experience gained with Forum for Integrated
Resource Planning (FIRM)

 Conceptualisation of improved process and methodology
for integrated development and NRM planning

 Only three conservancies with development and NRM plans

 Need to formalize agreement with MET on guidelines for the
preparation of NRM plans

 Few conservancies compile and share monitoring data with
MET

 Level of information sharing and collaboration between MET
directorates needs strengthening (DEA, DSS, DPWM, DoF,
DoT)

 Seemingly Ad hoc procedures to respond to issues related to
quotas, PAC, concession allocations; with little delegation of
authority to regional and local field staff

 Weaknesses in systematically addressing cost/benefit issues and
analysis of trade-offs in development/NRM planning

 Need to strengthen efforts to increase local capacity to take a
lead role in conservancy level planning and management
activities
15
Programme
Area
Achievements Issues, Gaps, Concerns, Challenges

 Mobilization of community-based tourism / enterprise
development team

 Rapidly growing demand for technical support teams
(institutional capacity building, NRM, enterprise/tourism) likely
to exceed capacity of partnership to deliver services,
particularly if delivery systems are not made more cost￾effective
Sustainable
financing

 Mobilization of relatively high level of financial support
for conservancies (N$3.6 million annually) and support
organizations

 Groundwork laid out for Environmental Investment Fund

 Game Products Trust Fund functioning and benefiting
conservancies

 Staffing and other costs imposed by support organizations on
conservancies

 Demand for support services outstripping institutional capacity
and available funding, especially with projected phase out of
USAID funding
16
3.2 Strategic Recommendations for Moving the Programme to the Next Level
Following the presentation and discussion of an earlier version of the Overview Table at the
Workshop to Review Findings and Recommendations of the Mid-Term Review and input from
Workshop participants on what they saw as priority areas (detailed in annex J), the Review Team
developed a series of Strategic Recommendations for the CBNRM Programme in Namibia.
Moving the national Programme to the next level will require energy, imagination and broad
commitment to a directional shift that places community governance and sustainability centre￾stage. The key issues that energy needs to be directed to are:
1. Establish and launch the National CBNRM Programme
The recent publication of the NACSO brochure is a commendable initiative designed to
familiarize people and organizations with NACSO, its membership and their activities in support
of CBNRM. A series of public relations efforts over the past several years have also helped to
draw attention to the launching of conservancies and the increased level of benefits accruing to
local communities from wildlife and tourism. While there are many references, in this report and
elsewhere, to a ìnational CBNRM programmeî, in fact the leadership and ownership of the
national programme is currently undefined and diffuse. The various efforts underway to support
conservancies and CBNRM activities have not yet been officially recognized and brought
together as a national programme. With 14 conservancies formally registered, some 40 additional
conservancies in various stages of formation, and a number of community-based approaches to
NRM emerging with the support of other technical departments and projects, it is an opportune
time to formally establish a National Programme and launch it with great fanfare. The long￾awaited establishment of METís CBNRM Unit would be an excellent time for this to happen.
The Review Team suggests that preparations begin immediately, starting with the naming of the
President and his wife as Patrons of the Programme. Additional preparations could include a
nationwide competition to design a distinctive and much needed logo for the National
Programme1
.
The formal establishment of a National Programme that includes a clearly defined role for the
CBNRM Unit should help promote MET ownership and set the stage for greater collaboration
among line Ministries responsible for various NRM subsectors, thereby addressing a key threat
to the current programme.
2. Staff and support the CBNRM Unit
The organization of the CBNRM Unit within the Directorate of Parks and Wildlife Management
of MET represents welcome progress. It would have been better to place it at a higher level given
the potential economic contribution and scope of CBNRM activities. Nevertheless, it is critical
that a Unit is in place specifically to service and represent conservancies and improve the
timeliness and attention to important conservancy issuesóregistration, hunting quotas, tourism
PTOs, and the representation of conservancy issues within MET, etc. The unit can also play a
vital role in building bridges between MET and other ministries, organizations and projects
supporting CBNRM, including the wider NACSO membership.
 
1
 The partnership may also want to consider producing a professional quality video on the CBNRM programme
accomplishments to be shown both in Namibia and at the Rio+10 Conference in Johannesburg next year.
17
It is recommended that the LIFE programme support the position of the head of this Unit at
Deputy Director level for several years (current post is for a Senior Control Warden). This will
enable the Unit to develop its capacity faster. It is further recommended that LIFE specifically
target this Unit for capacity building.
It is recommended that the CBNRM Unit carefully establish its priorities in line with METís
comparative advantage. This would suggest primary roles in:

 Championing CBNRM in MET and GRN in general.

 Developing policy and procedures to return more rights to disenfranchised communities.

 Monitoring performance and compliance of conservancies with policy and legislation.

 Championing applications, quotas and PTOs through official processes.

 Representing GRN in NACSO.
It is further recommended that the core staff (3) of the CBNRM Unit play a leadership role, and
delegate operational support activities and other responsibilities to the 29 field level CBNRM
Unit staff to the greatest extent possible. For instance, they can play a key role in requesting the
timely presentation of performance indicators, while mandating NGOs to collect and collate this
information. Indeed, the more MET is engaged in the monitoring role, the more influence it has.
Finally, the Unit will benefit experientially by taking primary responsibility for supporting the
implementation of community driven, locally owned CBNRM in one or two conservancies.
3. Restructure the National Programme placing conservancies in the lead
Notwithstanding the excellent progress in developing the capacities of the support organizations
and the emergence of the NACSO association, conservancies should be supported towards an
ultimate goal of assuming greater leadership and ownership of the CBNRM programme. Thus
community-based structures should be encouraged to lead the programme at the regional and
national levels, through regional and national conservancy associations. In using their legitimate
position to advocate for policy, procedural and other improvements (figure 3.1), they will add
considerable strength to the programme. The pre-supposes that conservancies are properly
organized as participatory democratic institutions. These associations should assume a policy￾setting and advocacy role, and should avoid the encumbrances of technical responsibilities. In
supporting these developments, the CBNRM partnership and NACSO should take care to ensure
that conservancy associations are perceived as independent of excessive NGO influence.
4. Strengthen the CBNRM partnership to provide technical support more efficiently
Particular attention should be given to the development of improved delivery systems for
training that are based on a ìtraining of trainersî approach. The partnership of support
organizations also needs to assess how to fill a number of critical gaps in support services,
including institutional/organizational development, tourism/business planning capacity, conflict
management, communications, facilitation and monitoring skills. More teamwork in the area of
institutional support and capacity-building and improved coordination among the various
technical support teams (including institutional support, NRM planning and enterprise
development) would enable the support organizations to respond more efficiently to the
expressed needs of conservancies and other community-based organizations (CBOs) engaged in
CBNRM local communities.
18
Figure 3.1 Organizational Vision for the National CBNRM Programme
Organizational Vision
The following is an alternative structure or vision for the National CBNRM Programme (which,
incidentally, would benefit if it had a strong logo). Note that it:

 Places democratic grassroots representation centre-stage as the legitimate Lead Organisation

 Insists on conservancy committees developing ëdemocratic rootsí into their constituencies.

 Maintains the invaluable NACSO GRN/ NGO coalition, but in a supporting rather than
central role.

 Hopes to strengthen the ability of communities to work with MET and other agencies to fulfil
the policy of supporting the rights of rural formerly disadvantaged Namibians.
Support Organizations Conservancies Government
Level of Support over Time
Conservancy
Association
Constituent Sub-Conservancy
Institutions
(Participatory democratic
governance)
Conservancy
(Representational
governance)
NACSO
NGOs
MET/GRN
Function

 Policy / legislation

 Monitoring compliance

 Mandating NGOs
Capacity
Requirements
Time
19
The team conducted an overall assessment of the CBNRM program partnership as it is currently
functioning in Namibia, examining the set of organizations that comprise the institution of
CBNRM, and assessing how they are working together to achieve their common goal. Three
main issues are discussed briefly below, with recommendations included. (For a more detailed
analysis see annex F).
Capacity in Key Service Areas
We examined the critical needs for key services, based on our assessment of the strategic
challenges and required shifts in program direction. The team then examined whether these
critical services for conservancy development were available, what resources existed for
strengthening these services, and who could fill any gaps. As part of the assessment process, we
developed a list of critical services (Table F1) and a review of the strengths and challenges each
programme partner offers to the partnership (Table F2). Following is a selection of priority gaps
noted in Table F1:

 Communications, Facilitation, and Conflict Management: Conservancies need ways to
communicate with the broader community and to provide feed back on what the conservancy
is involved in. It is suggested that modules for these skills be included in the CBNRM
Programme Training Toolbox, and that additional partner organizations be trained to conduct
these sessions with communities.

 Tools for Participatory Development and Socioeconomic Analysis: Tools to allow
communities to carry out their own participatory facilitation are not widely available and are
needed. Gender analysis skills may also be lacking. Partners are moving this way and
expressed the need for strong, experienced technical assistance. To address this need, we
recommend a social and institutions expert be brought on to the LIFE team and housed
within RISE or NDT for 2 years to coordinate and build capacity on these issues within the
partnership.

 Benefit Distribution Planning and Implementation: While conservancies are committed in
principle to equitable benefit distribution, to date the actual implementation of benefit
distribution plans has been problematic. This shortcoming has the potential to endanger the
entire program as government perceives an apparent failure to follow through with equitable
benefit distribution. Recommendations: Build on a participatory planning process at the
community level to empower people to develop and implement equitable benefit distribution
plans and then monitor in a transparent manner how benefits are actually distributed. Get at
least 80 percent of revenues to village level.

 Organizational Assessment: The programís Conservancy Management Profiles and
Institutional Development Profiles are seen as necessary by many partners (see Table F2 for
some strengths and challenges of partners). Recommendation: Designate a person to continue
periodic use of Institutional Development Profiles and Conservancy Management Profiles,
preferably the same person referred to in the discussion on participatory tools, above. Link
this work to the monitoring and evaluation system and to local level strategic planning
processes.

 Sources of New Capacity: Recommendation: That the program build closer ties with
educational institutions like the Polytechnic NRM Program to enhance the resources
available to build new capacity.
20
Capacity Building and Training Approaches
Capacity building approaches for the programís conservancy work could benefit greatly from
several considerations. Recommendations: LIFE staff should focus on mentoring and moving out
of managementóbegin by attaching two to three counterpart staff to each TA. The partnership
should organize its conservancy capacity building team to work together and fulfil its mission
more completely. NACSO should establish a Training Working Group to examine the efficiency
and costs of the current training paradigm, preferably using quantifiable indicators of inputs and
results.
Collaboration Mechanisms
The partnership is coordinated now through planning/feedback meetings, a calendar, and
memoranda of understanding between groups working together in target areas. The team heard
of difficulties with meetings, field-based coordination, and information sharing.
Recommendations: It is suggested that the Secretariat establish a simple information-sharing
program to inform and coordinate with members and others more frequently. MOUs can be
strengthened and members may wish to experiment with fee-based contracting and strategic
alliances between organizations that work together frequently.
5. Reorient and expand support for the national programme to address critical emerging
issues and to increase the programmeís relevance to the governmentís sustainable
development priorities
The review team recognizes and salutes the dedication of and the exemplary rapport among the
NACSO membership. That said, the partnership is rather closed and operating in its comfort
zone. It is time to step outside that comfort zone, open the programme up, bring in additional
expertise and proactively build bridges to all sectors of Namibian society. However, the
programme also needs to be mindful of losing its focus, and of becoming all things to all people,
with a risk of actually achieving little. Rather, the programme should set a clear new direction,
and reorient the programmeís focus on the development of sound institutions for local
governance that are financially sustainable at the organization and livelihood levels, and capable
of monitoring and sustaining the natural resource base in an integrated manner. This shift in
focus would serve to strengthen conservancies as the means to provide local level coordination,
and also help to direct the partnership to develop new alliances that are responsive to the needs
of local communities.
Forging new alliances will require imagination, perseverance and a willingness to look at things
in new ways, but, in return, it should bring new energy and innovation into the programme.
NACSO and its members should identify potential synergies and pursue strategic alliances,
partnerships and/or expanded membership with a much wider group of potential partners
including, for example:

 Other GRN Departments working on rural land & livelihood issues linked to CBNRM

 Additional development NGOs working on natural resource management, enterprise
development and other aspects of rural development (e.g. DRFN/NAPCOD)

 Educational institutions capable and interested in providing CBNRM training (e.g.
Polytechnic, UNAM)

 CANAM
21

 Private sector organizations directly involved in CBNRM enterprises (e.g., Joint Venture
partners, professional hunters, tourism association, etc.)

 Private sector organizations interested in supporting conservation and rural development
(e.g., banks, industries, service organizations, etc.). These groups could become NACSO
Supporting Members, or CBNRM Sponsors at several levels. Another option would be to
develop NGO-Private Sector Partnerships in support of CBNRM.
The NACSO ìvisioningî document includes recommendations to ìopening the doorsî of the
CBNRM program in a pro-active way to involve other development sectors and actors in
addition to those traditionally linked to conservation. The decision several years ago to seek the
involvement of organizations such as NDT and RISE was partly based on a desire to bring in
groups with more general rural development experience. The way these groups have become
integrated into the CBNRM partnership has pushed them to conform to the pre-existing
programmatic approach (wildlife, tourism, natural resource monitoring) rather than having the
addition of new organizations and experiences lead to a broadening of the program model. An
opportunity to create much needed diversity and innovation was squandered. LIFE could help to
recapture these opportunities by introducing private sector groups to NACSO members, and by
supporting information sharing and broader participation in CBNRM workshops as a means to
stimulate progress and of build bridges between potential new partners and current NACSO
members.
Political support is essential if the CBNRM programme is to flourish. Primary responsibility for
seeking additional political support must come from the conservancies themselves as well as
from the emerging Regional Conservancy Associations. Concurrently, periodic briefings and
field visits for senior political leaders should be arranged by NACSO. LIFE could also assist by
providing support to NACSO to hire an additional staff person to work with the emerging
Regional Conservancy Associations.
As the programme reaches out to develop new strategic alliances, it can help the partnership to
address high priority emerging national issues, such as poverty alleviation through rural
development, the HIV/AIDS pandemic, conflict and conflict management, and the realities of
drought and desertification.
Linking CBNRM and Poverty Alleviation
Two-thirds of Namibiaís 1.7 million people live in rural areas and are directly dependent upon
natural resources for their economic well-being. Given the aridity and relatively low productivity
of much of the land, as well as the problems associated with uncontrolled grazing and overuse of
natural resources, communities living in communal areas are particularly impoverished. The
poorest 55% of Namibians account for merely 3% of GDP, with a per capita income of less than
US$100 per year. In contrast, the richest 5% of the population control 71% of GDP with an
average per capita income of US$14,000 a year.2
The government is committed to addressing rural poverty, and the inequities in income
distribution and wealth between rural and urban areas, and between farmers in communal areas
 
2
 A.S. Kruger, ed. Coping in a Fragile Environment: The SARDEP Experience. February 2001, p. xvii.
22
and freehold or commercial farmers. CBNRM can provide a powerful and effective means to
alleviate poverty while redressing inequities in rights to benefit from the management and
sustainable use of natural resources. Reorienting the programme towards improved governance
and growth in economic benefits is directly relevant to improving livelihoods through increased
natural resource productivityóa precondition of alleviation of rural poverty.
Helping to address the HIV/AIDS Pandemic
Although development of an HIV/AIDS policy is an objective of the NACSO vision report, no
action has been taken on this. The DEA/NACSO information team and NNF monitoring team
have expressed interest in leading this discussion within NACSO, possibly as a separate
HIV/AIDS working group. Eventually the conservancy associations in regions may also need to
play a role in spreading awareness and prevention efforts in rural Namibia.
It is suggested that the CBNRM programme help to address HIV/AIDS by focusing on two
levels: 1) Working with LAC to establish a NACSO policy on HIV/AIDS and CBNRM that
could serve as a model for member organizations and conservancies that wish to establish their
own internal policies; and 2) Providing contact information for field-based member
organizations that seek to develop partnerships with groups having an HIV/AIDS extension
mandate. (See annex F for more detailed suggestions.)
Family Health International (FHI) is an international NGO working in Namibia with support
through USAID/Namibiaís Strategic Objective #5. Their suggested approach for the program is
starting with organizational policies that focus on prevention of infection and awareness raising
in staff and community-level trainees, of how the disease is, and is not, spread. They note that
planning for the effects of HIV/AIDS on staff, trainees, and communities/households in general
is important for program sustainability. A general number for Namibia to note is that an
estimated 15ñ20 percent of the population is infected and will die within 5ñ10 years; in Caprivi
the estimate is closer to 30 percent. Thus a recommendation is that organizational and CBNRM
program policies should account for this potential loss by building capacity in all program areas,
in two to three persons instead of just one. This will also help offset losses due to the high
demand for qualified personnel throughout Namibia, which is now leading to high turnover in
NACSOís member organizations.
Specific activities for the program could begin with research on the resources available for
extension in HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention programs in rural Namibia, research on the
impacts of the disease on CBNRM programs in other African nations, and discussions with FHI,
SMA, and USAID about potential coordination. There is already demand and interest on the part
of communities in Caprivi for training and awareness programs, according to IRDNCís CRM
Coordinator there. FHI is partnered there with the Social Marketing Association (SMA), which
provides training and extension and radio programming on HIV/AIDS prevention. One potential
activity might be for SMA and IRDNC in Caprivi to collaborate on a radio program, which could
then be adapted for use in Kunene as well.
In sum, the team suggests:

 Use DEA/NNF interest to develop HIV/AIDS focus group within NACSO

 Develop a specific policy to address HIV/AIDS, including implementation mechanisms
23

 Identify useful source and reference documents, educational materials, etc.

 Provide contact points for support services in this area to conservancies, NGO partners and
other interested parties.
Conflict & conflict management
With its attention to delineation of boundaries and planning for the use of natural resources,
CBNRM activities often bring simmering conflicts to the fore. Local communities and the
support organizations need to be able to resolve potential conflicts creatively, seeking win-win
solutions. Conflict and conflict management are themes that are beginning to emerge in the
Namibia CBNRM programme (e.g., cattle in the Salambala core wildlife zone) and are certain to
increase over time. The Review Team strongly endorses that recommendation of the 2000
CBNRM Association Conference that conflict management/resolution capacity be developed
within the programme, or outsourced if partners have become too close to a particular situation
for too long or are vested in the conflict.
Drought & desertification
The CBNRM programme should also logically have a great affinity with efforts to control
desertification and reduce the vulnerability of local communities to the potential disruptive
effects and hardships associated with periodic droughts. The Namibian Programme to Combat
Desertification (NAPCOD) has grown out of Namibiaís Green Plan, the Governmentís
framework environmental policy document prepared for the UN Conference of Environment and
Development in 1992. NAPCOD is a cross-sectoral component of Namibiaís strategy to
operationalise the Green Plan. NAPCOD recognizes that poverty, population growth and
desertification are intimately linked. Beginning in 1994, the government has committed itself to
combat the processes of desertification in Namibia by promoting the sustainable and equitable
use of natural resources. A key programme element that supports the implementation of the
NAPCOD strategy is the Sustainable Animal and Range Development Programme (SARDEP).
This programme was launched in 1991 to develop and demonstrate range management and
improved livestock production strategies in pilot communities in the communal areas of
Namibia. Over the past decade, the SARDEP programme has recognized the centrality of
participatory approaches to improved natural resource management and community-level
capacity-building as well as the development of a sound policy framework. The approach now
aims to ìfacilitate a process through which people are empowered to create the capacity to
manage their own interests and to endeavour to formulate a policy framework in which they can
thrive, and win the battle against hunger, poverty and land degradation or desertificationî.3
The SARDEP programme, NAPCOD and the associated Namibian Economic Policy Research
Unit (NEPRU) are potentially very strong allies of the CBNRM programme, and increased
collaboration between the two groups should generate strong, mutual benefits and synergies.
Both groups have been involved in the highly successful ìForum for Integrated Rural
Developmentî in the Grootberg pilot area (Khorxias). This pilot approach could be more widely
supported by a joint effort, and more information and research findings could be exchanged as
well. To date, a major obstacle to collaboration has been the identification of the conservancy
programme with MET, and the SARDEP programme with the Ministry of Agriculture, Water
 
3
 A.S. Kruger, ed. Coping in a Fragile Environment: the SARDEP Experience. February 2001, p. ix.
24
and Rural Development. With increased recognition of the relevance of CBNRM activities to
rangeland management, desertification control and rural development, both programmes could
be strengthened by collaborative efforts to improve the policy framework for sustainable NRM
and for further empowerment and capacity-building of community-based organizations
committed to improved NRM4
. To date, the links between CBNRM and the NACSO partnership,
and the various programmes of the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development,
including SARDEP and NEPRU, are only weakly developed; both programmes could be
strengthened by seeking out opportunities to collaborate on policy reform, participatory planning
and capacity-building of community-based organizations. Recommendation: LIFE/NACSO
convene a meeting/workshop with NAPCOD to define synergies.
6. Get economic benefits flowing to conservancies
Empowerment is important, intangible benefits are important, biodiversity conservation is
important, but there is no driver for the CBNRM programme more important than tangible
economic benefits. After many years of hard work getting the enabling conditions right, testing
pilot programs, learning from failures and building on successes the CBNRM programme is
poised to make a great leap forward. The engine that will power that leap is economic benefits
flowing to the conservancies.
Potential Viability of Individual Conservancies
A critical question is whether conservancies can become financially viable? To date, only one
conservancy (Torra) is viable. Triangulation information suggests that viability is achievable.
Detailed models (Barnes et al. 2001) show all five conservancies modelled to be financially
viable, with financial returns on
investment somewhere between 20%
and 40%. All easily cover operating
costs, with a significant boost to
household income ranging from
US$400ñ600 in more populated,
lower potential conservancies (e.g.,
Salambala, Khoadi/Hoas) to
US$1,600ñ3,400 in much of the
North West and parts of Caprivi
(e.g., Mayuni). Our calculations
suggest that most conservancies in
the North West can support at least
two tourism enterprises, earning
upwards of US$500,000. Several
have far higher potential.
Commercial Potential of Tourism
Sector in Conservancies
The second issue concerns
 
4
 See, for example, R. Dewdney, Policy Factors and DesertificationóAnalysis and Proposals. NAPCOD Steering
Committee, April, 1996. This analysis is due to be updated in the near future, to take account of recently adopted
policies and legislation.
Figure 3.2 The Actual and Potential Tourism
Economy in North West Namibia
0
50
100
150
200
250
Nam $ million
Actual Potential
Kunene and Erongo Tourism Income
Costs
Profits
Wages
Community
25
commercial potential, and the constraints to achieving this. The figure (for the Northwest, but
indicative of tourism in Caprivi and safari hunting in general)shows large potential. Conservancy
tourism could earn US$300 million annually, with the multiplier implying a US$600 million
contribution to the Namibian economy. However, the tourism economy is operating at less then
one quarter of this potential. Communities are leveraging less than 0.5% of this income as a
consequence of historical disenfranchisement.
These symptoms can be traced back to a central cause: the lack of local control over access to
land and other natural resources in communal areas. A second cause is unimaginative
leadership of the Namibian tourism industry, with little accountability for correcting these
problems or grasping the huge opportunities.
While uncontrolled access and weak tourism leadership manifests itself most visibly in
environmental damage and uncontrolled 4x4 tourism, the damage is far wider and of great
magnitude. Economically, open access to conservancy areas allows tourists (mostly foreign) to
benefit from the spectacular wildlife, culture and scenery without paying for it. With no clear
responsibility for these areas, tourism routes and sites remain unplanned. This opportunity cost
can be measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars.
Communal landholders have insufficient rights to control tourism on their land. They acquire a
pitiful share of revenues, are unable to control irresponsible use, and are hamstrung in
developing the potential of the tourism sector. Reversing this injustice, through the facilitation of
exclusive tourism rights (PTOs), coupled with assistance to negotiate joint ventures, should
quadruple the size of the sector, increasing user fees twenty-fold. Incorporating a minimum use
fee equating to 10% of turnover at 40% bed occupancy would prevent ineffective use of prime
sites. The use of some sites largely for (free) personal use is imposing a large opportunity cost on
both Namibia and conservancies.
The tourist sector, including planning, the product, and private operators, is unimaginative. The
range of services and rates are generally far lower than the regional average. The high-end
market has hardly been targeted, although it grew while the traditional market shrank 30ñ40% in
response to regional instability. Etosha, which could be used to spearhead the tourism industry,
to set standards, and to upgrade prices (rather than undercut them by providing subsidized access
to wildlife), is symptomatic of the weak/unimaginative enabling environment. The opportunity to
use Etosha imaginatively to boost the Northwestern tourism circuit, is being squandered and is
costly in terms of Namibiaís tourism sector in general and the conservancies in particular.
The sector is inbred and undercapitalised. Policy and incentives should be designed to attract
international investors. The banking system is old fashioned. The tax structure has not been
revised to support new business, and the possibility of tax-breaks for investments in communal
areas and conservancies should be considered. While there is no shortage of small enterprise
credit, the limiting factor is the technical capacity to write business plans to access this credit.
In a nutshell, proactive management by countries such as Botswana has captured the high value,
low impact market. The low value, high cost (environmentally) sector has been ëexportedí to
Namibia.
26
Namibiaís tourism in conservancies could be quadrupled, if conservancies are given more rights
to control access and negotiate hunting and tourism agreements, and if they are helped to develop
imaginative tourism/commercial plans and to negotiate fair deals with private sector partners. In
direct contradiction of national policy, conservancies are failing to get an equitable share of the
tourism sector.
To help conservancies through the process of planning and selling their tourism opportunities,
this Review strongly emphasizes the strengthening the Business Enterprise/Institutional Team.
This may seem a strange combination of skills, but revenue is crucial to conservancy
sustainability, and the way it flows (top-down, or bottom-up), and is accounted for will
determine their ultimate institutional and social sustainability.
Was USAIDís Investment Worthwhile?
The third question we need to answer is whether USAIDís investment in the LIFE-supported
CBNRM programme was worthwhile. The short answer is yesóbut only if specific measures
and investments are made to build a sustainable, profitable, democratic wildlife-based rural
economy on the solid foundation so far developed.
In partnership with others, USAID has laid the foundation for a major wildlife-based tourism
industry. Protection has created an expanding wildlife resource, while community institutions are
in place to build a tourism industry on this foundation.
The present value of this industry is roughly US$10 million annually, with community benefit
still being restricted to wages (US$1 million annually). However, the cornerstones (wildlife,
institutions) are now in place for major growth. With careful investment and prioritisation,
largely of business enterprise and institutional development capacity, tourism could earn US$35ñ
40 million annually from conservancy areas. If sound negotiation ensures US$3ñ4 million
accrues to conservancies in user fees, with a similar amount paid out in wages, this will
contribute US$115 per capita income to the 60,000 people living in viable conservancies,
doubling the average annual income for a rural Namibian from US$100 to US$215.
The programme has contributed to a multi-fold increase in wildlife populations, and to a social
foundations and the active protection of desert elephants and rhino. A rough estimate is that the
annual harvestable value of wildlife to the landholder in North West Namibia (assuming all
policy limitations are removed) has increased from US$65,000 in 1980 to US$2 million in 2000,
enough on its own to justify USAID support. All biodiversity, not only usable wildlife
populations, has benefited from increased protection, monitoring and management.
Additionally, the programme has empowered 14ñ49 communities (some 100,000 people) with
additional rights, information and knowledge, and earning potential. To this we should add some
ten functioning NGOs, half of which are now headed by previously disadvantaged Namibians.
Finally, the process has created both capacity and knowledge. The value of the Namibian
programme as repository of knowledge and a cornerstone for the continued expansion of
CBNRM once regional macro-conditions are again conducive to devolution and democratisation
is inestimable.
27
7. Strengthen existing rights and secure additional rights for the conservancies
While the rights to wildlife that form the foundation of the CBNRM programme are important,
and much heralded around the world, they are only a first small step in securing the land and
resource rights that Historically Disadvantaged Namibians living in conservancies need to secure
their future livelihoods. Following the adoption of new policies in 1995 and 1996 on wildlife
management and tourism, people living in communal areas were empowered to benefit from
wildlife and community-based tourism development. The devolution of these rights and
assurance of these benefits provided a strong incentive to form conservancies, and to protect and
manage the wildlife and other natural resources.
However, the experience with the establishment and functioning of conservancies over the past
few years has underscored the need to further empower local communities with the additional
rights needed to be able to manage wildlife and other natural resources. Management and
sustainable use are not possible if there are no provisions for local controls on access and use of
natural resources. Conservancies have gained ownership rights over huntable game, but
additional resource rights, increased security of land tenure and an explicit recognition of their
authority to set quotas, orient land use and exclude inappropriate or unsustainable uses of natural
resources are needed in order to proceed with the implementation of land use and tourism
planning, zonation and NRM plans.
Increased local level controls on resource use must also be affirmed in order for conservancies to
be able to capture their rightful share of economic benefits from resource use, and to limit
degradation of natural resources from overuse. Ideally, communities should receive full use
rights and rights of exclusion, as on private land, in order to fully benefit from the social and
economic gain from instituting systems of joint or community-based ownership. Strategically,
the programme should first assist communities to capture full use / exclusion rights for tourism
and hunting, given the high potential value of these resources. There is also a greater opportunity
to make these changes, as systems are not yet entrenched and this action is consistent with the
powerful argument that outsiders are unfairly and inequitably exploiting the resources of HDNs
without paying for them. Additionally, while communities can exert some social controls on
ìinsidersî and have reasonable influence on natural resource use by the local community (except
in times of drought), they would otherwise have almost no influence over tourists passing
through the region.
The current policy and legislative framework has also tended to shift from state control to
committee-based natural resource management. Existing MET regulations are quite specific
about the powers and authorities of conservancy management committees, and act to hold the
committees accountable to MET. Recent trends in policy implementation and other regulatory
provisions run the risk of reverting to increased control and oversight by MET. The policy and
legislative framework needs to be strengthened further to fully devolve rights to local
communities, and to ensure that management committees are elected by and accountable to the
members of the local community, in a democratic and transparent manner. The communities
should be empowered to orient and oversee the provision of support services needed to ensure
the sustainable use of their natural resources, and in this manner, hold the MET and other line
ministries and service providers accountable to them.
28
Clearly, this shift in accountability and strengthening of rights at the local level implies a new
role and emphasis for MET. MET and other line ministries with a mandate to support CBNRM
need to move away from the historical ìcommand and controlî paradigm that disempowered
rural communities, to focus their efforts on the establishment of a more favourable policy and
legislative framework for CBNRM and the more efficient provision of technical support services
in response to local needs. A key role of MET in the future will be to ensure that performance
compliance and monitoring systems are in place and provide sufficient information to local
communities to enable them to achieve their local development objectives as well as national
policy goals.
8. Develop a more robust system for monitoring and communicating Programme
accomplishments
The Review Team was surprised to find that although some investments have been made by
LIFE in Monitoring & Evaluation (including socio-ecological surveys, PRAs, institutional
assessments, etc.), this capability has not been institutionalised within the NACSO partners.
Furthermore, the M&E data managed by LIFE is limited to LIFE target areas rather than the
national programme.
Not only has this M&E capability not been institutionalised elsewhere, but it appears to have
been lost within the LIFE program itself less than two months after the departure of the MSI
expert responsible for M&E. This is a powerful lesson for the remaining years of LIFE: systems
developed by the program must be transferred to and institutionalised within Namibian
partner institutions well before the departure of WWF/LIFE personnel. NNF staff are
currently working to establish an M&E system for the national programme, starting more or less
from scratch.
As the partnership develops a more comprehensive and robust M&E system, the indicators
selected for performance monitoring should serve to guide and reinforce the programmeís
direction. It is therefore recommended that these key indicators be identified collectively by the
partnership (even if the central database is managed by NNF) and that they are applied
nationally.
It is further recommended that indicators be summarized in a visual format, and form the
cornerstone of regular peer reporting and review within conservancies, at regional meetings and
in national workshops. To avoid the previous system whereby monitoring was essentially
disconnected from the management process and externally driven (by reporting requirements for
USAIDís annual ìR-4î report, and other donor requirements), reporting on indicators should be
built into the checking and balancing system operative at the community level. Thus, quotas
would depend on post-hunt reporting, additional grant funds on reporting on institutional
development, etc.
9. Proactively manage the LIFE transition
The Review Team is recommending that USAID continue to fund a CBNRM programme in
Namibia for the next 10 years in order to allow the investments of the last ten years to bear
fruit. Given changing political priorities and development fads, the likelihood that this will
happen is not high. USAID, the LIFE Steering Committee and NACSO need to work together to
29
determine the best uses for remaining resources, while at the same time continuing to
aggressively make the case for continued funding. Review Team suggestions on the WWF
transition are presented in the next section of this report.
10. Secure funding for the medium term and financial sustainability over the longer term
As the National CBNRM Programme expands and evolves further, the Ministry of Environment
and Tourism, other NACSO members, USAID and other donors are increasingly concerned with
the overall sustainability of the programme. In addition to the strengthening of community based
tourism and related enterprise developments aimed at achieving financial sustainability at the
conservancy level, the review team recommends that MET, NACSO and other key programme
stakeholders work together to develop a sustainable financing strategy and plan for the National
CBNRM Programme.
The CBNRM programme has successfully diversified its funding base in recent years (e.g.,
SIDA, WWF/UK). As bilateral funding for CBNRM becomes increasingly scarce, this drive to
diversify must continue. However, the currently high level of dependence on external funding
leaves the program vulnerable. Substantially increased attention must be devoted to reducing
program costs, accessing internal resources and aggressively pursuing a range of sustainable
financing options5
. Importantly, each conservancy must be put on a clearly defined pathway to
financial self-sufficiency.
The development of a sustainable financing strategy should take full account of the proposed
support to be mobilized through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) grant as well as other
potential medium and longer term sources of development assistance from external sources.6
Potential linkages between the CBNRM programme goals and bilateral aid from the German,
Swedish and Finnish governments as well as UNDP assistance could be examined. Additional
assistance for the Namibian programme might also be mobilized over the medium term through
regional CBNRM support programmes funded by DFID, USAID, WWF, IUCN, African
Wildlife Foundation, Conservational International and others. To facilitate the mobilization and
coordinated programming of external assistance for CBNRM, USAID and other interested
donors should take a more proactive role in information sharing and donor coordination.
Additionally, NACSO members should earmark funding and time specifically to represent the
national programme to Program/Desk Officers for the key donors, Foundations and NGOs in the
region with the prospect of following up in Europe and in the United States.
The Review Team feels that internal sources of programme funding could also be mobilized to a
greater degree in support of the national CBNRM programme. These internal sources of funding
should be carefully identified and deliberately tracked to ensure that they are efficiently and fully
utilized. This would include the continuing support from the National Development Budget
(NDP2) and the Game Products Trust Fund (GPTF), as well as the planned support from the
Environmental Investment Fund (EIF). Additional details are provided in annex H.
 
5
 The Review Teamís suggestions on reducing program costs are presented in section 1 and in annexes C, F and G.
More detailed suggestions for accessing internal resources are presented in annex H.
6
 See B. Jones, ìSupport to Development of CAN/METî, proposal to GEF for Project Development Funds, August
2000.
30
The sustainable financing strategy could also explore the possibilities for mobilizing additional
resources through fiscal policy reforms and related initiatives aimed at:

 Creation of additional ìtrust fundsî and endowments designed to support conservancies
(especially where needed to protect non-profitable biodiversity values), in collaboration with
the private sector, international NGOs and Foundations.

 Increasing access to investment credits available through programmes designed to support
small and medium size enterprises; the CBNRM programme could assist with business
planning and other technical support in order to enhance the ability of local communities and
entrepreneurs within conservancies to receive and effectively utilize this type of financing.

 Exploration of additional financing that could be mobilized as part of the climate
change/carbon trading agreements or other international conventions; contrary to
conventional wisdom, there is likely to be a significant opportunity to restore degraded
rangelands and habitats subjected to desertification in Namibia through the increased
sequestration of carbon in soils, as a result of land use controls, range improvement and soil
fertility management.
Fiscal policy reforms could also be designed to encourage conservancies to proceed with
development planning and the implementation of NRM plans. As an added incentive for
planning and management, communities could benefit from lower tax rates or tax rebates on
products and services resulting from the sustainable use and management of natural resources
(for example, wood products from a managed community forest would be taxed at a lower rate
than wood harvested from open access, unmanaged forests).
In due course, the sustainable financing strategy for the programme should factor in a phased
reduction in grants to conservancies and other CBOs, and a corresponding increase in the level of
cost-sharing by local communities. It would be a mistake to underestimate the potential for
mobilizing funds at the local level, particularly once communities appreciate the potential rate of
returns on CBNRM investments and once the systems are in place to support the establishment
and successful operation of such ventures. Over time, as conservancies increase their financial
management capacity and improve their credit worthiness, the programme can also shift to a
greater reliance on commercial sources of credit that can be obtained directly by the
conservancies to finance planned investments.
Similarly, the longer term sustainable financing strategy should take account of a need to shift
towards direct purchase of services by the conservancies from the full range of available service
providers (public, NGO, private sector), on a competitive basis. The programme could begin to
introduce the concept of ìfee for serviceî to conservancies, possibly with grants and other
subsidies being reduced in a stepwise manner, from 100%, to 20% or less over a ten-year period.
31
4. The WWF Transition
4.1 From Management to Mentoring
As has been noted several times already, WWF/LIFE staff need to move from the front seat to
the back seat in program implementation, from a management to a mentoring role.
Recommendations on how to operationalise this shift are discussed below, as well as in annexes
B and F.
4.2 Grant Management
WWF/LIFE currently manages 10 grants (NACOBTA, RISE, Salambala, IRDNC,
NNF/Capacity Building, MET CBNRM Support, Nyae Nyae, MET Training, NACSO and
Rossing Foundation Crafts). Management of these grants needs to be transferred to NNF in a
deliberate, phased manner that prevents unnecessary disruptions. The first step in this process is
for USAID to develop a Cooperative Agreement with NNF. This process should begin
immediately.
4.3 Technical Support
The Review Team recommends that the WWF Cooperative Agreement be extended through
April 2003 (for its full 10-year life) and that the WWF/LIFE Team be kept in place through this
period. Whether the Team stays physically together in Kenya House or splits and moves into
other NACSO organizations depends on whether USAID support will be phasing out in 2004 (as
currently planned) or can be continued beyond this point. If the phase out is to be in 2004 (or
earlier), the Review Team recommends that the WWF/LIFE Team be kept together to maximize
their joint contribution to the national programme. While splitting the Team and incorporating
them into Namibian institutions might be politically correct, it would be operationally
cumbersome and, more importantly, would hamper the synergies which have been important in
getting the NRM and business development pieces of the program off to a rapid start in recent
months. If the program can be continued beyond 2004, the design of the follow on activity
should include technical assistance that starts off incorporated in NACSO partner organizations
from the beginning.
In our view, a change in working style is more important than physical location at this
point. We recommend that all WWF/LIFE job descriptions be revised and that mentoring of
Namibian counterparts become the highest priority task for the remainder of the Cooperative
Agreement, with clear performance measures that are tracked and reported on. In this regard,
each TA should identify two to three protÈgÈs in partner or related institutions, including
conservancies. Their relationships should be formalized using written expectations and assessed
through regular performance reviews.
The Review Team recommends that the WWF/LIFE Team needs to augmented with
social/institutional skills and with additional enterprise development skills, recruited locally if
possible. The rationale for these additions is presented in annexes F and C respectively. The
32
Team is acutely aware that adding staff while entering a phase out mode is counterintuitive, and
all the more so with a declining budget. We believe that costs savings will be possible through
implementation of the Teamís recommendations on more streamlined planning, use a Training of
Trainers approach and a bottom-up, demand driven provision of support services to
conservancies. Whether these savings will be sufficient is something that USAID, WWF and the
NACSO partnership will need to carefully consider.
4.4 Institutionalisation of the Team Approach
Over the past two years, the LIFE programme and NACSO partners have assembled a top-notch
team of NRM specialists and field workers committed to support communities in delineation of
boundaries, mapping, natural resource monitoring, compilation of resource inventories, the
development of NRM plans and related planning and management activities7
. The philosophy
and cooperative working relationships of these individuals and organizations is to be
commended. With technical leadership and support from the WWF/LIFE NRM specialist, the
NRM team has developed a number of innovative and well-adapted tools, techniques,
approaches and methods and helped build capacity in the use of these tools8
. Similar progress has
been made over the past year in organizing a team to support the development of community￾based tourism, business planning and enterprises.
A particular strength of the team approach has been the identification and inclusion of staff from
several different support organizations in a collaborative effort. The teams have progressively
developed as key contact persons or technical specialist within each organization are recruited
and brought into the ìvirtualî team. They are not housed in the same organization, but with
leadership and support from the ìteam leaderî, they plan activities together and work as a team
to develop and apply new tools and approaches designed to achieve the programmeís objectives.
At present, the teams are still relatively loosely structured. Over the next year, they intend to
strengthen a two-tier structure, with a central coordination team based in Windhoek, composed
of senior, core technical advisors, and regionally based teams with staff employed by the NGO
support organizations and other locally recruited field staff. With the establishment of the
CBNRM Unit in MET, these teams can be further strengthened by incorporating headquarters
and field level MET staff to a greater degree into the ongoing teamwork.
This approach has allowed the programme to acquire a ìcritical massî of specialists that are
needed to address the increasing demands for technical support services at the field level. This
team approach has also enabled the technical support specialists mobilized through WWF/LIFE
to simultaneously build capacity within several different support organizations at once (DEA,
NNF, IRDNC, RISE, for example, in the case of the NRM team). It is recommended that this
 
7
 This team has been variously labelled as the ìknees teamî (because they are often in the field, wearing shorts), the
ìMIUî team (because they began as a management information unit, helping the conservancies with boundary
descriptions, mapping and providing GIS data and other information for resource inventories and management
plans), and most recently the ìNRMî team because of their focus on the development of NR monitoring tools and
technical support for NRM planning processes.
8
 See draft note ìProviding Technical Support in Natural Resources Management to the CBNRM Programme in
Namibiaî, prepared by Greg Stuart-Hill, Jo Tagg and the NRM team, July 2001.
33
approach be replicated by the Business Enterprise and Institutions Team but with the additional
component of structured mentoring.
As the demand for technical support and service delivery to the conservancies continues to grow,
and as the WWF/LIFE technical advisors shift from a managing to a mentoring role, the
institutionalisation of these teams in the three critical areas of institutional development/capacity
building, NRM planning and CBT/business planning/enterprise development is an important
means to help the national CBNRM programme to achieve its ambitious objectives and become
more sustainable.
4.5 Regional Links and Learning
LIFE benefited greatly from regional exposure in the early phases of the programme. For a
variety of reasons, this external stimulation has been somewhat lost. Given the maturity of the
programme in terms of confidence and the handling of constructive criticism, and its
organizational competence and ability to both question new ideas and to quickly incorporate
good ones into the programme, this learning process should be re-incorporated, including links to
regional institutions that can serve as a quality critic such as CASS and PLASS.
34
Table 4.1 Proposed Action Plan for WWF/LIFE and National CBNRM Programme Stakeholders, 2001ñ04
Lead Action Items and Timeframe
Organization Initiated by December 2001 Completed before November
2002
Completed before October
2004
Longer Term
Conservancies 
 Reorient to bottom-up institutional
structures; adopt a Second
Generation CBNRM Model

 Develop a strategy and principles for
strengthening grassroots democrat￾isation based on full, transparent,
accountable participation through
village based units.

 Use revenue sharing as the primary
vehicle to drive this process, but
support with all programmatic
activities including grant funding

 Equitable revenue sharing
mechanisms in place in all
conservancies generating
income; individuals should
have democratic control over
80% of these revenues

 Village-level democracy
implemented and monitored
using indicators related to
transparency, accountability,
democratisation and equity

 Village-level
democratisation firmly
entrenched in programme

 Increase attention given to
conflict management and
contingency planning in
CBNRM plans

 Sustain and reinforce shift to
participatory, grassroots
democracy built upon
smaller, village based units

 Consolidate and strengthen
reorientation to bottom-up
institutional structures and
adoption of a second
generation CBNRM model
Conservancy
Associations

 Follow through on preliminary
consultations to formalize plans for
the establishment of regional and
national conservancy associations

 Explore potential relationships with
CANAM and other private sector
Associations

 Establish regional and national
conservancy associations

 Where appropriate, formalise
relationships between
conservancy and other
Associations

 Strengthen national and
regional conservancy
associations

 Increase level of
contributions to policy
debates and sector planning

 Conservancy Associations
actively represent interests of
their constituents in national
and regional policy dialogue
and sector planning
MET 
 Establish CBNRM Unit and clarify
roles and performance expectations;
recruit Deputy Director (to be funded
by USAID)

 Arrange formal launch of National
CBNRM Programme

 Organize a public review of the
revised draft of the Parks and
Wildlife Management Bill

 Formally adopt guidelines for
conservancy management plans

 Complete training and
equipping of CBNRM Unit

 Streamline and decentralize
procedures in support of
CBNRM

 Facilitate and coordinate
annual review of conservancy
performance (linked to M&E)

 Strengthen CBT legislation to
give communities greater rights
to control tourism and hunting
activities

 Ensure that CBNRM Unit
is fully staffed, functional,
benefiting from continued
capacity building efforts
and accountable for
performance targets

 Integrated development
planning is supported at the
local level in conjunction
with poverty alleviation,
desertification control and
other sustainable
development programs
35
Lead Action Items and Timeframe
Organization Initiated by December 2001 Completed before November
2002
Completed before October
2004
Longer Term

 Implement human resources
development (HRD) plans developed
with USAID assistance and commit
more to MET training budget

 Publish and broadly disseminate an
expanded CBNRM Tool Kit

 Promote greater involvement
and information sharing with
other GRN ministries and
NGOs
MET and
Other GRN
Ministries

 Convene the first of a series of
periodic inter-ministerial CBNRM
program reviews (to be facilitated by
NPC)

 Provide increased legitimacy and
recognition of NRM plans prepared
by conservancies

 Strengthen rights of CBOs to control
access to NRs

 Establish a logo for the National
CBNRM Programme

 Establish inter-ministerial
forum on CBNRM

 Recognize conservancy as a
special category of land use
with local controls over NR use

 Affirm rights and roles of
conservancies in regional land
use planning

 Support harmonization of
sectoral policies in support of
CBNRM

 Formally recognize role of
conservancies in the
implementation of
decentralization policies
(through RDCCs)

 Empower local
coordination of the
CBNRM planning process

 Capitalize on opportunities
to reinforce CBNRM
through fiscal policy
reforms

 Develop strategy to mobilize
additional internal resources
for CBNRM (MTI credit,
GPTF, EIF)

 Elaborate a unified CBNRM
policy and legislative
framework

 Adopt policies aimed at
increasing land tenure
security
NACSO
Secretariat

 Help launch the National CBNRM
Programme

 Facilitate agreement by stakeholders
on CBNRM performance monitoring
indicators

 Initiate measures to give
conservancies greater control and
responsibility in requesting technical
support and training

 Expand outreach and membership

 Recruit facilitator to work with
emerging Regional conservancy
Associations

 Constitute a working group to track
policies related to land use planning,
ownership rights, NR tenure,

 Establish HIV/AIDS policy

 Develop information sharing
system for partnership

 Organize visit to Zambia to
assess village-based model of
conservancy organization

 Promote greater involvement
and information sharing with
GRN institutions

 Recruit a ìlegislative liaison
specialistî and facilitate
participation by conservancy
members in review of pending
CBNRM legislation

 Complete M&E system

 Strengthen partnership
mechanisms with fee-based
services, MOUs

 Continue to host informal
sessions with donors
supporting CBNRM

 Facilitate the emergence
and development of
regional conservancy
associations
36
Lead Action Items and Timeframe
Organization Initiated by December 2001 Completed before November
2002
Completed before October
2004
Longer Term
forestry, fisheries, water and other
NR sectors

 Establish and operationalise Training
Working Group with mandate to
assess costs and effectiveness of
service delivery
NACSO
Members and
Support
NGOs

 Shift control of planning and
development budgets and grants to
Conservancies; manage costs

 Increase support for integrated
development planning and equitable
benefit distribution

 Address specific gaps noted in Table
F1 (conflict management,
facilitation, gender analysis . . .)

 Continue use of Conservancy and
Institutional Development profiles

 Incorporate plans for toolbox, M&E
system, lessons learned and NACSO
working group responsibilities into
organizational work plans

 Develop relations with key regional
program officers to broaden donor
base

 Establish formal links to
Polytechnic to expand human
resources for CBNRM
activities

 Forge strategic alliances
between community
development and conservation
organizations

 Increase conservancy￾community feedback and
monitoring

 Develop strategy to mobilize
additional internal sources of
funding

 Experiment with alternative
service delivery approaches
(e.g. training of trainers,
trainee-networking models,
community-based facilitators
and NACOBTA outsourcing
model

 Track and support
measures aimed at
increasing land tenure
security and local control
over NRs

 Peer review of performance
indicators institutionalised
at Conservancy, regional
and national levels

 Promote integration of
technical support teamís
response to locally
coordinated planning
process

 Increase number and breadth
of CBNRM support
organizations and skills

 Invest in partnerships with
rural development
organizations
WWF/LIFE 
 Provide priority support for MET
CBNRM Unit

 Establish a Business Enterprise and
Institutional Team by expanding the
present capacity of the LIFE partners
in tourism planning/business
negotiating, by adding
institutional/social and hunting
sector management capacity, and by

 Roll out the process at the rate
of at least six new Conservancy
viability strategies, and six new
joint venture negotiations
annually

 Promote financially-based
integrated development
planning (with attention to
commercial, social, NRM,
37
Lead Action Items and Timeframe
Organization Initiated by December 2001 Completed before November
2002
Completed before October
2004
Longer Term
developing a virtual team of partners
and trainees in the public, private
and NGO sectors

 Facilitate two conservancies to
develop plans for financial
sustainability and initiate at least two
joint ventures in support of these
plans

 Re-prioritise programmatic direction
to emphasize and support
conservancy financial self￾sustainability, reallocating resources
from areas where redundancy or
savings (e.g. service delivery
systems) are possible

 Develop phase out strategy for
technical advisors; emphasize
mentoring and skills transfer for 2-3
persons in all program areas
institutional aspects) in parallel
with this process

 Fund a study to review
opportunities for fiscal policy
reforms in support of CBNRM

 Support the development of a
CBNRM program performance
monitoring system

 Work with NACSO secretariat
and partners to develop a
screening tool to assess
potential viability of
Conservancies and to prioritise
support interventions

 Help to develop a
communications strategy for
the programme
Private Sector 
 Work with MET to streamline
regulatory procedures

 Participate in synergy workshop with
NACSO

 Increase participation in
NACSO association activities

 Expand role of private sector
service providers in preparation
and implementation of
Conservancy development
plans

 Expand role of commercial
financing of Conservancy
enterprises and
development plan
investments

 Strengthen partnerships
between CBOs and private
sector
USAID 
 Make case to Washington to keep
USAID engaged in CBNRM

 Communicate results of CBNRM
program assessment to GEF and
other donors

 Adjust LIFE grant guidelines to
support national programme

 Develop Cooperative Agreement

 Extend WWF Cooperative
Agreement beyond April 2003
as part of USAID Phase Out
Plan or develop follow-on
activity

 Implement inter-SO synergy
recommendations

 Encourage donor coordination

 Utilize opportunities for
regional funding of
CBNRM programme
support

 Support documentation of
lessons learned and ìfewer
products more capacityî
approach

 Encourage documentation of
synergies between CBNRM,
economic growth and poverty
alleviation, grass roots
democratisation, improved
NRM and biodiversity
conservation
38
Lead Action Items and Timeframe
Organization Initiated by December 2001 Completed before November
2002
Completed before October
2004
Longer Term
with NNF to manage LIFE Grants

 Initiate inter-SO coordination

 Initiate extension of WWF
Cooperative Agreement through
April 2003.

 Initiate recruitment of social/
institutions specialist and house with
appropriate partner organization

 Proactively support design and
approval of GEF project

 Work with RCSA to insure that
AWF/4-Corners project makes
appropriate contacts in Namibia
(MET, Caprivi Governor and
NACSO)
in support of CBNRM

 Support organization of a
Regional Workshop
highlighting LIFE/CBNRM
programme accomplishments,
lessons learned and evolving
strategies, tools and approaches
Other donors 
 GEF/World Bank: Continue project
preparation

 Support preparation of sustainable
financing strategy for national
CBNRM programme

 GEF/World Bank: Finalize
project and initiate
implementation

 Provide continued funding of
critical support services to
enable Conservancies to
become sustainable

 Ensure support for CBO
planning/ management
support teams beyond 2006
(estimated period of peak
demand)

 GEF/World Bank: Review
implementation of Phase I
and prepare documentation
for Phases II and III

 Assist with implementation
of sustainable financing
strategy for the national
programme
39
Annex A
Areas of Operation for Nacso Partners
40
Annex B
Recommendations for USAID
1. LIFE and USAID Program Priorities
From its inception the LIFE program has been targeted at a) economic development and the
improvement of rural livelihoods in the Conservancy areas of rural Namibia, b) environmental
management of wildlife and related natural resources and c) empowerment of Historically
Disadvantaged Namibians through democratic participation in the creation and management of
Conservancy organizations. This Review has recommended that in the next phase of the program
priority be given to deepening the empowerment and participation dimensions of the program
and securing and increasing the economic benefits that accrue to Conservancy members. These
are USAID program priorities.
2. The Regional Importance of LIFE
The Africa Bureau has supported CBNRM programs in a dozen countries. LIFE has been and
continues to be a leader in innovative CBNRM programming in the Africa region. As
documented by this Review, Namibiaís National CBNRM Programme has reached a critical
juncture and needs continued support. Experience gained and lessons learned in Namibia will
benefit USAID programs across the continent and around the world. USAID/Namibia should
solicit AFR/SD and RCSA support and offer to host a regional meeting to showcase the
accomplishments of the LIFE program and share lessons learned with other USAID Missions
and their partners including lessons from program phase out (e.g. CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe and
the CBNRM program in Botswana). The arrival of a new Director at the RCSA provides an
opportunity to discuss a regional approach to CBNRM programming, including possible links to
DFIDís CBNRM support which is scheduled to become regional rather than bilateral over the
next several years.
3. Life after LIFE-II
The Review Team strongly recommends that USAID continue to support the CBNRM program
in Namibia for the next ten years. As discussed in the Report, the CBNRM program is already
having important impacts and has great potential to improve the lives and livelihoods of an
important segment of Namibiaís rural population. USAID has made a major investment in
CBNRM already. Walking away at this point, just as the program is beginning to really take
hold, just as the GRN is (finally) establishing a CBNRM Unit in the MET, just as the Namibian
Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO) is becoming fully operational, just as
the return on this major investment is starting to be realized, would be irresponsible. Rural
communities of Historically Disadvantaged Namibians have had their hopes and expectations
raised by the CBNRM programme. It is important for USAID to stay engaged.
41
4. Transboundary Natural Resource Management
A new RCSA-funded Transboundary Natural Resource Management (TBNRM) program is just
getting underway in the 4-Corners area of Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia and Botswana. LIFE has
a central role to play in this new regional program. LIFE has a robust set of partners that can
provide essential technical assistance in the TBNRM activity. To a large extent, the 4-Corners
Activity needs the collaboration of the LIFE program more than the reverse. That said, the 4-
Corners activity can bring regional skills and resources to bear on issues affecting the LIFE
Program, particularly those requiring international collaboration. Additional background on this
program is found in annex I.
Recommendations:

 USAID needs to strengthen its official liaison with GRN on TBNRM. Though this is
essentially the responsibility of the RCSA, it should not be ignored by the Namibia Mission

 The TBNRM program must support local initiatives and actors already in place. The 4-
Corners Activity should make every effort to avoid the perception or the occurrence of
competition with the national program.

 Close collaboration is necessary to prevent dilution or duplication of effort. An initial
memorandum of understanding is being drafted. This understanding should be reviewed
periodically and communication systems established in order to avoid duplication of effort
5. From Management to MentoringóImplications for Performance Monitoring and
Reporting
The Review has recommended that WWF move from the front seat in LIFE implementation to a
back seat, from a management to a mentoring role. While the pressure on programs to produce
ìresultsî continues to be strong, Namibian ownership and management of the program must be
the highest priority at this point in time. Given LIFEís central role developing the National
CBNRM Programme, National Programme accomplishments are a valid proxy for USAID
results in CBNRM and should be used in R4 reporting.
6. Inter-SO Coordination and Synergy
USAID/Namibia has initiated some inter-SO coordination and synergy and is poised to more
proactively pursue additional opportunities. Opportunities identified during the review include:

 With SO1 (Private Sector Development)
ï Continued funding of LIFE Joint Venture Specialist Roger Collinson
ï Using the new SME program to support CBNRM enterprises

 With SO4(Democracy & Governance)
ï Linking the new civil society development/advocacy program implemented by NID
to NACSO institutions and CBNRM issues
ï Using new civil society IQC with MSI to support capacity building for CBNRM
service providers and further development of Conservancy Associations.
ï Linking WIDTECH support grants on womenís property and inheritance rights with 3
NACSO members (LAC, NDT and UNAM) into LIFEís analytical agenda
42
ï Exploring opportunities to use Phase II NDI support to Parliament for work on
CBNRM issues with relevant Committees and/or engage on relevant legislation (e.g.
Communal Lands Bill)

 With SO5 (HIV/AIDS)
ï Moving from talking about linkages to reviewing options and developing a plan to
make this happen. Specific suggestions on links between FHI, the Social Marketing
Association (SMA) and the CBNRM programme are presented in the report and in
annex F.
7. Program Implementation Mechanisms beyond 2002
Grants Management
WWF/LIFE currently manages 10 grants (NACOBTA, RISE, Salabala, IRDNC, NNF/Capacity
Building, MET CBNRM Support, Nyae Nyae, MET Training, NACSO and Rossing Foundation
Crafts). Management of these grants needs to be transferred to NNF in a deliberate, phased
manner that prevents unnecessary disruptions. At the same time USAID needs to develop a
Cooperative Agreement with NNF so that funding for grants can be moved directly instead of
passing through WWF. This process should begin immediately.
Technical Support and Mentoring
The Review Team recommends that the WWF Cooperative Agreement be extended through
April 2003 (for its full 10 year life) and that the WWF/LIFE Team be kept in place through this
period. Whether the Team stays physically together in Kenya House or splits and moves into
other NACSO organizations depends on whether USAID support will be phasing out in 2004 (as
currently planned) or can be continued beyond this point. If the phase out is to be in 2004 (or
earlier), the Review Team recommends that the WWF/LIFE Team be kept together to maximize
their joint contribution to the national programme. While splitting the Team and incorporating
them into Namibian institutions might be politically correct, it would be operationally
cumbersome and, more importantly, would hamper the synergies which have been important in
getting the NRM and business development pieces of the program off to a rapid start in recent
months. If the program can be continued beyond 2004, the design of the follow-on activity
should include technical assistance that starts off incorporated in NACSO partner organizations
from the beginning..
In our view, a change in working style is more important than physical location at this
point. We recommend that all WWF/LIFE job descriptions be revised and that mentoring of
Namibian counterparts become the highest priority task for the remainder of the Cooperative
Agreement, with clear performance measures that are tracked and reported on.
The Review Team recommends that the WWF/LIFE Team needs additional enterprise
development expertise and that the National Programme needs additional social/institutional
expertise, recruited locally if possible. The rationale for these additions is presented in annexes F
and C respectively. The Team is acutely aware that adding staff while entering a phase out mode
is counterintuitive, and all the more so with a declining budget. We believe that costs savings
will be possible through implementation of the Teamís recommendations on more streamlined
planning, use a Training of Trainers approach and a bottom-up, demand driven provision of
43
support services to conservancies. Whether these savings will be sufficient to cover these
additional positions is something that the LIFE Steering Committee will need to carefully
consider.
8. Contracting Options beyond April 2003
Scenario #1
USAID/Namibia closes in 2005, and there is little likelihood of a regional non-presence program
thereafter. Options:

 As part of a Mission Phase Out Plan, get OP to agree to an extension of the 10-year limit on
the original Cooperative Agreement for an additional two years to May 2005.

 If this is not possible, use the G/ENV Global Biodiversity Program Leaders with Associates
program as a bridging mechanism.
Scenario #2
USAID/Namibia closes in 2005, and there is a reasonable likelihood of a regional non-presence
program thereafter.

 Extend the current WWF Cooperative Agreement through April 2003.

 Design and contract a follow-on to LIFE-II including the handover of management
responsibility from USAID/Namibia to the RCSA.
Scenario #3
USAID/Namibia stays open beyond 2005

 Same option described in #2 above without the regional/non-presence element.
We recommend that the position of CBNRM Policy Advisor, funded directly by USAID, be
continued. Once the MET CBNRM Unit is staffed, the Policy Advisor should become a
counterpart to the head of this Unit and his job description rewritten to reflect these new
responsibilities.
9. CBNRM Coordination and Information Sharing
NACSO hosted a very useful meeting for USAID and the Review Team with several donors
involved in CBNRM programs. There is currently no system for regular meetings of this type.
As part of protecting its investment and insuring a smooth phase out of assistance (whenever that
will occur) we recommend that USAID actively support periodic meetings of this type as well as
joint field trips.
10. GEF Biodiversity Conservation and Integrated Ecosystem Management through the
Namibia National Conservancy Program
This proposed GEF project will provide critical support to the National CBNRM Program.
USAID needs to be proactively engaged in insuring that the project happens. If interventions are
needed at higher levels in the GEF or World Bank, AFR/SD and PPC/ENV can and should be
called upon for assistance.
44
11. A USAID/Namibia ENV Virtual Team
A Virtual Team can provide much needed support on issues ranging from budget allocations to
R4 reviews to technical backstopping. The Namibia ENV program already has a network of
supporters both in Washington. We recommend that this Virtual Team be formalized and that it
include members from RCSA, AFR/SD, AFR/SA, AFR/DP and the new Global Pillar Bureaus
(ENV, DG, Economic Growth).
45
Annex C
The Conservancies
Introduction
This section focuses on the programme placing conservancies centre stage. It follows a
consistent them, with the considerable progress made by the programme establishing an
imperative to build on this success by climbing to higher levels. This will require significant
changes in tactics and approaches.
Thus section 2.1 illustrates the growth in conservancies as a response to new policies, awareness
training and empowerment opportunities, but this introduces the new challenge of strengthening
conservancy institutions be democratising them to be accountable to their constituencies.
Section 2.2 illustrates the expansion of the wildlife resources in response to the considerable
efforts over fifteen years. This makes possible the massive financial opportunities described in
section 2.3, but also requires that steps are taken to achieve this potential.
Achieving these commercial opportunities will ensure the financial sustainability of
conservancies. In anticipation of self-funding, autonomous conservancies, and as a response to
the ballooning demand for services, it is recommended (section 2.4) that the programme reverse
its delivery system, with more emphasis on financial planning, the purchasing of services, and
the development of Conservancies as integrated community management units. This ëlooserí
approach paradoxically will require ëtighterí performance monitoring to keep in on track
(conforming to the loose-tight nature of the devolutionary process9
), and in this regard more
business-like performance monitoring systems are necessary (section 2.4.3). Finally, we re￾emphasize the importance of institutional sustainability. There is an over-riding recommendation
that the empowerment of Conservancies with rights, knowledge, training and benefits, must be
accompanied by a sound process of democratisation that ensures transparency and accountability
to common rural people. If not, the programme faces ultimate collapse through the
disenfranchisement of people from their wildlifeówhat Murphree has christened ìaborted
devolutionî.
 
9
 See Peters and Waterman, In Search of Excellence.
46
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Figure C2 Area in Registered Conservancies 
(hectares)
Figure C1 Growth in Conservancies
0
20
40
60
1996 2000 2001
Interest shown
Emerging
In process
Registered
1. Institutional Foundations for CBRNM Achievements
1.1 Growth of Conservancies
Much effort has been invested in creating awareness, and in taking communities through the
process of conservancy formation. This has led to considerable demand for services from the
supporting organisation, with demand outstripping supply.

 Communities responded rapidly to the 1996 amendment to the Wildlife Ordinance. By 2001,
14 registered as conservancies; 9 were well underway; work has been initiated on 11
applications; and 14 areas have shown interestótotal: 48 (figure C1).

 The many communities learning about and interested in joining the programme are indicative
of valued added.

 Some 31,940 people live in registered conservancies.

 Constitutions are in place in 16 conservancies, constitutions are recently developed or in
preparation in 18 conservancies; and the process is yet to start in 14.

 Registered conservancies cover 3,929,000 hectares (figure C2).

 Grants have been made to 32 conservancies, totalling some N$3,690,404 annually.

 Most established conservancies have and manage game guards or resource monitors and
other staff.

 Conservancies are providing a
mechanism to voice and co￾ordinate issues of common
interest. They are also allowing
communities to begin to address
their concerns with authorities,
with relationships developing
with governors, regional and
local government and
councillors, and Regional
Development Coordinating
Committees.

 The growth in the number and
scope of Conservancies has
outstripped the monitoring
processes put in place by the
LIFE programme. Conservancy
Management profiles are
available for Conservancies
directly funded and supported
by LIFE for 2000. Note: 2001 numbers are projected.
47
Box C1
The Efforts Required To Develop a Conservancy: Kwandu
It is easy to underestimate the effort required to establish 14 conservancies and to support the
emergence of nearly 30 more conservancies over the past 5 years. The case of Kwandu
Conservancy in the Caprivi region is perhaps illustrative of the lengthy, complicated and time￾consuming process that has been most often followed; it could not have been done without the
consistent support of dedicated and competent field staff with support organizations like
IRDNC, NNDFN, RISE, NDT, Rossing Foundation and others and the WWF/LIFE team.

 1996óInterested community members reviewed the information in the conservancy Tool
Box with Ministry staff, and began to increase their awareness of the conservancy
program

 1997óThe community proceeded to define the membership of the conservancy, and over
the next few years, signed up more than 1600 adults

 1998óConservancy members elected a Management Committee at their Annual General
Meeting and completed the process of preparing their constitution, laying out an agreed
upon resource management strategy, principles for benefit distribution.

 1999óAfter more than two years of discussion and negotiation, the members reached
agreement with neighboring communities on the boundaries of the conservancy; with the
assistance of the MIU, a map and boundary description was prepared

 June 1999óIn consultation with MET, the conservancy application is formally submitted
and forwarded to the Ministry for consideration

 December 1999óAfter an internal review by MET to ensure compliance with the
provisions of the conservancy legislation, the Minister approves the application and the
conservancy is officially gazetted

 2000óConservancy Game Guards and Community Resource Monitors are employed to
monitor resource use, and to educate the members about sustainable use of natural
resources; building on the information gained during study tours to Zambia and Botswana
as well as other capacity building and training workshops, the Conservancy discuss and
begin to make plans to control fire, manage fisheries resources, initiate a craft enterprise,
develop a campsite and tourism joint venture, control timber poaching and manage a
community forest within their Conservancy.

 July 2001óThe conservancy hosts an Integrated Planning Workshop, to review their
Vision and Strategy, outline a Development Plan and to take stock of the information
available and needed to proceed with the preparation of more detailed Management and
Implementation Plans. The Zonation Plan will serve to orient crop cultivation and grazing
in areas not targeted for wildlife and tourism uses; revenue from the Game Products Trust
Fund will be used to develop water sources.
48
Table C1 Status of Progress with Selected Activities
Selected Activities Number
Emerging conservanciesónot yet registered 34
Conservancies with active natural resource monitoring 28
Conservancies with bank accounts 17
Conservancies with constitution in use 16
Registered and established conservancies 14
Support for crafts 14
Office established for staff and meetings 11
Campsites developed 10
Conservancies with regular, well attended annual general meetings 10
Conservancies with democratic sub-units 8
Conservancies with more than $100,000 in annual income 5
Safari hunting organized 5
Development plan and/or NRM plans under preparation 5
Game hunting (own use) and meat distribution underway 4
Local employment from Guiding for Tourism 4
Exclusive High Cost Joint Ventures negotiated 4
Conservancies with Benefit Distribution Plan in use 3
Natural resource management plans prepared 3
Conservancies that regularly forward NR monitoring data to relevant
government agencies
1
Natural resource management plans that have been formally reviewed,
approved and recognized by relevant government agencies
1
Financial self-sufficient (income covers recurrent cost expenditures) 1
Conservancies with functional performance monitoring and reporting system 0
Adaptive resource management system based on a completed management plan
in place and operational
0
Integrated development plans prepared, adopted and implemented in
collaboration with relevant government services
0
Access to/use of commercial credit 0
As table C1 makes clear, the majority of the focus has been on conservancy formation. The
initial emphasis on socio-economic information gave way to increased emphasis on natural
resource monitoring10 and, very recently, to commercial development11. However, as energy has
shifted, early priority areas have been neglected, with institutional functioning (see below) being
a particular gap. The increasing complexity of the programme implies a need for a carefully
designed performance-compliance monitoring system, both to track progress and to maintain its
balance.
 
10 Driven by Dr. Greg Stuart-Hill (LIFE) and the virtual team (partly LIFE-supported) he coordinates.
11 Supported in LIFE by Rodger Collinson, Andee Davison and Usiel, in collaboration with NACOBTA and using
consultants (e.g. Peter Ward).
49
Box C2 Support Provided to Conservancies
Conservancy committees receive outside support from the time
their community indicates an interest in forming a conservancy.
They receive assistance in:

 forming a committee,

 developing a constitution,

 registering members, and

 identifying and mapping boundaries.
Once gazetted, they often receive:

 A grant and/or financial assistance from the program to
cover operating costs including personnel (i.e., community
game guards, community resource monitors/activators, and
a manager),

 Equipment (i.e., fencing, uniforms, weapons?), even
vehicles

 Some transport and meeting costs.

 Their appointed treasurer receives training in financial
management.
Conservancy committees receive training in

 the ìroles and responsibilitiesî of each committee member,

 sometimes in conflict management when boundary disputes
and other problems arise.
Despite this grounding, committees universally requested
further training and expressed a continuing need for outside
capacity building assistance. If training is directed at only 1ñ2
persons for each specific topic (e.g. financial management), it is
possible that the capacity being built is very shallow.
1.2 Building on Success: Instituting Participatory Democratisation
This growth presents a major logistical and intellectual challenge for the programme. The
programme has made an excellent start in developing the basic institutions on which to build a
programme (i.e. the Conservancy Committees). It has also created the demand and momentum
for conservancy formation. The programme is now in the challenging position of servicing more
conservancies while simultaneously needing to increase the institutional sophistication of the
model.
It is critical, as will be explained below, to address the opportunity of making these committees
accountable to their constituent communities. Careful design of conservancy institutions in the
light of mistakes made elsewhere in the region, will allow Namibia to pre-empt the aborted
devolution that has usually followed the scaling down of external support and oversight (i.e. top￾down over-sight). Indeed, unless institutions are strengthened, and especially deepened and
democratised, the programme is unlikely to be institutionally sustainable.
In our short trip, we have
already seen the warning
signs of re-centralisation
and empowerment albeit at
the conservancy level. The
root cause of this is what
we might term ìfloating
committeesî, that is
committees that are only
weakly linked and
accountable to their
constituency. It is naÔve
(and ultimately dangerous)
to build institutions on the
assumption that
communities are any more
egalitarian than the rest of
humanity. Failure to make
committees powerfully
accountable to their
constituencies puts them at
great risk that they will be
captured by elite groups.

 Committees are
ëelectedí in ways that
may not be very
democratic, and most
(when interviewed)
were unable to say
when they expected to
50
stand for re-election. Before further empowering committees with information, training and
financial support, and especially before self-earned benefits begin to flow, it is essential for
the sustainability of the programme that these institutional problems are rectified. It is
expensive to empower and train small groups, and the shallowness of such interventions is
also risky (box C2).

 Conservancy committees have not addressed benefit distribution adequately and are not
receiving support from outside to address it. Money is consequently accumulating in bank
accounts. Some communities expressed frustration regarding the challenges of full
community dialogue to decide this matter (Torra). Others unilaterally allocated money to
village groupings (Salambala), although this amounted to only 20% of income and was not
really a community decision. Apart from the challenges this places on Conservancies, there
are several indications that senior officials and politicians are highly critical of the
programme on this point. This poses the dangers of reversal.

 While the team was not in a position to look at Conservancy accounts in any detail, there was
at least one example where the Conservancy was not integrating receipts from enterprise
development and hunting into the general financial management structure established for
grants management (Mayuni). Thus there is substantial potential for financial
mismanagement with these funds, especially given the point above on inadequate community
representation on committees. While this is unlikely to occur in the early stages of the
programme when over-sight is effective, it can rapidly become a serious problem, especially
when Committees become more familiar with the system and its weaknesses.
The team therefore recommends that significant efforts are made throughout the programme
to develop ëvillageí organisations as the basic building blocks of conservancies. This
suggestion was strongly endorsed at the workshop to discuss the teamís findings. The
development of Village-based institutions as the building block of participatory democracy can
overcome many of the challenges we have just listed.
1.3 By Way of Explanation: Alternative Local Governance Structures
Before analysing the way forward it is useful to define two alternative systems of democracy
applicable to rural communities. Representational democracy and participatory democracy
represent fundamentally different systemsótop-down versus bottom-upóand are also useful
shorthand in justifying our recommendations for a more sophisticated institutional model.
There is evidence that participatory democracy is a significantly more efficient and effective
form of governance.

 It is better able to use money for project or activities, and is several magnitudes more
accountable because of in-built checks-and-balances.

 It is a form of governance conducive to empowerment and democratisation.

 The high level of participation and proprietorship by all members of the community make it a
powerful tool for changing attitudes towards wildlife and towards governance in generally.

 In particular it creates awareness that people are citizens with rights, rather than subjects
operating under the instructions of those at higher levels.
51
Representative democracy

 Each sub-set of the community elects
an individual to represent them on the
committee that governs their affairs.

 Decisions are made by these
representatives (not the people), and
are passed back to the community.

 Communication between committee
and community is seldom effective.
While representational democracy may
be effective where communities conform
to rules and rely on written
communications, it appears to be
ineffectual in Africa where oral
communication is the primary mode for
information, where laws have limited
legitimacy in formerly oppressed
communities, and especially where
peopleís rights to democratic justice are
still weakly entrenched.
Participatory democracy
Recognizes that people can communicate face-to￾face to establish social checks-and-balances where
the size of the group does not much exceed 150
adults.

 Breaking larger communities into sub-units at
this scale

 All decisions are made collectively in general
meetings of the community.
The fundamental power structure is altered in
favour of the constituency.

 Unlike representation democracies, the people
make decisions collectively and instruct the
committee to execute these (it should only have
the power to make operational decisions to
implement its instructions, and should be
disallowed from making allocatory or strategic
decisions).
This structure fundamentally reverses power
relations. It is especially suited to promoting
grassroots participation, buy-in, transparency and
democracy.
Operationalising regular reporting on its
performance and finances to its constituency is
easy, essential, and should be a conditionality.
Box C3 Comparing Representative and Participatory Democratic Institutions
In short, it can create cultural change, and any meaningful transformation of governance can only
be sustained when people expect something different as a matter of course. This last point
reflects the argument that changes are only really solidified when peopleís mind-maps and
expectations are altered.
Data from a similar programme, designed to combat some of the weakness demonstrated by
proto-CBRNM programmes (CAMPFIRE, ADMADE) provides quantitative evidence that
participatory governance is several orders of magnitude more effective in most aspects of
community development including financial accountability, implementation of projects,
transparency, proprietorship, empowerment, capacity-creation, equity, and community
participation and attitudinal buy-in/shift (the key to commitment is involvement).
1.3.1 Bottom-up institutions and empowerment
The Second Generation CBNRM model is powerful institutionally. By empowering village
groups to take responsibility at the scale where social forces operate well, the community
becomes far more internally responsible for dealing with complex issues such as gender, ethnic
representation, internal politics and the like. This unburdens the external facilitator from direct
52
responsibility, and the facilitator can assume the healthier role of providing information and
ideas regarding these issues.
If the high levels of participation are complemented by information and ideas, these structures
can be sensitive to gender, ethnicity, etc. When they are well informed, they are also able to
challenge long-entrenched hegemonies. For this reason, it is particularly important that such
systems are complemented by sound information, especially financial, and on an insistence on
regular and effective information flows. They appear well able to re-act to the feedback of socio￾economic and other information to improve decision-making.
Table C2 Illustration of the Power of Participatory Democracy
1.3.2 Bottom-up institutions: converting wildlife from a public to a private (community) asset
A second tenet of CBNRM, which is incorporated into the LIFE programme development
hypothesis12, is related to the evaluation of wildlife by communities. CBNRM evolved from the
understanding that people value privately owned assets over public assets, and modified
legislation accordingly to transfer wildlife from public to private (or private-community) control.
As the figure illustrates, however, the LIFE programme has not yet taken full advantage of the
spirit of the legislation to achieve this. Wildlife remains a public asset, though at the level of the
conservancy, and will be devalued for this reason. As figure 3 (a) Perception of Benefit
illustrates, if full advantage of the legislation is taken to ensure that wildlife benefits flow
upwards through the hands of villagers it not only becomes valued as a private asset but the
process of managing this private asset in a community forum has large benefits in terms of
empowerment, democratisation and community organisation and capacity-building. This will
have impacts on attitudes towards wildlife, as shown in (b) which illustrates the magnitude of
this shift as measured in the LIRDP programme.
 
12 World Wildlife Fund ìProposal for Phase II of the Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE) Programme August 1,
1999ñOctober 21, 2002î, p. 3 states, ìÖthat communities will manage natural resources when they can see value in
doing so. Common resources which are not contributing to community welfare will be seen, at best, irrelevant and,
at worst, something to eliminate.î
Indicators Representative democracy
(linked to traditional
leadership)
Participatory democracy
Misappropriation of
community funds
40% 0.8%
Projects constructed in a
similar period
10 350+ (schools, clinics, wells, micro￾businesses, etc.)
Involvement of people Less than 5% At least 20,000 people attend meetings
and are fully aware of their rights,
programme objectives, wildlife values,
etc.
Attitude shift towards
conservation
80% opposed to wildlife 90% favour wildlife
Culture of governance Accept ëfeudalí conditions,
and act as subjects
Strong pressure towards democracy, and
awareness of their rights as citizens.
Source: B. Dalal-Clayton and B. Child, 2001, Lessons from Luangwa, IIED; unpublished data from
Child.
53
The shift in governance is illustrated by figure. In the first generation model (left hand side) we
not that revenues flow downward and that people are consequently subjected to decision made
on their behalf. Since decisions about wildlife benefits are made by Committees rather than the
people themselves, inefficient choices are made. In effect, wildlife remains a public asset.
Consequently, wildlife is under-valued by people, and the likelihood of positive attitudes
developing are lower than they could be.
Turning the system upside down, as with Second Generation CBNRM programmes, has dramatic
consequences. People are empowered to control the decision-making process, the essence of
democratic citizenship. By allowing people the full choice over the choice of what to do with
wildlife revenues, wildlife is effectively converted from a public to a private (albeit at the
community level) asset. Not only are economic choices optimised from the perspective of the
community, but in organising the community to make these choices there are large potential
gains in the form of improved organisational and governance systems, participation and learning.
As the figure shows, the same benefits from wildlife under a top-down system are considerably
magnified in the eyes of the community through a bottom-up system. The impact on attitudes is
an order of magnitude more powerful.
This shift in the valuation of wildlife by communities lies at the heart of the Namibian CBNRM
programme.
1.3.3 Service delivery
Intuitively, the scale of delivery to a large number of Community Action Groups rather than far
fewer Conservancies appears onerous. This appears not to be the case in practice. For instance in
the table comparing the use and cost of support staff in Luangwa and Caprivi presented below, it
is interesting to note that the Luangwa system supports 43 Village Action Groups in six
Conservancy equivalents. The benefits of the participatory democracy appear to extend counter￾intuitively to service delivery. Interestingly, Khoadi Hoas, which is regularly quoted as a leading
example, is the single example of which we are aware that is based on participatory democracy,
in this case through its eights farmers sub-associations.
1.3.4 The status of governance in conservancies
Most of Namibiaís conservancies are representational democracies. Conservancies are comprised
of elected (and sometimes appointed) individuals who collectively represent some 2,500 people.
The dependence on grant funding means they are accountable upwards. They are also highly
responsive to external support and training, with the consequence that committee members are
considerably empowered. This is illustrated in the left side of the following figure, which
emphasizes the top-down character of the present conservancies and support systems. It is highly
recommended that a wide range of measures be taken to replace top-down accountability with
bottom up accountability (as illustrated in the right half of the figure).
54
Figure C3 An Illustration of the Advantages of Bottom-Up Institutions Based on a Scale
of 150 Adults Able To Meet Regularly in a Participatory Forum
Benefits devalued by 
lack of choice, 
transparency
Projects 
Wildlife Income 
$$ 

 Cash 

 Projects 

 Management 

 Organizations 

 Empowerment
Value added by 
democratisation 
process
(a) perception of benefit 
Positive
Negative -80% 
+90% 
(b) peopleís attitudes towards wildlife 
Change in 
attitudes over 
time
Central 
Government
Regional Govt 
Chief 
Conservancy 
Committee
Village Group 
(Grass-roots community)
Wildlife Benefits
First Generation 
CBNRM Programme 

 Weak links between 
wildlife and 
landholders. 

 Perpetuates 
dependency. 

 People are ìsubjectsî.
Second Generation 
CBNRM Programme 

 Links wildlife and 
landholders. 

 Democratisation and 
empowerment 

 Capacity creating. 

 People are ìcitizensî.

 People empowered to 
decide. Committees act 
on their instruction.
What is the impact of wildlife benefits?
Conservancies a major 
improvement, BUT 
still operate top down. 
55
Constituency: 2,500 people organised into 
groups
Conservancy 
Committee
NGOS 
-Grant Funding 
-Training 
-Support
Top down 
Accountability
Action Group
150 adults 
Action Group 
150 adults 
Action Group
150 adults 
Committee Committee Committee 
Flow of revenue, 
information and 
therefore POWER 
REVENUE 
At least 80% to 
constituency. 
Flow of 
revenue, 
information and 
POWER 
1st Generation CBNRM Institutions:

 Top down revenue flows and 
accountability checks-and￾balances 

 Constituency are ësubjectsí
2nd Generation CBNRM Institutions: 

 Bottom-up revenue flows, empowering 
community to make decisions. 

 Accountability to constituency.

 Constituency become ëcitizensí with 
rights

 Accountable Transparent Equitable
Figure C4 Recommending a Shift in the Namibian CBNRM Programme to a Bottom-Up
1.3.5 Second Generation Institutional Model
Upward accountability (especially to the NGOs that service and fund them), is neither conducive
to institutional sustainability nor to wider participation of the community. There is already
evidence that Committees are only weakly accountable to their constituencies. In most
Conservancies visited committee members expressed difficulties in communicating with their
constituents. None were aware of election dates. This poses a serious threat to the sustainability
of the programme.
Both CAMPFIRE and ADMADE started with great promise, but failed to build constituent
accountability at an appropriate scale. Predictably, devolution was partially or entirely aborted
once the intensity of interactions with supporting agencies declined, and once the mechanisms of
top-down accountability were phased out. The over reliance on top-down checking mechanisms
56
Box C4 Institutional Framework
The basic building blocks of conservancies should be ìvillagesî of approximately 150 adult
members.

 Each village group should be constituted to empower the people/constituency to instruct
and hold accountable a Village Committee (with a requirement for quarterly general
meetings, accurate disclosure of finances and other activities, and regular elections).

 At least 80% (preferably 90%) of revenues should be allocated directly to villages, with
full choice and responsibility in allocating these revenues.

 All decisions and reporting should be at general meetings.

 The Conservancy Committee should therefore be comprised of elected Village
Committee officers (e.g. Chairperson, Secretary, Treasurer), and have as its primary
responsibility coordination.

 Following the principle of subsidiarity, higher levels should only assume implementing
functions that cannot be done at lower levels.

 The village should also be the primary action level of the conservancy institution.
proved unsustainable. The institutional bottom-up checks and balances to ensure the continuity
of participatory democracy were not internalised.
One can predict with some confidence that the present institutional structures will entrench the
power of committees, at the expense of accountability to the greater community.
1.4 Recommendations
Namibia, fortunately, has the opportunity of these lessons to develop more robustly democratic
institutions that entrench grassroots participation and transparency. The space allocated to the
justification for these recommendations recognizes that their effects on the performance and
sustainability of Namibiaís CBNRM programme are likely to be profound. There was strong
recognition of this potential amongst local implementers, especially at the field level.
1. It is strongly recommended that the LIFE programme reorganizes its conservancy
institutional structures to develop a sound framework upon which to hang all other aspects of
the programme.
2. It is also strongly recommended that democratisation and governance, imprecisely defined in
project outputs and indicators, be given greater prominence in the programme and be defined
clearly in key indicators.
3. Revenue sharing should be implemented as soon as possible, and in a bottom-up manner.
4. Consideration should be given to implementing grant management on a similar, bottom-up
basis, and at the minimum making the whole community, rather than only the Conservancy
Committee, aware of commitments and targets.
57
5. All support should reinforce these recommendations. Specific actions include:

 Linking conservancy grant agreements to a requirement for institutional structures that
incorporate participatory democracy through constituted village structures at sub￾conservancy levels.

 Monitoring the regularity, participation and content (especially financial reporting) of
community general meetings in the national CBNRM performance monitoring system.

 Designing revenue sharing systems to ensure bottom-up flows of revenue (at least 80%
and preferably 90% of revenues), with decisions on revenue allocation made at general
meetings at village levels (membership scale of 150 people).
6. In recognition of the loose-tight character of the devolutionary process, the devolution of
authority and benefit to lower levels must be accompanied by increased accountability for
performance and conformance with the democratic principles embedded in this process.
Carefully designed peer review of performance indicators should be instituted at four levels
(village, conservancy, regional quarterly meetings, national), using visualization techniques
wherever possible (following the example of the event book innovation).

 Example indicators:
1. The proportion of community income allocated at general village meetings.
2. Comparison of approved budget (by community at AGM) and actual expenditure
(variance analysis).
3. Attendance (male, female) at AGM and quarterly general meetings.
4. Quarterly approval of financial accounts by village general meeting (community
decision should be supported by an external audit).
5. Report on elections at AGM
To support the recommendation for devolution to the participatory level of governance, and that
for improved conformance-performance monitoring, some suggestions are provided for the Key
Performance areas and indicators that are useful in monitoring progress in achieving both
recommendations.
Box C5 Performance Monitoring Framework
Framework for Performance-Conformance Monitoring at the
National Level
Indicators
Key Performance Area 123 4
(Maximum)
1. Institutional function
2. Financial
accountability
3. NRM
4. etc.
5. etc.
If there are too many
controls, you lose control.
58
The over-elaborate tracking system developed by LIFE (e.g. Conservancy Profiles) is largely a
response to USAID requirements, and has already proved unsustainable in the face of
programme growth. It is recommended that s simpler, more comprehensive performance￾conformance monitoring system be develop and incorporated into the USAID reporting
requirements in place of the previous system.
Parallel Institutions
The sectoral nature of line Ministries and donors is giving rise to parallel institutions at the local
level, for instance different institutions for forestry, wildlife, water-points, etc. This was strongly
evident in Salambala. The empowerment of grassroots institutions can go part way to addressing
this, especially if the LIFE partners are pro-active in encouraging other institutions to use the
same community structures. In support of this, it would be strategic for the programme to
provide resources to support the emerging Regional Development Coordinating Committees.
With a relatively small input, working with the formative RDCCs is probably the cheapest, most
effective way of contributing to the coordination of sectoral inputs and local development. This
could also reap dividends through Regional Governorís and elected Councillors. The example of
Khoadi Hoas in providing a coordinating forum for technical agencies (FIRM) appears to offer
advantages, but should be analysed as to costs and effectiveness.
It is recommended that LIFE define a strategy and provide resources for strategically
supporting Regional Development Coordination Committees in key areas.
Table C3 Performance and Conformance of Decentralized, Accountable Institutions
Indicator Means of Verification What does data look like?
KPA1: Democracy, accountability and transparency
1.1 Dates of general meetings

 Attendance: males / females
Minutes (minimum performance is
quarterly)
1.2 Election report from AGM Local Facilitator Half page report
1.3 Previous yearís financial report

 Was it presented properly to
community (with audit report)?

 Did the community approve it?

 Submitted by
Conservancy

 Y/N Facilitator

 Y/N AGM minutes
One page financial report
1.4 Budget as agreed at AGM (indicates
spending priorities, and is a key
measure of community progress and
mindset).
AGM minutes Half page summary
KPA 2: Financial control and accountability
2.1 Financial statement Attach to AGM minutes;
also half-yearly
Standardised report
(manual needed to describe
this)
2.2 Audit report (by local facilitator) Prepared by facilitator,
checked by local auditor
Standardised report
(manual needed to describe
this)
KPA 3: Natural Resource Management
KPA 4: Joint Venture / Hunting
Etc.
59
Figure C5 Increase in Wildlife Populations in Northwestern Namibia
Wildlife Numbers in Northwest Communal Areas
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
1982 1986 1990 1998
Springbok
Oryx
Mnt Zebra
Elephant
Source: LIFE reports
2. Wildlife Recovery and Natural Resource Management
2.1 Trends in Wildlife Populations
An important impact of the Conservancy programme, and the Community Game Guard
Programme that preceded it, is the protection and increase of wildlife populations. Nowhere is
this more evident than in the Kunene area, where the forerunner of the present programme was
initiated by Garth Owen-Smith. Owen-Smithís intervention was a response to the decimation of
wildlife by the South African Defence Force, and recognised the contribution local people could
make in protecting it. By the early 1980s, there were thought to be only 50 elephants, 15 rhinos
and some 100 zebra surviving in the area. A serious drought followed this poaching, reducing
livestock from 160,000 to 15,000.
While Gibsonís data
suggests that wildlife
populations were
already so low that the
drought had little
discernable impact, a
series of good rainfall
yearsí also contributed
to expanding wildlife
populations.13 Gibson
also shows a large
range expansion for
wildlife, particularly
northwards which
corresponds with the
CBNRM programme
area.
The data for Nyae
Nyae reflects similar
trends (the loss of
giraffe is an external
factor related to deaths
in veterinary fences).
The incidents of illegal
hunting in Caprivi has
also fallen according
to MET statistics14
 
13 D. St.C. Gibson 2001 (ed.), Wildlife monitoring in North-Western Namibia.
14 Care is always needed in interpreting poaching data as the number of reported incidence is dependent upon the
search effort. Therefore, catch-effort ratios should be used to measure the level of poaching.
Figure C6 Increasing Wildlife Numbers in Nyae Nyae
W ildlife in Nyae Nyae Conservancy
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Encounter Rate
Elephant
Oryx
Giraffe
Hartebeest
Information from Community Rangers in Nyae Nyae indicates that populations of most plains game
species (e.g. Oryx and Hartebeest) are recovering. Giraffe, however, have declined, attributed to
mortalities along an newly erected veterinary control fence.
60
2.2 Evaluating These Trends in Monetary Potential
If we calculate how much direct income communities could earn if they used the
increasing wildlife populations, the investment in the CBNRM programme is easily justified.
The estimated value of the consumptive value of wildlife alone, used to near full capacity, is
some N$16 million, or US$2 million annually. This is close to the annual USAID investment in
the programme.
The improvement in wildlife
populations, especially charismatic
species such as desert elephants and
rhinos, and the general spectacle of
the scattering of wildlife across the
major Kunene tourism zone, has
important commercial consequences.
Community wildlife and natural
resource management has laid the
foundations for a major tourism
industry. The development of management systems, including the most impressive annual
vehicle counts of wildlife conducted in the North West, and Event Book monitoring systems will
be important in providing the data to better manage and maintain these valuable wildlife
populations. It will also be important for justifying the intensification of commercial use, for
which there is considerable potential. Indeed, given the stochastic nature of these arid
 
15 The number of animals is extrapolated backwards from the 2000 road count estimates using the proportional
growth rates from Gibson (2001). These are estimated for springbok, oryx, giraffe and zebra by averaging Gibsonís
data for Kaokoland and Damaraland (figures 23ñ30). Where species specific data is not available, a correction
factor that uses the weighted average change in the four mentioned species was used.
16 Values were calculated assuming all trophies were hunted, that the meat from trophies was sold, and that half the
potential cropping offtake was used.
Table C4 Increasing Wildlife Populations in Kunene
Number of
Animals15
Biomass Value16
1980 2,701 574,785 523,992
1990 31,734 2,853,616 4,698,932
2000 124,385 13,547,147 16,465,252
Potential 242,827 26,446,986 32,205,239
Figure C7 MET-Reported Incidents of Illegal Hunting in Caprivi
MET-Reported Incidents of Illegal Hunting in Caprivi
0
10
20
30
40
50
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
In the past, wildlife in the Caprivi had been subjected to extreme poaching pressure, which resulted in
steep population declines. Through CBNRM, poaching has now declined to around 10 reported
incidents a year.
61
environments, powerfully illustrated by the severe drought in the early 1980s, it is wise not to let
populations get too big.
2.3 Implementation of Management Systems
There has been considerable progress in the monitoring of wildlife and natural resources (the
ìEvent Bookî introduced by Dr. Stewart-Hill), surveys and counts with a comprehensive vehicle
census of all wildlife populations in the North West, mapping and satellite imagery, and
planning. This is discussed in annex G. But there is some concern that the tail (NRM) is wagging
the dog (the need for conservancies with a sustainable institutional and financial base), and that
the planning process needs to re-visited and broadened with financial sustainability as a primary
goal.
Figure C8 The Increasing Numbers and Value of Wildlife in
Northwestern Namibia
Wildlife Status and Trends in Kunene
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1980 1990 2000 Potential
Number of Animals
Biomass (x100kg)
Value (N$x100)
62
3. Commercial Opportunities and Conservancy Sustainability
3.1 Progress in Commercial Development
Until legislative changes in 1996 the programme was not able to take advantage of the highest
valued resources (tourism and safari hunting) and invested in developing small enterprise as
community level, with community camp sites and crafts being prominent. This has the advantage
that the financial basis of the programme is diverse relative to similar programmes in the region
(96% of CAMPFIREís income is still from safari hunting). This diversity, together with the
presence of grant funding, has allowed the programme to survive the Caprivi conflict. While
tourism halted almost completely, income and work was still provided by hunting and crafts.
The new legislation (1996) allowing the negotiation of hunting and tourism joint ventures, has
allowed the programme to begin to work through old attitudes to empower communities to
develop business relationships. This has resulted in a rapid increase in the revenues generated,
although by 2000 only four hunting concessions and a single high value tourism partnership
(Torra) was in place.
That this growth represents only the very beginning of the potential income growth curve is
recognized by the LIFE programme (figure C9). The recruitment of a tourism planner and
negotiator is already providing a boost to the programme, but the fact that it took almost two
years to recruit a suitable person in indicative of the dearth of these skills in the region. Technical
assistance initially recruited to support community-based tourism initiatives and the monitoring
programme have had to fill this gap.
Figure C9 The Wide Range of Activities Generating Income for Conservancies
N am ibian N ational C B N R M P rogram
2000 F inancial B enefits - $3,411,260
C ultural T ourism 1%
G am e M eat D ist. 1%
G am e D onation
23%
T hatching G rass 1%
C rafts 3%
Interest E arned 1%
Trophy H unting
12%
Joint V enture 
Tourism 11%
C am psites/C B T Es 
46%
T otal V alue of Incom e G enerated = $2,580,060
T otal V alue of N on-Financial B enefits = $831,200 
 (the m ajority of non-financial benefits are from gam e donations)
63
LIFE has estimated the potential income from the programme over the next five years. This data
suggests that the major growth areas are in trophy hunting, joint venture tourism and community￾based tourism enterprises. The estimated income by 2005 is approximately N$10 million
annually, nowhere near sufficient to transform the programme to self-sufficiency. As we will
show below, the potential is far larger than this, but requires targeted input in the form of tourism
planning and negotiating skills to achieve it.
3.2 Conservancy Sustainability
When analysing the National CBNRM and LIFE programmes, it is necessary to recognize that
the programme started from a near zero-base in terms of wildlife resource, institutions, and
human capacity. Immediate economic returns were impossible, nor expected, but would depend
upon investment in re-building this set of production capacities.
Barnes et al. (2001) developed detailed models to reflect a wide spectrum of conditions (based
on five conservancies: Torra, Khoadi Hoas, Nyae Nyae, Mayuni, Salambala). These, together
with the growth of wildlife initiatives on private land, confirm regional evidence that wildlife has
a comparative advantage and is a sound investment. Barnes concludes that:

 Conservancies are economically efficient and likely to be sustainable;

 Conservancies provide attractive returns for communities, even if donor input is calculated as
a cost;

 Achieving potential is highly dependent on the development of tourism joint ventures, with
safari hunting also being important;

 Restocking is only economically efficient, if the conservation values of wildlife are included.
Figure C10 The Rapid Growth in Conservancy Income
N am ib ian N atio nal C B N R M P ro g ram m e
Y ear 2 0 0 0 : $ 3 ,4 1 1 ,2 6 0 in B enefits E arn ed b y C o m m unities
$0
$ 5 00 ,0 0 0
$ 1 ,0 00 ,00 0
$ 1 ,5 00 ,00 0
$ 2 ,0 00 ,00 0
$ 2 ,5 00 ,00 0
$ 3 ,0 00 ,00 0
$ 3 ,5 00 ,00 0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
C o n se rva n cy N o n -F in a n cia l B e n e fits 
N R -b a se d H o u se h o ld /W a g e In co m e
C o n se rva n cy C o m m itte e In co m e 
Box C6 The Namibian Tourism Sector
Tourism in Namibia is the fastest growing economic sector, currently accounting for more than 20%
of Gross National Product, a turnover of N$1.2b, a 14% growth rate, and contributing 12% to
foreign exchange earnings. In 1998, some 350,000 tourists visited Namibia, with arrivals increasing
at 7% per annum. High-end tourism grew despite the 40% overall drop in tourism caused by civil
unrest in Caprivi and the region.
Source: North Central Regional Tourism Development Plan
Figure C11 Potential Income from the CBNRM Programme
$0
$ 5 0 0 ,0 0 0
$ 1 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
$ 1 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0
$ 2 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
$ 2 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0
$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
$ 3 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0
$ 4 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
$ 4 ,5 0 0 ,0 0 0
$ 5 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0
C om m u n ity￾b a sed T ou rism
E n terp rises
Trophy 
H u n tin g
J o in t V en tu re
T ou rism
F utu re Inco m e: 2 00 5
C u rre nt Incom e : 20 00
64
Barnes et al conclude that in most conservancies, the financial returns justify the community
investing in wildlife even without donor input. The donor contribution is certainly economically
efficient and can be justified in at least three ways:

 It represents a payment for non-use values, and is a willingness by rich nations to pay for
wildlife conservation in poorer ones.

 It hastens the path to sustainability.

 It compensates for past discriminatory practices.
It is reassuring that all conservancies are moderately resilient to such factors as the impact of
political instability on tourism, or animal rights on hunting, especially if they support multiple
uses and negative factors do not operate simultaneously.
Also note that this represents only the payment for the production of the wildlife asset by the
community. Tour operators then take this wildlife asset, convert it into a tourism product, and
add further value through outfitting or tourism services. The impact on the Namibian economy,
therefore, is considerably higher.
Table C5 Models to Assess the Financial and Economic Sustainability of Conservancies
Torra #Khoadi/
Hoas
Nyae Nyae Mayuni Salambala
Area (hectares) 352,200 386,000 900,095 28,400 93,000
Wildlife area 108,586 177,650 900,095 13,300 11,000
Households 120 700 700 450 1,200
Ha/LSU 30 25 15 12 12
Tourism potential High Good Fair High Fair
Safari Hunting potential Good Fair Good Low Fair
Return on Investment (Profitability)
Financial rate of return
(including donor costs)
44% 39% 18% 24% 17%
Figure C12 Tourism Economy in Northwest Namibia
0
50
100
150
200
250
Nam $ million
Actual Potential
Kunene and Erongo Tourism Income
Costs
Profits
Wages
Community
65
Figure C13 Tourism in Caprivi
-
50,000,000
100,000,000
150,000,000
200,000,000
Status Potential
East Cap riv i: Actu al an d Po te n tial 
Tourism Economy
Ec onomic impac t (multip=2) Turnover
Wages Community Div idends
Financial rate of return
(excluding donor costs)
133% 205% 154% 220% 40%
Economic rate of return 131% 66% 22% 126% 31%
Impact
Cash income per HH 3,388 598 675 1,628 355
Cash income (per Ha)
Economic Value added
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.2
0.5
0.3
26
29
4.6
4.9
Jobs created 8 12 26 22 12

 In rough terms, if the community makes $1.20/hectare from tourism in Torra, this represents
a direct tourism turnover of $6.20 to Namibia (five-fold). With a tourism multiplier
approaching 2.0, the economic impact on Namibia is about $12.40.

 Likewise, the safari hunting income of $0.5/ha in Nyae Nyae, translates into direct economic
turnover of $1.0 to Namibia (three-fold), or $2.0 when the tourism multiplier is applied.
The relatively poor performance of some conservancies reflects the inclusion of non-essential
expenditures. In Nyae Nyae, for instance, high employment is more of a social welfare
mechanism than an investment decision17. In other conservancies (not analysed here) there is
also a tendency to employ to many community game guards and to pay them too much. Such
over-expenditure is usually associated with supply- or budget-driven processes, that is
governments or donor as opposed to profit-seeking businesses.
3.3 Tourism Potential
In collaboration with the LIFE enterprise team and associated consultants, the status and
potential of each Conservancy in was described and assessed18. A spreadsheet was developed
listing all current and potential tourism ventures in Kunene and Erongo, as well as actual or
potential returns from this tourism. The results of this are provided in the graphic. While the data
is coarse, the conclusions are
nevertheless powerful.
These data are presented in
table C6. In addition to
showing how far the sector is
from achieving its potential
for the sector, the data
illustrate the weak bargaining
position of conservancies:
fees acquired by
conservancies equate to only
2.1% of enterprise turnover,
when regional experience
 
17 This is confirmed by the Nyae Nyae Development Trust and by the Sustainability Analysis for Nyae Nyae
Conservancy (July 2, 2001). There was some convisiton by programme partners that the dependency created in
Nyae Nyae is counter-productive, expensive, financially unsustainable, and needs to be reversed.
18 The full details behind these graphics are provided in a spreadsheet ìActual and Potential Tourism in
Conservancies 10 August 2001î.
Table C6 Tourism Economy in Northwestern
Namibia
Actual Potential
Impact on Namibian
economy
98,230,130 375,940,296
Enterprise turnover 49,115,065 187,970,148
Costs 43,949,502 149,009,590
Profits for operator 14,480,463 36,227,501
Wages to community 4,116,260 19,287,565
Community fees 1,049,303 19,672,993
Conservancy fees as a
percent of turnover
2% 10%
66
suggests that 10% is a fairer amount19, an assumption confirmed by data from the three
negotiations so far facilitated by the programme (table C7).
Achieving this potential will require the negotiation of some 40 high-end lodges and 10 middle￾range operations in the Northwest and approximately twenty elsewhere in Namibia, many of
these being in Caprivi (these figures tally closely with NACOBTAís independently derived
targets).
Table C7 Income from Some of the Better Joint Venture Arrangements in Conservancies
Damaraland Camp
(Actual 2000)
Twyfelfontein Country Lodge
(Actual 2000/01)
Spitzkoppe
(Proposed)
Bed occupancy 46% 31% 25%ñ50%
Average rate N$550
Turnover 2,504,924 5,307,296
Profit 399,132 (853,080)
Conservancy
Levies
230,725 (9.2%) 272,970 (5.1%) Guaranteed: $51,000ñ
$158,544
Predicted: $263,000ñ
$873,000
Formula: 10%
increasing to 12%
Wages $193,504 (7.7%) $1,112,142 (21%) $153,600 (Y1)ñ
$265,000 (Y10)
The situation in Caprivi is very similar (table C13), again showing potential for growth. In
Caprivi, communities are only attaining 0.3% of turnover as direct income to Conservancies.
Even the North Central Region has potential, according to the Tourism Development Plan which
estimates that the potential increase in this sector should generate between N$13.8 million and
N$25.3 million a year.
Both average data, and conservancy-specific assessments, suggest that all sixteen
Kunene/Erongo Conservancies should generate at least N$1 million annually in direct fees, plus
a similar amount in wages, without including the spin-off economic activities that this will
provide. This confirms the independent conclusion of Barnes et al, that most conservancies have
the potential for sustainability. A similar situation appears to prevail in Caprivi, and there is
potential in most areas.
We therefore conclude that:

 The tourism sector, including hunting, has a large potential to contribute to the sustainability
of Conservancies and the growth of Namibiaís rural and overall economy.

 This potential is not being attained.
 
19 It should be noted that 10% of enterprise turnover often represents more than half of enterprise ëprofití, especially
after the opportunity cost of capital is included in the calculation. However, ì10%î is often misperceived as being
unfairly low by communities, politicians and officials with limited commercial experience.
67
Box C8 An Example of Lost
Opportunities: Tsiseb
Irresponsible use of the environment is rifeÖ
Profit from Ugab Camp: $82,500
Lost profits:
1. Brandburg guidesóno fees
2. Small scale minersóno fees
3. SRT Ugab Riveróno fees
4. Uncontrolled 4x4 worth at least
$225,000ó$35 per night
5. Professional lodgeó$220,000 fees plus
$95,000 salaries.
Actual revenue: $206/member
Immediate potential: $1million, or
$2,512/member
Source: Peter Ward, Tourism Consultant.
People are getting a lot of value out of
conservancies without paying for it:
there has been at least N$1 million in
lost camping alone in Brandberg area.
Box C7 Comments from the Private Sector

 ìOne thing is certain in my view, and that is without the ongoing support of agencies such as LIFE,
we are going to go backwards at a time when the door has just opened to really exciting potentials in
community-based tourismî

 ì[the conservancy programme] is at the beginning of the exciting bitî

 ìÖ canít afford to lose momentumî

 ìgreat job in NRM. But no clue about businessóso who is benefiting?î

 ìhighly successful start, but need to change gear to take advantage of this [wildlife] foundationî

 ìneed to be more experimentalî
3.4 Factors Limiting the Growth
of the Tourism Sector
A major challenge for LIFE and the
national CBNRM programme is to
build off the resource/institutional base
they have developed, and to harness the
tourism sector to make conservancies
sustainable, a viewpoint shared by the private
sector.
At present the tourism industry that uses
conservancies is unplanned and uncontrolled.
The most visible influences are a large number
of 4x4s that drive wherever their fancy takes
them, leaving their tracks in the form of
garbage, illegal use of scarce firewood, 30m
wide tracks through sensitive habitats, and other
forms of irresponsible tourism. The burning of
Welwitchias for firewood has even been cited. The consequences of this lack of control are a
high ecological impact coupled with a low economic impact, with the share earned by
communities being pitiful. In essence, the conservancies are being raped.
These symptoms can be traced back to a central cause: the lack of control over access in
communal areas. A second cause is the lack of oversight of Namibian tourism, with little
accountability for correcting problems or grasping huge opportunities. While uncontrolled access
and weak tourism leadership manifests itself most visibly in the environmental damage and
uncontrolled 4x4 tourism, the damage is far wider and of great magnitude.

 Economically, open access to many areas means that this market benefits from spectacular
wildlife, culture and scenery without paying for it. Communities are the primary losers.

 Measures to proactively plan and develop tourism routes and sites are most notable for their
absence. As we have illustrated, this opportunity cost can be measured in the hundreds of
millions of dollars.

 Communal landholders have insufficient rights to control tourism on their land. As a result
they acquire a pitiful share of revenues, are unable to control irresponsible use, and are
68
hamstrung in developing their potential. Providing conservancies with the exclusive right to
tourism, and assisting them to negotiate joint ventures, should increase their income fivefold.

 One consequence is that a number of operators that have sites are not using them effectively,
since they are not required to pay a minimum use fee20. Some sites appear to be retained
largely for personal use, imposing a large opportunity cost on both Namibia and
conservancies.

 The planning of the sector, including many private sector operators, is unimaginative and
reactive. The range of services, the quality of product, and the rates charged, are generally far
lower than the regional average. Etosha, which could be used to spearhead the tourism
industry is symptomatic of the weak/unimaginative enabling environment. The lack of
control, vision and planning of the North Western tourism circuit, including Etosha, is costly
in terms of the environment, the quality of the tourism product, and the economic impact on
conservancies, the private sector and Namibia21.

 We should also note that the provision of subsidized access to wildlife and tourism
opportunities (a political subsidy provided under the apartheid government) is a policy that
undercuts the development of the tourism sector on both private and communal land.

 Work is needed at a policy/macro level to provide incentives to attract international investors
to the sector. The banking system is old fashioned. The tax structure has not been revised to
support new business, and the possibility of tax-breaks for investments in communal areas
and conservancies should be considered. While there is no shortage of small enterprise credit,
there is insufficient technical capacity to access these sources

 In a nutshell, proactive management by countries such as Botswana has captured the high
value, low impact market. The low value, high cost (environmentally) sector has been
ëexportedí to Namibia.
The tourism economy is large, but with imaginative and planned management it could be
quadrupled. The growth of the tourism sector in communal lands, and Namibia, is limited by:

 Open access to resources

 An unimaginative and unplanned industry

 The absence of performance clauses in tourism leases and PTOs.
In direct contradiction of national policy, conservancies fail to get an equitable share because:

 They do not control access, and are therefore disempowered with regard to tourism planning
and the negotiation of joint venture partnerships.
 
20 A similar situation in South Luangwa National Park was rectified by the introduction of ìTourism Concession
Agreementsî. These established an annual fixed fee (US$3,600 for a six-bed site), plus a variable charge of $30 per
bednight, with the operator obliged to pay for a 40% occupancy rate. At high levels of occupancy (65% of
bednights) fees were discounted by 50%. Thus, operators had a powerful incentive to fill beds because they were
charged regardless, and could make good profits if they reached a high level of occupancy. The net effect was to
increase park revenues from $200,000 to $750,000 annually within five years. 21 The tourism sector lacks capacity and leadership from the Tourism Directorate. The strategic cost of this is huge.
Management that is able to create leadership and vision is necessary to instigate the major changes needed to propel
Namibia forward as a quality tourism destination
69

 There are no clear policies and procedures regarding PTOs and hunting quotas. While MET
has informally stated that it will not grant PTOs to individuals, this needs to be agreed
formally and supported by naming a link person.

 Conservancies lack commercial knowledge and negotiating skills.
Quality personnel is needed to rectify limiting factors, working directly with conservancies to
develop their economic potential, and using this to work through policy and procedural
constraints affecting the sector as a whole.
If we take Spitzkoppe as an example, the input of roughly 100 person days of support (costing no
more than $250,000) has generated a guaranteed income to the community of $1.256 million,
and a projected income of $6.2 million plus $2.2 million in wages, over the next ten years. This
benefit: cost ratio of between 5 and 32 fold certainly justifies technical support to communities,
especially as it usually leads to sustainable business relationships between communities and the
private sector that will maintain the programme long after the donor and NGO support has
dissipated.
A rough stab at the support necessary to get some 70 joint ventures and a supportive policy and
procedural environment in place is provided in the figure. Note that this includes institutional
expertise to re-structure conservancies prior to their having to manage major financial flows, as
well as the training of young Namibians as business and tourism advisors22. This implies a
requirement for some fifteen people for at least five years, half of these being trainees. This is
obviously a major challenge to the programme. So is the development of Namibian
tourism/business advisory capacity, especially as there are probably less than ten people in the
region with the necessary combination of skills (community, business, natural resource and
tourism skills), at least two of who are already in the LIFE programme.
The optimisation of the tourism sector involves complicated trade-offs (e.g. campsites versus
lodges; volume versus price), and therefore should be carefully planned. This planning,
moreover, requires a better understanding of the industry and suggests that key market research
is necessary.
The recommendations (see
bottom of section) propose the
strengthening of a Commercial
Team, much like the team
already developed for NRM.
Three suggestions or issues have
consistently emerged:
 22 In Namibia there is a serious dearth of business consultants, and the business consultancy sector is extremely
weak. People cannot access credit (which is readily available) because they cannot develop good business plans or
help to do so. One estimate is that there are only four reliable consultants suited to these purposes in Namibia.
Figure C14 Personnel Required To Develop 70 Business
Partnerships and Address Related Issues
HR Requirements to Support Commercial 
Development of Conservancies
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
2001
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Year
Days per Year
1. Institutional Economist
2. Tourism Expertise
3. Business Advisors and
trainees
70
Box C9: The Ingredients in Tourism Circuits

 The region supports a combination of low, medium and
high-end tourist, using lodges priced anywhere from N$300
to N$1,600ñ4,000, in a mixture with organised and ad-hoc
camping.

 Visits to Swakopmund, Etosha and other national parks, as
well as farm stays are also part of this mix.

 In some cases there are trade-offs between, for instance,
camping and lodges, while in other cases they are
complementary.
This suggests that imaginative planning, with a commercial, a
quality, and an environmental foundation, is required at the
national, regional and conservancy level in order to optimize
this plethora of opportunities. Moreover, planning is only
useful if it is supported by control systems. Conservancies are
ideally situated to do this, but need to be legally and
operationally supported to implement control systems.

 This team should use the Environment Economics Unit of DEA (SIDA-funded) for
additional input to
commercial negotiations,
and economic assessment
and monitoring of project
impact, especially with
additional links to WILD
(DFID-funded) for field￾based livelihood impact
research.

 The team will need to
carefully manage the trade￾off between generating quick
revenues and high levels of
participation in the process,
which is why the
institutional capacity is
included in this team.

 An emerging issue is the
clash of individual
entrepreneurial initiatives
with the collective management of conservancies, with several of these entrepreneurs being
residents of the conservancies. As business is best done by individuals (rather than
committees) guidelines need to be developed to guide these relationship. A possible model is
to follow the lead of joint ventures and to encourage entrepreneurial activity within the
bounds of the conservancy commercial plan, charging through the use of fixed and/or
performance-proportional fees.
Interviews with the private sector have found them highly complimentary about the LIFE efforts
at facilitating negotiations, especially in reducing the transaction costs of entering into
partnership with communities. As noted above, however, they believe this capacity is way
inadequate to meet the demands for growth. The private sector also provided some useful
specific suggestions regarding the negotiation of these partnerships:

 Clear guidelines on procedures.

 A shortened negotiating process. They valued the mediation of LIFE and partners in reducing
transaction costs with communities (problems include: several different groups claim to
represent community; several NGOs do the same) but nevertheless suggested the process
should be further streamlined.

 A single negotiating /brokering point person from the beginning (noting problems with
knowing which community group and even which NGO to deal with). Tendency to lose
institutional memory and cumulative knowledge without this.

 External monitoring of compliance of both sides. This should be built into contracts with
external over-sight over implementation. They cited a misbalanced enforcement of contracts,
with the playing field stacked against the investor.

 Community expectations are often excessive and need to be made realistic.
71
Table C8 Summary of Financial Implications of Quota Setting in
Conservancies and Related Areas
Price
Received
for Quota
Estimated
value of
actual quota
Value of
Potential
Quota
How
conservative
is quota? %
Nyae Nyae 350,082 220,624 682,776 32%
Salambala 158,143 160,000 343,396 47%
#Khoadi /Hoas 140,701 343,760 704,457 49%
Torra 69,905 179,400 1,207,928 15%
Doros !Nawas 88,400 277,472 722,328 38%
Purros No quota 0 1,114,880
Ehirovipula No quota 0 357,400
East Caprivi 450,000 792,480
Bwabwata East 620,000 721,336
Bwabwata West 620,000 565,160
East Kavango 720,000 626,496
Other conservancies with huntable game populations:

 Matienfluss

 Orupembe

 Sanita

 Palmwag

 Etendeka

 Sesfontein

 Tsiseb

 Huab

 SorrisSorris

 There is need for
a central
investment/inform
ation point,
probably in
NACOBTA.

 Brokerage is a
challengeóthere
is deep-seated
mistrust from
both sides.

 WWF etc. have
played a crucial
role in brokering
and leading
conservancy
tourism, a role
that government
is failing to fill.
3.5 The Safari Hunting Sector
The safari industry presently earns some N$70 million annually, or $120 million when indirect
expenditure is included (NAPHA: Namibian Professional Hunters Association). Of the 3,200
international clients, some 2,800 are German with only some 200 Americans despite Americans
paying more. It is projected that the American clientele will soon rise to 1,000ñ1,500, with
Namibia having targeted this market for the first time this year. Efforts have also been made to
train black Namibian hunting guides. The pass rate of the 24 guides trained by NAPHA (through
Grellman) was over 80% compared to an average pass rate of about 4%.
There are strong indications that the potential of safari hunting in the Communal Sector is hardly
being touched. Only three conservancies in the Northwest currently have quotas (eleven have at
least some potential), and the quotas are extremely conservative (table C8), usually well under
half of what could be sustainable. This imposes a high opportunity cost on conservancy
communities. The same situation pertains to Nyae Nyae, and even to Salambala where more
imaginative and opportunistic use could be made of migrating populations. The quotas in state￾controlled areas (East Caprivi; Bwabwata) appear more realistic, though elephant quotas may be
excessive.
The procedures for applying for and receiving quotas also appear unclear, and need to be
improved, especially as they discriminate against wildlife producers on communal lands.
Having spent a lot of money on monitoring wildlife populations and improving the information
base, it is important that the opportunity to expand and improve hunting in communal areas is
taken. This requires expanded efforts in both the setting and approval of quotas and the
negotiation of concession arrangements with safari outfitters.
72
This capacity should be added to the Commercial Team through, at the very least, the continued
use of WWF SARPOs specialist skills in these areas. In this regard, it is recommended that
community-based quota-setting and management systems are introduced. Given the potential
value of this sector, serious consideration should be given to adding a person to the WWF
partnership for the specific purpose of developing:

 Procedures and norms for applying for and reporting on quotas.

 A national quota management system, including a database. A single institutional home
should be established for this census, quota and offtake data. Again, use of WWF/SARPO
experience, which has already implemented much of this, will save costs.

 The capacity of communities to set their quotas and manage their hunting businesses. This is
highly empowering. It teaches communities about wildlife management. It also demonstrates
the value of quotas, which is likely to result in pressure to streamline quota control and
monitoring process.

 Systems and norms to guide the negotiation of hunting contracts with the private sector.
Ensure availability of professional support to assist communities to negotiate and manage
hunting joint ventures.
The revenue implications are large. Imaginative use could also be made of own-use quotas by
bridging the gap between high wildlife populations and traditional hunting skills, on the one
hand, and the demand by tourists for biltong on the other.
3.6 Community Tourism Initiatives
NACOBTA has a well-balance donor support base with a total annual budget of some N$2.66
million (US$330,000), seven management or advisory staff, and about three administrative and
support staff. Membership has increased from 16 in 1995 to 45 in 2000, with at least 27
enterprises generating income ($1,533,142 in the year to September 2000).
Table C9 NACOBTA: Approximate Annual Budget
The gross annual income
from NACOBTAñ
supported enterprises is
$1,472,500, or only half
of NACOBTAís annual
budget. However, income
doubled from 1999 to
2000 and employment is
provided to 163 full time
staff (65 females) and 38
part time staff (15
females) in remote areas.
The number of tourists
visiting these sites
doubled from 30,000 to 58,900 in the past year. This is impressive growth given that security
LIFE SIDA DFID DFID
North
Central
TOTAL
Salaries 281,320 464,435 22,650 52,400 820,805
Consultancies 131,100 40,350 55,725 ñ 227,175
Equipment ñ ñ 85,000 ñ 85,000
Training 200,000 224,000 144,000 ñ 568,000
Marketing 121,380 100,500 72,000 30,000 323,880
Enterprise support 151,250 72,600 137,500 ñ 361,350
Travel 8,690 45,456 9,144 ñ 63,290
Audit 3,300 3,300 3,000 12,000 21,600
Other 88,100 3,500 30,900 ñ 122,500
Contingency ñ 45,850 23,746 ñ 69,596
985,140 999,991 583,665 94,400 2,663,196
73
NACOBTA is an example to follow where
support is carefully prioritized:

 A conservancy tourism plan.

 A review of the plan by the private
sectorówill they use the facilities?

 Feasibility study and business plan.
problems in Caprivi have affected at least six enterprises. NACOBTA provides useful services.
In the past two years basic tourism training has been provided to at least 14 communities, 13
have basic business plans, and 11 grants have been made ($162,000). NACOBTA has also
analysed CBTE financial systems showing that 8 are good, 13 fair and 7 poor.
NACOBTA has only recently entered into joint venture negotiations, and completed its first one
in 2000 (Uibasen Conservancy and Twyfelfontein Country Lodge). It predicts the need for some
70 such negotiations over the next fives years.
Without the possibility of deeper analysis, it appears that NACOBTA is providing a valuable
service, and has well organised systems for monitoring its inputs and prioritising grants.
The biggest question hanging over NACOBTAís priorities is that many of the enterprises it
supports are only marginally viable, and that the net economic impact of this effort would be far
higher if directed towards joint venture development. However, there is some consensus that this
is a valuable part of the overall process of incorporating communities into the tourism industry,
in that participation in CBTEís provides an
introduction to handís on management of tourism.
This was emphasized by the private sector, who
believed that running businesses was an important
part of the learning process and would lead to
improved joint venture negotiations. They
mentioned that 10% of turnover was actually a
large fee (and a large proportion of profit), and only when communities were involved in their
own businesses would they recognize this.
In general, NACOBTA appears to be working well. The only question is whether the
Commercial Team should be housed in NACOBTA, or should rather provide supporting services
and targeted mentoring. If housed in NACOBTA, it would change the nature of an organisation
that is already working well to provide a specific serviceóthe support of CBTEs.
3.7 The Craft Sector
The development of the craft sector has been supported by the LIFE partnership (primarily
through Rossing). Important interventions include:

 Training of local people in the production of quality crafts.

 The establishment of systems to monitor and improve the resource base. The Community
Resource Monitors in Caprivi (all female) are an important example, and may contribute
widely, as the sustainability of raw materials for the craft sector is a regional problem and
there has been little experimentation with systems to promote the sustainability of natural
resources.

 The development of reliable markets, including local outlets, outlets in cities, wholesaling,
and pricing systems.
74
The net result is that the throughput of crafts through these systems has increased from $60,000
to over $1 million in only four years. The fact that crafts are produced by rural women, and make
a contribution of some $600,000 annually at the household levels, is important.
In the absence of specific and detailed research into this sector of the programme, the team can
only conclude that this input is making an important contribution to broadening the human and
resource base or NRM.
3.8 Strengthening the Business Enterprise and Institutional Team
An assessment of commercial and economic information demonstrates the potential to make a
large proportion of the current conservancies, including most of those in the Northwest and
Caprivi, financial viable. The basis of this will be partnerships between communities and private
sector tourism and hunting companies, supplemented by community based tourism businesses
(campsites, craft and information centres, guiding). Private sector investments will also
providing the nub around which to develop micro-businesses in areas so far largely devoid of
commercial opportunity. This lays the platform for tourism to become a major economic sector,
but harnessed to promote rural development in areas with few economic alternatives and
specifically to benefit formerly disadvantaged Namibians.
The following recommendations are made on the assumption that taking the programme to
sustainability as rapidly as possible is the driving motivation. If the decision is taken to phase out
support in the next year, especially technical support, it is not possible to ensure programme
sustainability much beyond the cessation of funding.
1. The Commercial Team should be renamed the Business Enterprise and Institutional
Team and strengthened with:

 Additional capacity to cover the increased workload in conservancy
financial/business planning, and commercial/tourism development and negotiation.
Additionally, specific new skills requirements include:

 An institutional/organisational manager/economist to re-engineer conservancy
institutions (see recommendation 1), and

 Personnel with the broad-ranging ability to provide a framework for the hunting
sector (see recommendation 4).
2. Given that the development of commercial activities should be undertaken only where
sound Conservancy institutions are in place, and that managing tourism tradeoffs requires
careful planning in many cases, the Commercial Team should be strengthened with
institutional skills, as well as expanded to meet demand (we estimate the need to
negotiate some 70 tourism partnership and at least ten hunting partnerships, each worth
$250,000 annually to the community).
3. The Business Enterprise and Institutional Team should systematically address the
financial and institutional sustainability of at least thirty conservancies. Using field-based
support organisations as an entry point it should:
75
3.1 Facilitate each conservancy to develop a business/commercial strategy that will
make it financially viable as soon as possible, preferably within three to five years.
3.2 As part of this process, encourage (even insist) that conservancies strengthen their
institutional structures to incorporate Village-based participatory democracy, and
bottom-up revenue flows. (These structures must be in place to ensure democratic,
accountable, transparent and equitable systems to manage the anticipated income
flows).
3.3 Develop a tourism investment and management plan for each conservancy (this
should assess opportunities and trade-off, and establish a programme for
implementation. To ensure NRM sustainability, the NRM team should support
these priorities).
3.4 Establish personal links and credibility with the local and regional tourism sector,
and identify or source potential investors.
3.5 Develop investment portfolio for conservancies.
3.6 Develop investor guidelines that shorten the negotiating process, establish a single
negotiating point, and provide for the monitoring of the conformance of both sides
to the contract.
3.7 Broker agreements between conservancies and the private sector, acting as a point
reference to reduce transaction costs and facilitate a fair deal through the
transparent provision of information. This involves supporting and training both
sectors (e.g. training conservancies in negotiating skills; making the private sector
aware of community issues), as well as the facilitation of permissions through MET
and other GRN Ministries. It also requires the development of appropriate contracts
and contracting mechanisms.
3.8 Put in place a system to systematically monitor the agreements.
3.9 Establish a mechanism to arbitrate disputes.
4. Given the potential revenue implications of the hunting sector, specific skills should be
added to the team for the purpose of:
4.1 Developing procedures and norms for applying for and reporting on quotas.
4.2 Developing a national quota management system and database to be house in
MET/NNF?
4.3 Developing community quota setting, monitoring and management.
4.4 Developing systems and norms to guide the negotiation of hunting contracts with
the private sector, and providing professional support to assist communities to
negotiate and manage hunting joint ventures
4.5 Experimenting with systems to use non-trophy animals.
5. A number of factors, including control of access, agreements that have no performance
clauses, the absence of clear procedures for PTOs or quotas, etc., limit the ability of
conservancies to build and capture fair benefits from their tourism industries. These
should be iteratively and systematically addressed through the process of pursuing
community-private tourism agreements in conservancies.
6. As a basis for the above, LIFE should support or facilitate the development of regional
tourism plans.
76
7. To support planning, LIFE should support and facilitate strategic research and
information dissemination, possibly by catalysing partnerships between the EU tourism
project, the Economic Research Unit in DEA, WILD, the Directorate of Tourism and
others. Immediate areas of concern are the economic and environmental impact of the
present uncontrolled tourism in communal areas, and market research describing tourism
circuits, expenditures and areas of potential growth.
8. To address the severe shortage of business advisory skills in Namibia, the Business
Enterprise and Institutional Team should target key Namibians in MET, GRN,
NACOBTA and the private sector for mentoring. Specific expectations should be agreed
for each relationship, with the ratio of mentors to mentored being 1:2-3. Consideration
should be given to accessing retired executives to support this process.
9. A specific recommendation is that LIFE should introduce the community quota-setting
procedures developed by WWF-SARPO into at least ten conservancies by 2002. This
will build the capacity of conservancies to manage wildlife and hunting, will provide a
strong technical base from which to pursue better quotas from MET (with large financial
implications), and in demonstrating the financial opportunity costs of the present system,
will provide conservancies with a strong incentive to argue for improvements in policies
and procedures.
77
4. Support, Coordination and Control Systems for Conservancies
4.1 Analysis of Demand for ServicesóAnd the Management of This Demand
There is an accelerating growth in the number of communities seeking to take advantage of the
Conservancy legislation. Simultaneously, there is an increase in the scope of demand for services
as communities seek to complement organisation skills with NRM and tourism business
capacity, while there is also pressure to diversify the programme into the full range of natural
resources, rural development, and even the provision of social services, HIV/AIDS being of
particular concern. The upgrading of the programme from representation to participatory
democracy will also bring all members into the process, not just the elected representatives.
All this is happening at a time when support budgets are beginning to decline.
The provision of services such as training is a supply driven process. Services are provided
according to the perceived need of conservancies as solicited by the support agencies. This
supply-driven system results in an open-ended demand, with the communities requesting as
many services as they can get and the controlling mechanism being the ability of the support
partners to supply these services. While there is some evidence of good judgment in the supply
process, it would be surprising if communities placed the monitoring of natural resources as high
above the generation of revenues as the present system seems to indicate.
Supply-driven system, rather like the command and control (planned) economies they so closely
resemble, rely excessively on the judgment of those in control (rather than the choices of
consumers) as a prioritising mechanism. Technocrats are seldom right, with a strong tendency to
maintain the status quo in favour of their comfort zone. Not surprisingly, the dominance of the
LIFE programme by natural resource specialists is reflected in the provision of services to
communities.
Better priories are set when people are purchasing services using their own budget, than when
they are wish-listing. The programme should experiment with a market-led approach to the
provision of services.
For instance, conservancies could be allocated vouchers to ëpurchaseí services such as technical
assistance or training. Thus a conservancy could purchase, say, 20 days of support annually.
With the choice of service provision being made by the conservancies, they would begin to
market-drive the supply of these services. For instance, if they ëpurchasedí more
business/tourism orientated services than NRM monitoring services, the LIFE partnership would
be led to switch its emphasis in the same direction. In essences, a demand-driven system
increases the accountability of the partnership to its ëcustomersí.
The initial allocation of ëvouchersí can be a complex issue. However, it can also be used
positively. If linked to measures of conservancy performance it can provide powerful incentives
for positive performance, and can be used to reinforce the performance monitoring system. It can
also be used as an incentive for providing performance related information. For instance, a
78
conservancy can become eligible for its vouchers upon submission of its annual report, AGM
minutes, etc.
The initial design of these systems of checks-and-balances requires some sensitivity, but if done
well they contribute to a self-reinforcing set of institutions and can reduce costs considerably.
4.2 Delivery of Services to Conservancies
The present model used in the LIFE supported programme tends to directly service Conservancy
Management Committees and key groups within the Conservancy. This model tends to be more
expensive as it relies on higher-level skills and transportation. It is also relatively ineffective
because the amount of direct contact with the community is limited.
The alternative model depends on placing a facilitator (usually a locally recruited person with
full school education) in the community, and then ensuring that this facilitator is trained in a
range of disciplines and is supported and supervised regularly. In addition to considerable cost
saving, the advantage of this model is the amount of direct contact with the community, since the
facilitator can e expected to undertake two activities each day (e.g. attend village meeting, check
finances, follow up on projects, assist scouts with records, debrief Traditional Authority, monitor
financial report back at meetings, assess institutional performance).
Figure C15 Comparison of Support Delivery Systems
Relatively large staff
in supporting
agencies
Service delivery model: a central staff in
support agencies supports:

 Conservancy Management Committee

 Specific groupsócommunity scouts, craft
makers, etc.
Much small staff in
supporting agencies
Service delivery model: a small central staff
supports a facilitator placed in the community.
This provides:

 365 days follow-up training, monitoring,
assistance.
79
The model used for training, monitoring and facilitation is based on direct contact between
support personnel and communities, with the latter usually being based in Windhoek or a field
centre. So far this has been effective as measured by high-level indicators. We need, however, to
assess whether it is efficient, especially as the programme scope expands and the budget does
not, and as methodologies (e.g. monitoring of natural resources) solidify and less
experimentation is required.
In the time available, it is only possible to test one data-point (East Caprivi) against one
benchmark familiar to the writer (CBNRM in Luangwa Valley). This crude comparison shows
that the Luangwa system is ten-fold cheaper than East Caprivi. Luangwa is much stronger on
community institution building and financial management, is similar in terms of anti-poaching,
does less resource monitoring (only counting wildlife once annually), and supports a similar
number of community businesses.
Luangwaís innovation is the placement of a community facilitator in each Conservancy. This is
cheap. It is also effective, provided the facilitators are regularly supported, debriefed and re￾skilled. The facilitators provide a high quality of on-going support, follow-up and monitoring of
community progress and performance (committees, participation, projects, financial
management, auditing, institutional training, conflict resolution, etc.) and being closely in touch
with their communities and able to address challenges proactively.
Recommendation: Experiment with an alternative service delivery and monitoring system,
based on a broadly skilled facilitator (trained school-leaver) placed within a conservancy, with
regular supervision and technical backup.
Table C10 Benchmarking Service DeliveryóEast Caprivi and Lupande GMA
East Caprivi Lupande GMA
Support agency IRDNC SLAMU/LIRDP
Population 27,800ñ40,000 50,000
Area (ha) 191,900+ 450,000
Conservancies 4 gazetted; 3 emerging 6 Community Resource Boards
Village groups ?? 43
Number of committee members c. 100 430 (re-elected annually)
Bank accounts/annual audits 7ñ10 49ñ53
Staff compliment Facilitators/Mgmt: 17
Field Officers: 18
In position: 28
Facilitators/Mgmt: 3.5
Based in communities: 8
Total: 12
Support that can be called upon Good: LIFE, IRDNC,
NACOBTA, Rossing, etc.
Limited: 2 weeks/ year
WWF/SARPO
Annual budget $582,298 US$60,000 (was$120,000)
Vehicles 17 2 landcruisers; 5 motorbikes
Community Game Guards 90; Salary: N$300ñ600/year
(community / IRDNC)
77; Salary: N$185/year paid by
community
Performance ratios
$/person $13ñ18 $1ñ3
Indications of relative costs: cost
of diesel/litre
N$5 N$11.2
80
4.3 Performance Monitoring
Effective monitoring is essential to good management, since ìwhat get measured gets doneî.
Equally, establishing good indicators requires a careful analysis and description of programme
direction, provides a coordinating mechanism for a complex programme like CBNRM, and
prevents the dissipation of effort in a non-directional manner.
Effective managers are usually able to distil even complex systems down to a set of indicators in
a 5x4 matrixófive components, each with four indicators. Higher levels of complexity in
programme indicators are usually indicative of problemsóa lack of direction, excessive interest
in detail rather than direction, a failure to analyse the system effectively, or conflicting goals.
The LIFE Project invested significantly in a Monitoring and Evaluation Process. This is a useful
start, especially as it initiates a learning process. It is also valuable in quantifying progress or the
lack of it. While essential for reporting to USAID, we nevertheless, believe the system can be
significantly improved:

 The system is visually complex and difficult to use.

 The system appears to be excessively reliant on the inputs of a dedicated person, and may be
expensive to maintain. It appears not to have been able to cope with rapid programme
expansion. Neither is it institutionalisedóit was difficult to access after the TA supporting it
left the programme.

 The system is restricted to LIFE inputs and areas, and is not designed to support the national
CBNRM programme.

 The system has been unable to rectify the unbalance within the programme, and is backward
looking. While useful for showing the status of the programme compared to the starting
point, it was not good at illustrating where effort is needed, and how resources were allocated
with respect to these needs. For example:

 It showed how many conservancies were registered, but little about how well they were
working beyond the number of committee members.

 It showed a growth in tourism income, but did not compare this to potentials.

 It had also no indicators for NRM management, admittedly a difficult area, though
excellent data was available from elsewhere in LIFE.
As a statement largely of status, it is not a good tool for managing the programme, for
setting programme direction, or for guiding the re-allocation of resources to where they
would have greatest impact. It should be.

 The greatest criticism of the monitoring system is that it not owned by, nor really accessible
to, communities and other programme managers. It does not invite peer review. It is not
visual. Neither is it effective as a tool for adaptive management.
81

 While the programme is supported by commendable data sets, we were surprised that this
had not been compiled, and how much time it took to develop a dataset to describe the
overall programme.
A well-designed performance-conformance monitoring system can act as the central nervous
system of the programme, keeping the various systems in balance, and providing strategic
direction to the range of partners and beneficiaries. ëPerformanceí relates to progress, and should
be compared to potentials/milestones as well as to the starting point. ëConformanceí implies that
sustainability and equity depend on adherence to principles that embody equity, democracy,
accountability and transparency. It is no coincidence that social justice and economic success is
strongly correlated with market democracies, which is why this analysis has emphasized
participatory democracy and demand-driven service provision. These principles, therefore,
should be incorporated into the monitoring system.
Since performance indicators effectively set programme direction they should be decided
collectively by partners and beneficiaries in a facilitated forum. It would be wise to experiment at
local, regional and national level, and then to iteratively consolidate the performance system.
While a unified, central database would be invaluable to the programme for both control and
publicity purposes, the design of this system must be collectiveóit is too central to the entire
CBNRM programme to be passed of to an individual to develop unless this individual has a
strong mandate from the group.
Corporate management has invested much effort in designing control systems, with ëcontrolí
synonymous with ëmonitoringí. Repeating the warning that ìtoo many controls [indicators] result
in a loss of controlî, business experience suggest that metrics should be limited to five Key
Performance Areas, with three to four indicators of each.
It is also recommended that simple visualization be used wherever possible, and that visual
depiction of performance be a centre-piece of peer review at all levelsóthe ëvillagesí within a
conservancy; the conservancies within a region; a summary analysis of conservancies
performance at national level.
Performance monitoring should be institutionalised using incentives and sanctions, with grants,
quotas, etc. linked directly to procedural conformance and reporting. As suggested in the
preceding section, building performance reporting into the incentive system is effective. Thus
quotas depend on submission of offtake reports; grants depend on achievement and reporting on
institutional objectives; revenue retention depends on proper accountability for the money in the
formal sense of financial record keeping, but more importantly in terms of the transparency and
control of revenue allocation and use by people in communities; joint venture contracts depend
on the submission of key records; etc.
The review team has at times expressed some concern that social parameters are affected by the
programme, yet are not monitored. The sustainable approach to this is to opt for systems rather
than a social scientist looking over the programmeís shoulder. Hence the emphasis on
transparent, accountable village level institutions, which empower the communities to work
through their own issues (and the concern about empowering Conservancy Management
82
Committees). Naturally, communities
should be provided with sound
information, for instance gender
training, to better inform their
decisions, but provided the institutions
are properly democratic and
accountable communities should be
entrusted to work through their own
dilemmas. The ability of such systems
to internally take on the massive issue
of traditional, feudal governance, and
to break a long entrenched hegemony in favour of modern, localised democracy, is testament to
the power of such systems (e.g., Luangwa CBNRM programme).
One final point: even the best internal monitoring systems are insufficiently outward looking and
have a tendency to support the status quo. Unchallenged systems soon stultify, and Namibia is
particularly prone to this. It is therefore recommended that quality, strategic external review be
built into the programme to provide the constructive criticism so essential to maintain success
amidst rapidly changing circumstances. Such review (e.g., by CASS/PLASS) cannot play the
comprehensive role of performance monitoring (it complements and builds off it), but is often
more insightful and better able to challenge hegemonic thinking.
4.4 Drive towards Bottom-Up Demand-Driven Control Systems
At the risk of repetition, we make the case for broadening the programme, and shifting strongly
towards a bottom-up approach. Using market-based systems is more efficient, and is a response
to the expanding scope but declining resources available to the programme. It is also a far
stronger development model. At present the top-down character of the programme is allowing
project design to constrain the impulse for a broader development vision and the strong demand
from communities for integrated development. This impulse to broaden, however, is not
supported by the narrow mandate of conservancies. The heavily NRM focused planning process,
and the present bias in support delivery towards NRM.
The programme phases a philosophical choice with major implications for programme
operations: the choice is between a supply drive/command-and-control OR a demand drive,
market-based approach.
There is also limited mention of democratisation in guiding frameworks. The programme is
heavily NRM focused, and tends to be technical. The second philosophical choice is between
reinforcing the status quo, or shifting towards a model centred on developing sound community
governance systems, and then allowing these to set the direction. The present system provides
the institutional framework for NRM. It does not provide sustainable community governance
systems.
If the latter route is taken, as we strongly recommend, great emphasis will be needed on
institutional sustainability, which is closely linked to how the money flows through them.
Box C10 Paradigm Shifting
Instigate major shift in programme:

 Democratization

 Financial Viability

 Integrated Community Development
 Bottom up governance system with broader
NRM and development mandate
 Improved planning process, driven by
financial sustainability
83
Having done so much good work the programme is well poised to make this shift, building on
the strong start to tackle:

 Institutional sustainabilityóThe need to anchor the programme on strong democratic
organisations. Tackle conservancy-level institutional challenges, especially representation
and revenue sharing

 Financial sustainabilityóEnsure conservancy sustainability before donor pullout. It will
collapse if institutional and financial base is not secured. Tackle conservancy level financial
sustainability and planning. Financial sustainability is a better departure point for planning,
and should automatically incorporate integrated planning. Link support, loans, etc. to plans
and performance on plans. Build a culture of planning and delivery.
To avoid the dangers of ëaborted devolutioní, this goal should be incorporated by:

 Incorporating the necessary indicators into the project frame

 Linking grants, quotas, PTOs to democratisation principles

 Include indicators of democratisation in the performance monitoring system.
An addition benefit is that strong conservancies provide a vehicle to support, or even drive, the
decentralization process. in this regard, we would recommend proactively linking conservancies
to decentralisation process with strategic support to key Regional Development Coordinating
Committees as a way of improving coordination at this level.
Attachments
1. Status of Conservancies
2. Actual and Potential Tourism in Communal Areas in Namibia
3. Estimations of Population Growth Rates and Values in Northwest Namibia: Extrapolations
from 1980 to 2000
84
Annex D
CBNRM Policy Issues
1. Introduction
This section of the report aims to highlight the progress achieved to date in establishing a
favourable policy and legislative framework for community-based natural resource management
or CBNRM in Namibia, while identifying strategic actions needed to ensure that the program is
sustainable in the longer term. Several concrete actions are also recommended to address the
most pressing policy-related issues that are critical to the continued success of the program.
Several policy-related questions were highlighted in the Scope of Work for the Review Team:

 Is the existing policy and legislation in support of CBNRM sufficient?

 Are implementation guidelines in place and are they being applied consistently?

 Do the policies of other line Ministries support CBNRM?

 What other policies and legislation are needed to sustain CBNRM in the long term?
During the course of the assessment, the Review Team determined that the CBNRM partnership
in Namibia had, at different points in time, tried to address these questions. The following
analysis has been informed, therefore, by a considerable degree of prior and ongoing attention to
policy matters by the organizations supporting CBNRM in Namibia23. The following analysis
has built upon these prior efforts, and endeavours to present a more up-to-date response to the
main questions posed in the Scope of Work by integrating additional insights gained from the
field visits to the Caprivi and Kunene regions, as well as interviews with key stakeholders.
2. The Policy Framework for CBNRM in Namibia
Although the LIFE project was launched in 1993 with a focus on community-based wildlife
management, the participatory nature of the overall program has encouraged a steady evolution
to a broader, national CBNRM program. Namibiaís CBNRM program aims to support the
transition from state ownership and centralized control over natural resources and a situation of
relatively unorganised and disempowered rural producers dependent on open access natural
resource based production systems, to a system that supports:

 the emergence of legalized community-based organizations with specific, devolved rights to
benefit directly from natural resources and responsibilities for their sustainable use and
management, and
 
23 See for example: Hagen et al., 1998, CBNRM Sector Assessment for Namibia. Steve Johnson, ed. 2000, A View of
the Future: Community-Based Natural Resources Management in Namibia. Proceedings of the CBNRM
Association of Namibiaís Planning Conference. Brian Jones et al., 2001, Development of a Five-Year Strategic
Vision for CBNRM in Namibia; Consultancy report for NACSO, and LIFE/WWF, 2001 Semi-Annual Report for
Phase II of the LIFE Programme for the period October 2000ñMarch 2001.
85

 the participatory development of decentralized, natural resource management systems with
locally defined, enforceable controls on resource access, agreed upon limitations on land use,
tools to ensure the sustainable use and regeneration of resources, and transparent,
accountable procedures to allocate benefits24.
The policy foundation for community-based wildlife management and the major impetus for
CBNRM in Namibia began with the 1992 Policy on the Establishment of Conservancies25. This
policy paved the way for the establishment of conservancies on both commercial or freehold
farms and communal land. Commercial farmers had for some time taken advantage of their
clearly established ownership rights over certain species of game, and as a result, wildlife
populations had dramatically increased and a multimillion dollar hunting and game-viewing
industry had developed. The 1992 policy enabled conservancies to be formed by groups of farms
or by communities living in communal areas for the purposes of conserving and utilizing
wildlife, in association with traditional farming or livestock-raising activities, on their combined
properties and/or communal land area. While conservancies could be formed in communal areas
on the basis of this policy, communal area resident still did not have rights to benefit from the
use wildlife, until 1995.
The Policy on Wildlife Management, Utilisation and Tourism in Communal Areas was adopted
in 1995, and provided a means to implement the 1992 policy by granting rights over wildlife to
communities in communal areas that were organized as conservancies. This new policy was
adopted to ensure that 1) the same principles that governed wildlife use on freehold land were
extended to communal land, and 2) rural communities in communal areas were able to undertake
tourism ventures and develop tourism activities on state land. Among the objectives of
Namibiaís Policy on Wildlife Management Utilization and Tourism in Communal Areas are: the
establishment of an economically based system for the management of wildlife and other
renewable living resources on communal land, and the promotion of a partnership between local
communities and the government in the management of natural resources.26
The Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) also approved in 1995 a policy on the
Promotion of Community-Based Tourism, to enable local communities to share in the benefits of
tourism activities through concessionary rights to lodge development within conservancy
boundaries. Prior to the enactment of this policy, tourism concession revenues went to the
Government Treasury.
An additional step was taken in 1996, by the amendment of the Nature Conservation Ordinance
of 1975, to specify the conditions under which communal areas conservancies could be
established. The Nature Conservation Amendment Act of 1996 stipulated that communal area
conservancies must have a:
 
24 This section is focused on an analysis of the policy, legislative and institutional framework that supports CBNRM;
see also Annex G for a more in-depth discussion of the development of support systems, tools and methods for the
sustainable use and management of natural resources.
25 Information for this section has been summarized from B. Jones, Rights, Revenues and Resources: The Problems
and Potential of Conservancies as Community Wildlife Management Institutions in Namibia, Evaluating Eden
Discussion Paper no. 2, IIED, London, 1999, p. 5ñ7 and Annex 1.
26 See B. Jones, 1999. Annex 1. p. 29
86
1. Defined geographic area with boundaries agreed upon by the community
2. Defined membership, with registered community members
3. Representative management committee with the ability to manage funds
4. Legal Constitution, which provides for the sustainable management and utilization of game
5. Plan for the equitable distribution of benefits derived from the consumptive and non￾consumptive use of game
Once these conditions are met, the conservancy can be registered, the boundaries gazetted, and
the local community can assume rights to huntable game and concessionary rights over
commercial tourism activities and other non-consumptive or recreational uses of wildlife.
Additional regulations were adopted in 1996 to clarify certain terms and procedures, particularly
with respect to the registration of conservancy members and the issues to be covered in a
conservancy constitution. These regulations also enabled conservancies to propose quotas for
wildlife use, have ownership over huntable game, apply for permits to use protected game,
conduct trophy hunting and to buy and sell game27.
3. Strengths and Weaknesses of the Existing Policy Framework
The policy framework for community based management of wildlife and related tourism
activities in Namibia is widely considered as one of the strongest legal foundations for CBNRM
in Africa. It is significant as a means to:

 Redress the past inequities of apartheid, by enabling people living in communal areas to have
the same rights to benefit economically from wildlife as ìcommercial farmersî living in
freehold areas

 Provide a legal basis for the establishment of a community-based organization (the
conservancy) committed to the sustainable use of natural resources, and

 Serve as an entry point for the devolution of management rights over wildlife and other
natural resources to local communities.
However, the conservancy policy and legislation skirted the issue of land tenure and land use
planning, which has yet to be fully resolved in Namibia. The community living within the area of
a registered conservancy still does not own the land or have clear ownership rights to the natural
resources. All land in communal areas remains the property of the state, and the communities
only receive conditional use rights to specified resources. Most significantly, ìoutsidersî who are
not members of the conservancy are still relatively free to move into the gazetted area of a
conservancy with their livestock, or to otherwise make use of the pasture and other resources in
communal areas. Although the legislation provides for the recognition of the boundaries of a
conservancy, it does not confer any special status on the land within a conservancy as some form
of protected area, or as an area with locally defined controls on land use28.
As the LIFE team and others have pointed out,
 
27 See Ministry of Environment and Tourism, ìQuestions and Answers about Communal Area Conservancies in
Namibiaî, p. 4.
28 This situation may change with the approval of the new Parks and Wildlife Management Bill, which would enable
communities to seek one of several possible categories of protected area status for their conservancy.
87
ìAt present, conservancy committees are only legally authorized to manage wildlife,
and have no legal basis to regulate the use of other natural resources. This limitation
imposes severe constraints to long term effective wildlife management, as the absence
of regulatory control over competing uses of other natural resources can undermine
wildlife management efforts and affiliated, complementary tourism activities. In
particular, competition from uncontrolled livestock grazing, ad hoc agricultural
developments, over-exploitation of forest and veld resources, and/or random
resettlement can destroy critical wildlife habitat and marginalize the viability of
conservanciesî29.
In addition to these uncontrolled and potential adverse impacts on wildlife management and
related tourism, the current policy and legislation does not secure the land rights and provide
incentives for local communities to benefit from a broader range of integrated natural resource
management and locally initiated sustainable rural development initiatives.
At present, Namibia does not have an overall CBNRM policy and associated legislation in
various line ministries to affirm and coordinate community based management of all renewable
natural resources. Nor does the current policy and legislative framework include provisions
related to decentralization and the integration of conservancy level development plans into
regional development priorities.
While the team was unable to meet with officials of the Ministry of Local and Regional
Government and Housing (MLRGH) and others charged with implementing the new policies on
decentralization, we did talk to Governors in two regions and to officials in MET about the
relationship between decentralization and CBNRM. There is a risk that decentralization will
effectively result in ìregional centralizationî, if the governors opt for top-down planning and
ìcommand and controlî systems managed by government services at the regional level.
However, there is also an opportunity for decentralization to reinforce CBNRM, by building on
conservancies and other community-based organizations as the foundation for bottom-up,
participatory and democratic systems of regional planning.
In fact, several governors are quite enthusiastic about the conservancy program and have
encouraged representatives of the conservancies to participate in the Regional Development
Coordination Committees (RDCC). The national CBNRM program should facilitate the
involvement of conservancies in RDCCs, and take advantage of opportunities presented through
the elaboration of specific legislation related to decentralization which affirms the role of
conservancies and CBOs engaged in CBNRM activities in regional land use planning, sector
planning and decentralized management of natural resources. To this end, NACSO and its
members should continue to publicize the activities of conservancies among local and regional
government authorities, and help the conservancies to disseminate information about the
boundaries of each conservancies, their membership and development plans to the regional
authorities.
 
29 See section 2.0 of the Semi-Annual Report for Phase II of the LIFE Programme for the period October 2000ñ
March 2001, dated April 2001, p. 13.
88
4. Policy Implementation Issues of MET Guidelines and Procedures
Since the adoption of the new policies on conservancies, MET has developed and widely
disseminated guidelines that serve to clarify the steps to be followed to organize and register
conservancies in communal areas. MET has also provided guidance for the preparation of
conservancy constitutions, and for the organization of management committees. The early
emphasis of the conservancy program on constitutions and management committees has also
been reflected in the training and other support provided to emerging conservancies. While
useful, this emphasis on constitutions and management committees runs the risk of diverting
attention away from other critically important aspects of conservancy formation and operation,
such as the development of democratic, accountable community institutions, the elaboration and
implementation of development plans, NRM plans and benefit distribution plans.
More significantly, it has contributed to a focus on committee-based NRM instead of
community-based NRM. Additional policy implementation guidance is needed to reaffirm the
primacy of the local communities, and to ensure that the management committees are
accountable to the membership, through democratic decision-making, regular reporting to the
entire community, and the development of transparent financial management systems and
equitable benefit distribution systems.
During the course of the review, a number of other policy implementation issues were raised by
conservancy members, NGO support organizations and other stakeholders in the national
CBNRM program. Many of these issues have created delays and misunderstandings that could
threaten the continued success of the program. There is a critical need within MET to develop
and adopt clear guidelines, review criteria and standard operating procedures to fully support the
implementation of the conservancy policy, and to ensure the consistent interpretation and
application of the associated regulations. Several problems of this nature have been noted over
the past year, including, for example, delays in awarding trophy hunting concessions, unilateral
imposition of deadlines for preparation of management plans, confusion over the rights of
conservancy to ìhuntable gameî, issuance and renewal of concessions by MET that conflict with
the expressed interests of conservancies, etc.
The Review Team recommends that MET and stakeholders in the conservancy program should
meet and agree on additional guidelines (to be widely disseminated) and clear procedures (to be
followed within MET at the field and headquarters levels) that support a streamlined and
transparent process to:

 Review and approve applications for registration of conservancies in a orderly, timely and
transparent manner. The process currently takes a minimum of several months, and could be
shortened to ensure a more efficient and thorough review of compliance with the legislation;
a checklist is used by MET staff, but MET and NACSO members could collaborate more
closely in the use of the conservancy development profile to assess the organizational
soundness of proposed conservancies.

 Develop and widely disseminate guidelines for the preparation of relatively basic or
simplified NRM plans and related planning processes to be undertaken by conservancies.
The guidelines should provide for flexible adaptation and use by the conservancies in
89
response to local priorities and circumstances, and not impose a lengthy and potentially
expensive planning process that is likely to exceed the planning and management capacities
of most conservancies.

 Develop and widely disseminate guidelines for the preparation of Benefit Distribution Plans.
While the conservancies have committed in principle to the equitable distribution of benefits
in their constitutions, the operational procedures for benefit distribution could be clarified
and better understood by all members of the conservancy. In general, the development of
benefit distribution plans could be more participatory, emphasized at an earlier stage in
conservancy planning, and implemented as an important and integral part of conservancy
management activities.

 Review and agree upon principles and procedures to address problem animal control (PAC),
and to allocate trophy hunting quotas, tourism concessions and hunting concessions. This
need was raised by a number of conservancies that the Review Team visited. Clarifications
and guidance are needed to avoid time-consuming, centralized, ad hoc decision-making and
to facilitate resolution of these issues at the local and regional levels in a timely manner.

 Collaborate (with NACSO and other interested parties) to incorporate guidance on the
registration process, NRM plans, Benefit Distribution Plans, PAC, quotas, concessions and
the like into the next, expanded version of the MET ìTool Kitî for conservancies. This tool
kit should also include to the extent feasible a summary and commentary of policies and
legislation in other sectors that are relevant to CBNRM. For example, the tool kit should
incorporate full guidance on the new policies and procedures related to the establish of
community forests. The new tool kit should be available for use by the CBNRM Unit as soon
as it is staffed and becomes operational (target date of October 2001).
As the MET is well aware of the problems associated with a number of these issues, they are
currently trying to address them in the new legislation: the Parks and Wildlife Management Bill
of 2001. Unfortunately, the team was unable in the time available to carefully review the draft
legislation. It does appear, however, that many stakeholders are keen to review and comment on
the latest version of the draft bill, and we hope that MET will encourage their participation in the
finalization of the bill, in order to ensure that it is fully compatible with the aims of the
conservancy policy and the national CBNRM program.
5. CBNRM Policies in Other Sectors
A number of related policies and legislation in other sectors, outside of wildlife and tourism,
have been formulated and in some cases enacted30. Both the new forestry and inland fishery
policies are largely supportive of community-based approaches to the management of these
resources. The new Forestry Bill (drafted and currently under review) provides for the
establishment of community forests, to be managed by locally constituted organizations. The
Fisheries Bill (recently drafted and currently in the process of adoption) also reportedly
reinforces the notion of empowerment of local communities to monitor and control the use of
 
30 See several policy reviews by Brian Jones for a complete discussion of relevant items: An Overview of Key
Developments in the Legal and Policy Environment, thematic presentation to the CBNRM Association Planning
Conference, October 2000; Community Management of Natural Resources in Namibia, IIED Issue Paper no. 90,
October 1999; Lessons Learned and Impacts of LIFE Project Phase I: CBNRM policy and legislative review and
analysis, LIFE working paper, undated.
90
local fisheries resources. The new water policy white paper and draft legislation also provide a
framework for the transfer of management of water points to local communities, through the
establishment of water user associations.
These related policies are particularly important to conservancies, as they provide an opportunity
to strengthen their ability to manage the use of other natural resources besides wildlife. A further
devolution of rights to control access to these other natural resources at the local level is
particularly important if CBNRM is to be successful. These policies in other sectors are also
significant as a way to enable conservancies to manage resources in an integrated manner, and at
different scales. While the size of many conservancies may be appropriate with respect to the
scale required for wildlife managementóforests, water and other natural resources may need to
managed at a lower scale, through various sub-conservancy divisions that can be organized for
these purposes (e.g., water users association, community forest management committee, users
group for local fisheries).
However, the regulations related to conservancies have not yet been amended to stipulate how
they might use their status as a legalized community-based organization (CBO) to extend their
rights and authority to manage and benefit from the management of forest, fisheries, water and
other natural resources besides wildlife and associated tourism activities. Other line Ministries
may not feel the need to recognize the opportunities for conservancies that have been established
under the provisions of MET policy to take advantage of CBNRM provisions in their sector
policies. In fact, it may well be sufficient to simply ensure that each Ministry makes provision
for devolving rights and authorities to some type of ìgenericî community-based organization,
that meets certain criteria (defined community membership, democratic, accountable
management systems, plans for sustainable use, equitable benefit distribution)31. However, there
is still a need to communicate these related policies to conservancies so that they can take
advantage of such provisions, as appropriate.
Recommendation: NACSO and its members should continue to monitor the development of
legislation and regulations in forestry, fisheries, water and related NR sectors to ensure their
compatibility with the goals and objectives of a national CBNRM program; they should also help
to disseminate this information to conservancies to enable them to capitalize on other CBNRM
opportunities that could fit efficiently with the conservancy approach.
6. Agriculture, Desertification and Land Tenure
The National Agricultural Policy, adopted in 1995, also provides a framework for empowerment
of local communities, and related legislation may open the door for group tenure over
rangelands. However, the current legislative vacuum and resulting status quo with respect to the
tenure and use of rangelands is seen as a primary contributing cause of desertification in
Namibia. In 1996, the NAPCOD programme sponsored an analysis of policy factors and
desertification ìto inform policy makers of the impact of policy instruments on desertification
 
31 B. Jones, personal communication.
91
and to make recommendations for reformî32. The main conclusions and recommendations of this
analysis are related to land tenure:
ìMany of the instances of over-use of natural resources which result in degradation
are a consequence of the fact that rural communities do not have secure, exclusive
tenure over land and natural resources. While they bear the costs of overgrazing,
deforestation and excessive water extraction, they are not in a position to reap the
benefits of sustainable management of these natural resources. Other communities
cannot currently be excluded from using natural resources which have been well
managed by someone else. . . The introduction of secure, exclusive tenure at the
community level is the single most important policy reform needed to prevent
degradation. . . . Tenure is not, however, a panacea. Rural communities will still face
pressures from poverty, population growth, high expectation and wealthy individuals.
A related institutional reform which is required is the creation of local bodies capable
of managing natural resources within their community, with the support of regional
and national State institutionsî33.
While the conservancy legislation has helped to fill the need for a local body capable of
managing natural resources, the role, responsibilities and rights of conservancies to manage
natural resources other than wildlife needs to be affirmed. In addition, the crucial issue of land
tenure in communal areas needs to be addressed if the national CBNRM program is to be
successful and sustainable over the long term. This issue was flagged in the 1998 CBNRM sector
assessment as a ìpriorityî issue, and continues to be mentioned in subsequent reviews and plans.
The Communal Land Reform Bill was drafted in 1999, but has yet to be finalized and adopted.
7. Land Policy and Land Use Planning
The National Land Policy, adopted in April 1998, recognizes the need to remove uncertainty
about legitimate access and rights to land in communal areas.34 It argues for a ìflexible and
regionally appropriate utilization of natural resourcesî, and a clarification of ìthe roles and rights
of government, the chiefs, the rich and the poorî. In order to address the lack of secure land
tenure in communal areas, the policy proposes to introduce different but secured land rights,
including a certificate of land rights, which could be held by legally constituted bodies and
institutions exercising joint ownership rights. This would appear to provide an opening to secure
the land and associated natural resource rights of conservancies and other CBOs, but the
implementation of this policy is contingent upon the adoption of additional legislation.
It is proposed that the Land Policy legislation establish Land Use and Environment Boards that
would be empowered to support ìland use planning, natural resource management and related
issuesî. The administration of land in communal areas would be vested in Land Boards and
traditional authorities. The Land Policy states that regional Land Boards would be responsible
 
32 R. Dewdney, Policy Factors and DesertificationóAnalysis and Proposals. Namibian Programme to Combat
Desertification (NAPCOD), April 1996.
33 Ibid., p. iv.
34 Republic of Namibia, National Land Policy, Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation.
April, 1998.
92
for zoning, and the allocation of tenure rights, ìincluding all renewable natural resources on the
land, subject to the sustainable utilization and the details of sectoral policy and legislationî.
Accordingly, the regional Land Boards would be empowered to introduce user fees for specified
natural resources (such as grazing land). Long term leases could be introduced in rural areas, for
up to 99 years, including the granting of tourism concessions, ìwhere the Land Board is satisfied
that no person or group of persons has existing rights to the landî. Minerals would still belong to
the state.
Without any specific reference to conservancies and an affirmation of their land ownership
rights, the land policy as presently formulated opens the door to a potential conflict with the
conservancy policy, to the extent that it raises the possibility of direct leasing by Land Boards to
private sector operators engaged in various enterprises in conservancy areas.35
To date, the resolution of land tenure issues and the establishment of Land and Environment
Boards have been bogged down in debate over the Communal Land Reform Bill. Given the
critical importance of provisions related to land tenure, land use planning and allocation of land
rights, NACSO and its members should seek out potential allies (such as NAPCOD, Farmers
Unions and others) and constitute a standing working group to pursue this issue.
In the interim, NACSO and its members should explore the ways and means for strengthening the
ability of the conservancies to exercise more local control on land use. For example, can legal
provisions be enacted for the review and recognition by competent authorities of Conservancy
Zonation Maps? Can conservancies amend their constitutions to provide for a legally binding
process to adjudicate land use disputes within the conservancy? How can the conservancies be
strengthened with respect to their rights and powers to limit incompatible land and resource use
within their officially recognized boundaries? These questions, among others, could be pursued
by the NACSO working group with a view towards finding a way around the impasse over the
adoption of the Communal Land Reform Bill.
8. Towards a Stronger Policy Framework for CBNRM
While the issue of land tenure may not be fully resolved for some time, a number of other issues
related to implementation of the existing conservancy policy also need to be addressed. The
LIFE program has already helped to focus attention on the new tourism policy and legislation,
and the draft Parks and Wildlife Act. It is hoped that both of these policy instruments, when
finalized and enacted will further strengthen the conservancies as a vehicle to foster and
implement CBNRM.
A central concern of the review team was the apparent weakness in the current policy framework
and program vision for strengthening the decentralized management of natural resources in a
context of locally planned sustainable development. The MET recognizes the success of the
conservancy program in terms of enhanced protection of wildlife and increased benefits to local
communities from wildlife management and community-based tourism enterprises. But are the
MET and other ministries working together to strengthen the overall policy framework to
 
35 B. Jones, personal communication.
93
capitalize further on the longer term potential for CBNRM to serve as a paradigm for sustainable
rural development?
As legally recognized organizations, conservancies have a legislated responsibility to ensure
ìsustainable useî. But can the sustainable use of natural resources be ensured without devolving
powers or authority to control access and resource use by outsiders? There are currently no
provisions for local communities organized as conservancies to exclude inappropriate land uses,
nor are there any provisions to legitimise land use plans, zonation and NRM plans developed by
conservancies. Under these circumstances, one can reasonably ask how the conservancies can
really be expected to manage natural resources?
Furthermore, the current policy framework clearly aims to empower communities to benefit from
the sustainable utilization of wildlife, but does it also empower communities to undertake
integrated sustainable development planning, and assure the conservancies of a secure role in
decentralized regional planning? What provisions are there in the current policy framework to
help the conservancies deal with prospective conflicts over land use, and to cope with the added
pressures on resources during times of drought? Can the policy be strengthened to add more
incentives for CBNRM, and to encourage and facilitate the development of partnerships between
environmental conservation, rural development and poverty alleviation organizations?
A reading of the constitutions and development plans that have been prepared by conservancies
clearly reveal the desire of local communities to make use of the conservancy policy to pursue a
broader vision of CBNRM. There appears to be a tension between what the people want, and
what the policy currently supports. For example, the Oskop conservancy constitution affirms that
they are:
ìA community initiative dedicated to improve natural resources management and
promote sustainable rural development to the advantage of the people of this area. . .
to take advantage of the new conservancy legislation to expand the scope and
effectiveness of ongoing sustainable natural resources management and engage the
entire community in an integrated development strategyî.
The Torra conservancy management plan states their goals as:
ìTo develop the area in a manner that involves all stakeholders and the sustainable
management of natural resources. . . to improve the living standards and reduce
poverty by providing employment and income-generating projects based on the good
management of natural resourcesî.
The team recognizes that the long-term success of CBNRM in Namibia will depend on a
concerted effort by all stakeholders to strengthen the policy and legislative framework for the
national CBNRM program, building upon but going beyond the foundation provided by the
conservancy policy and legislation. While the conservancy program has achieved impressive
results, much more can be achieved if the policy framework for the National CBNRM Program
deliberately shifts from its early focus on wildlife conservation to a broader vision of CBNRM as
94
a vehicle for promoting sustainable use of all natural resources, rural development and poverty
alleviation. To this end, the team recommends:

 Establishment of an inter-ministerial task force or forum on strategies and programmes for
CBNRM and sustainable rural development. This idea was initiated within MET in 1999 and
still has great merit. The forum would be designed to provide some degree of collaboration
and shared oversight of CBNRM through increased information sharing and periodic joint
program reviews. It would not seek to ìcoordinateî, but rather provide a mandate to field
level agents of line ministries to support more actively local level coordination of CBNRM
initiatives, through community based planning and approaches such as FIRM. The
organization of the task force could be facilitated by the National Planning Commission, and
the secretariat function assigned on a rotating basis to MET, MAWRD, MFMR, MLRR,
MLRGH, and other interested departments. NACSO and the conservancy associations would
be encouraged to be active participants.

 Recognition in the land use planning process of a category of land managed by
conservancies and other CBNRM CBOs. As the legislation for Land Use and Environment
Boards is prepared, the conservancies and supporting organizations need to ensure that the
rights and roles of CBNRM CBOs to participate in regional land use planning exercises are
recognized, and that the allocation of land and resource management rights should provide
for secure joint ownership rights by conservancies and other CBOs.

 Provision for a policy and institutional framework to support transboundary NRM. To date
the case of the inter-state collaboration to share scientific information and to collaborate on
the management of shared, transboundary fisheries resources is a useful model to follow and
to apply to other NRM subsectors.

 Organization of a special working group of NACSO to develop a strategy for the formulation
of a national CBNRM policy. This policy would aim to promote the principles and
approaches of CBNRM, legitimise the role of conservancies and other CBOs in CBNRM,
endorse the need for local land use planning and NRM plans and reinforce the authority of
such plans. The CBNRM policy and subsequent legislation would clarify the roles and
responsibilities of conservancies and CBOs in integrated NRM planning, as an institutional
model for local level coordination of support services and a demand driven, bottom up
process for decentralized rural development planning and NRM. The new CBNRM policy
would also promote the harmonization of sectoral NRM related policies and regulations so as
to make them more relevant to and compatible with CBNRM, with particular attention to
land tenure legislation and fiscal incentives for CBNRM.

 Organization of a consultative process to explore the potential for fiscal policy reforms as a
means of creating additional incentives for CBNRM. For example, NR based enterprises that
are identified by conservancies could receive preferential access to investment credit, tax
rebates, or lower tax rates if they are developed by conservancies through the CBNRM
planning and management process.
9. Policy Implementation and Related Institutional Issues at the National Level
When the conservancy program was launched in the mid-1990s, the MET Directorate of
Environmental Affairs (DEA) provided the intellectual leadership and strategic guidance for the
program. The DEA played a critical role in tracking the experience of field-level pilot activities,
95
and applying the insights from this experience to guide the policy formulation process. The DEA
also looked beyond the MET to consider the linkages between the conservancy program and
other sectoral programs related to biodiversity conservation, NRM and rural development, and
promoted the harmonization of policies and legislation in support of CBNRM. The overall
management of the program was assigned to a full time coordinator working within the DEA.
Over the past few years, however, the departure of key staff from DEA has created a void in the
MET leadership for the program. The Parks and Wildlife Management Directorate (formerly the
Directorate of Resource Management, DRM), has gradually stepped in to provide oversight in
the implementation of the legislation and to fulfil their functions prescribed in the regulations.
However, the shift within MET from an emphasis on program leadership and coordination, to
regulation and oversight has raised questions about the commitment of the MET to CBNRM and
the further empowerment of local communities.
As part of the restructuring process within MET, a Technical Committee on Natural Resources
was instituted several years ago. This Committee is chaired on a rotating basis by one of the
Directors in the MET, including DRM/DPWM, Directorate of Forestry, Directorate of Scientific
Services, and Directorate of Tourism. The committee routinely takes up matters related to
CBNRM and the conservancy program. However, there is seldom sufficient time for this
committee to proactively contribute to the improved management and strategic direction of the
program. To address this difficulty, a working group on CBNRM was recently formed, and has
begun to meet on a regular basis.
10. Establishment of a CBNRM Unit in MET
With the restructuring of the MET, it is anticipated that the former Directorate of Resource
Management (DRM), which has been recently re-organized as the Directorate of Parks and
Wildlife Management (DPWM) will assume a greater role in supporting the implementation of
the program. In anticipation of a broadening of the program scope, to encompass forestry,
tourism and related CBNRM activities as well as wildlife management, plans were made to
designate a small group of core staff to coordinate and facilitate the provision of CBNRM
services at the field level. Although the creation and staffing of this CBNRM Unit had been
caught up for some time in the broader MET-wide reorganization, in July 2001, three job
descriptions were approved and advertised. These positions include a Chief Control Warden and
two Chief Wardens. They are slated to manage the activities of the unit and to provide a point of
contact for the MET staff working in the regions, and technical support for NRM and extension
activities. Additional field level support for CBNRM is to be provided by 29 wardens, formerly
working as information officers in MET in the various regions, and soon to be reassigned to the
CBNRM Unit. The field level wardens will be accountable to both the CBNRM Unit leader and
to the governors of their respective region, in keeping with the decentralization of selected
government staff and functions.
The organization of the CBNRM Unit provides an excellent opportunity to reaffirm the
governmentís commitment to the original objectives of the programme. If it is staffed by
dynamic individuals, the new unit can strengthen a sense of government ownership in the
program and make a strong contribution to the further development of the national CBNRM
program. This could help to address a number of current concerns related to the implementation
96
of the policy, and counteract a perception among some MET staff that see the conservancy
program as an NGO-driven activity, focused primarily on wildlife conservation, with most of the
resources allocated to a few target areas. Failure to establish the CBNRM Unit would constitute a
major roadblock on the ìroad to sustainabilityî of the national CBNRM program.
To address this situation, the review team recommends the following:

 Accelerate the recruitment of the key staff positions in the CBNRM Unit, and provide for
their orientation, training and operational support as quickly as possible for both the central
core team and the field staff. Field staff should be empowered to play a direct and
responsible role in providing information needed by emerging conservancies, and in assisting
the established conservancies with the preparation and implementation of their development
and NRM plans. The field staff should be regularly briefed on the operations of the NACSO
association and its members, so as to efficiently facilitate contacts between conservancies
and other CBOs engaged in CBNRM and the appropriate support organizations. Conversely,
the CBNRM Unit field staff should facilitate the flow of information about conservancies
issues and community level CBNRM activities back to the central offices of MET and the
NACSO secretariat through regular reporting. The staff of this MET/CBNRM unit would
enable the MET to play a greater and more visible role in the further development of the
national CBNRM program.

 Strengthen the relationship between the CBNRM Unit, the CBNRM Working Group and the
Technical Committee on Natural Resources (TCNR). In order to enable the new head of the
CBNRM Unit to carry out his/her responsibilities in the most effective manner, we
recommend that the Unit be accountable to the Chairman of the Technical Committee on
Natural Resources (TCNR) and liase closely with the CBNRM working group within MET.
The job description for the Unit Head includes a number of functions related to the
promotion of CBNRM, networking among CBNRM partners and support organizations,
support for the development of appropriate CBNRM policy and legislation, liaison with other
MET units and regional chief control wardens, and representation of the MET. It will be very
difficult to fulfil these responsibilities if the Unit Head does not have relatively free access to
the other directorates and staff of the MET through the TCNR. The team also strongly
supports the proposal by MET to recruit and assign a manager for the Unit at the Deputy
Director level.

 Promote a high level of teamwork, collaboration and information between the CBNRM Unit
and the various specialized technical teams that have been organized to support the
establishment and functioning of the conservancies. In response to the demand for technical
support services by conservancies, a number of teams have been constituted from among the
staff of the support organizations, such as WWF, IRDNC, NNF, NACOBTA, RISE, NDT,
Rossing Foundation and others. While the members of these teams do not necessarily all
work for the same organization, they routinely share information, plan activities together and
otherwise collaborate in their efforts to support the conservancies.
To date, a NRM team has emerged to support the mapping and description of conservancy
boundaries, to provide assistance with the compilation of natural resource inventory data,
resource monitoring and the preparation of conservancy development NRM plans and associated
work planning. The CBNRM Unit core staff should be fully integrated into the various central
97
coordinating teams (NRM/MIU, business planning/joint venture development/community-based
tourism, and institutional/capacity building). To facilitate teamwork, collaborative planning and
information sharing, the Review Team recommends that the CBNRM Unit and NACSO support
organizations be co-located or located in close proximity to one another, to the greatest extent
feasible.
11. Suggested Role for NACSO
The preceding sections of this report have included a number recommendations that NACSO
could help to implement. These include supporting the activities of a policy working group,
monitoring the development of CBNRM-related policies and legislation being developed by
various ministries, continued dissemination of information about the enabling policies for
CBNRM to conservancies and local communities, collaboration with MET to clarify guidelines
and streamline procedures to resolve policy implementation bottlenecks, and the encouragement
of continued efforts to strengthen the policy framework for CBNRM, particularly with respect to
land tenure and increased rights to control access and use of natural resources.
In this context, the NACSO secretariat could activate the Collaborative Forum Working Group to
improve communication and coordination between MET and NGO partners involved in CBNRM
with a view towards addressing needs for program leadership, coordination, strategic planning,
and related policy implementation issues. In particular, this working group, in close collaboration
with the CBNRM Unit Head and CBNRM Advisor in MET, should systematically and
comprehensively track the development of critically important sectoral policies, legislation,
procedures and guidelines with a view towards ensuring that they are consistent with the goals
and enabling conditions for a national CBNRM programme.
In order to make the most of the ongoing efforts related to strategic visioning, long term planning
and sustainable funding of the national CBNRM programme, the NACSO secretariat should
continue to facilitate and support the ìvisionî working group, as a means to develop and
implement longer term ìaction plansî and recommended priority actions for the national
CBNRM programme (such as those developed during the 1998 CBNRM sector assessment, the
October 2000 Planning Conference and the April 2001 visioning workshop). This working group
should report on a quarterly basis to the NACSO membership and interested GRN institutions on
progress in implementing these action plans.
Given the importance of policy and legislation to the success of the CBNRM programme, and in
view of the state of flux in legislation and the relatively large number of draft bills with
relevance to CBNRM that are being formulated and discussed, the team recommends that the
NACSO secretariat include the position of a ìlegislative liaisonî. This person would be the point
of contact for legislative updates, facilitate dissemination of information about relevant CBNRM
policies, and serve to alert conservancy members through their associations and support
organizations of the opportunities to participate in public hearings and other debates about
pending legislation that may impact on conservancies and the CBNRM program. This person
could also work closely with the Collaborative Forum working group to assist them in
monitoring the policy formulation process, assessing potential opportunities and threats, and
formulating strategies and catalysing action to fill gaps in the policy and legislative framework
98
for CBNRM, and to resolve contradictions, misunderstandings or other deficiencies in policy
implementation.
12. Reflections on Performance Monitoring for CBNRM
To date, the national CBNRM program has been handicapped by a lack of a small, focused set of
well-defined impact indicators and an efficient system to monitor performance. The work by the
MSI M&E and institutional development specialists has been useful to assess and guide the
strengthening of individual organizations. The LIFE team has also helped USAID to meet its
monitoring and reporting requirements. It is perhaps an opportune time for MET and other
NACSO members to take the lead in conceptualising a set of indicators and a performance
monitoring system that will help to guide the program in achieving its objectives, reinforce the
broadened vision of the program and enhance its credibility with a wider range of stakeholders.
To develop such a system, the partners will need to revisit a number of basic questions:

 What are we aiming to achieve? How can the program accommodate the varied goals and
objectives of different stakeholders?

 Where does the common ground lie? In sustainable rural development? More jobs and
income? Progress with respect to other socio-economic parameters? More productive and
sustainable use of natural resources? Reduced environmental and natural resource
degradation?

 How can we efficiently track progress with respect to these goals and objectives, and
regularly report to all interested parties and constituencies on achievements?

 How far have we progressed in realizing such a vision? Is it well known among government
decision-makers and appreciated by the key stakeholders?
As background for selecting the key indicators and reflecting on the parameters of a performance
monitoring system for the CBNRM programme, it may be helpful for NACSO to facilitate a
reflection on the critical benchmarks or results to be achieved along the ìroad to sustainability in
CBNRMî. For example:

 Local communities of resource users and managers are well served and organized within
conservancies and other legally recognized CBOs; these CBOs function in a transparent and
democratic manner, and their elected leadership is downwardly accountable to the members.
The CBOsí status, vision and strategy for sustainable development, and essential procedures
are articulated and well publicized in a constitution that has been adopted by the assembled
community.

 Financial management and benefit distribution systems are in place, and fully operational
with safeguards against corruption. Investments in improved NRM and sustainable use of NR
by community members are rewarded by increased levels of economic benefit that directly
accrue to resource users and managers. Community members help ensure the effectiveness of
common property resource management systems and share in an equitable distribution of
benefits generated by such systems.

 CBNRM activities and decentralized decision-making procedures include provisions to
manage (avoid and mitigate) potential conflicts over the use of natural resources.
99

 Appropriate numbers of sub-units are organized and functional to support the development
and implementation of NRM plans. The CBNRM planning process serves to put local
communities in control, and enables them to hold government and NGO service providers
accountable for supporting their aspirations and needs. NRM and land use plans have been
developed to secure local livelihoods and to meet priority development needs, are endorsed
by the community, are recognized by the appropriate government agencies, and legitimised
by the CBNRM policy and legislative framework.

 CBOs and other grassroots CBNRM institutions are organized into regional and national
associations, and are empowered to represent the interests of their constituents in policy
dialogue, public hearings, political debates and other forums. These associations are
networked with other civil society organizations and capable of intervening in the political
and governance process to defend the interests of the local community.

 Government extension services, NGOs and private sector service providers have a forum and
organizational framework to facilitate information sharing and collaboration; they work
together to complement one anotherís strengths and capabilities, so as to maximize their
contributions to the goals of the national program.

 The national CBNRM program has clearly visible leadership, and an accountable and well￾defined management structure. This structure is constituted as a quasi-public, semi￾autonomous entity, and functions as a coalition of community association, government, NGO
and private sector interests. The program benefits from closely monitored financial
management, a well-organized performance monitoring system, adaptive management
systems, and collective learning processes.

 Fiscal policies, taxation and revenue systems provide incentives for making capital, technical
support and capacity building services available to local communities and entrepreneurs
within the community. Established CBOs have secure rights and negotiation skills that
enable them capitalize on income streams from NR based enterprises that are developed in
accord with their development and NRM plans.

 Government policies are supportive of the progressive devolution of NR rights and
responsibilities, as community level capabilities and systems are developed. Government
decision-makers are regularly briefed on the performance of CBOs and CBNRM activities,
and accountable in turn to elected representatives in Parliament and the general public.

 A free and open media promotes transparency, accountability and good governance.

 Environmental education begins in primary school, and is reinforced by all sectors of society.
Human resource development is a fundamental preoccupation of the national CBNRM
program. Public investments in education and human resources development, and associated
applied research and information sharing activities ensure that qualified personnel are
available and readily engaged in contributing to the goals of the national CBNRM program.
13. Summary of Key Recommendations on Policy
For MET and GRN:
1. Strengthen policies to affirm the mandate and authority of conservancies and other CBOs to
locally coordinate and implement integrated NRM plans.
2. Convene periodic reviews of CBNRM program activities in order to broaden an appreciation
by decision-makers in the GRN of the programís accomplishments and potential synergies
100
and other opportunities. The National Planning Commission could play a lead role in
facilitating the organization of such a review, to ensure that there is balanced participation
from those supporting CBNRM with an environmental conservation orientation (MET), and
those supporting CBNRM from a rural development perspective (MAWRD).
3. Establish an inter-ministerial forum on CBNRM, to meet quarterly with the aim of promoting
information sharing and collaboration, and to reinforce the mandate for technical services
from different line ministries to work together in support of locally-coordinated CBNRM
activities. This forum would include representatives from MET, MAWRD, MLRR, MLRGH,
MTI, NPC and others as appropriate, and could be chaired on a rotating basis, by a
designated ministry.
4. Track and support the harmonization of sectoral policies related to CBNRM.
5. Capitalize on opportunities to reinforce CBNRM through fiscal policy reforms and other
incentives.
6. Elaborate a unified, coherent and strengthened CBNRM policy.
For NACSO and its members, including the WWF/LIFE team:
1. Work with MET to clarify guidelines, and to streamline and decentralize regulatory
procedures in a manner consistent with the original objectives of the conservancy policy.
2. Facilitate participation by conservancy members in the review of pending legislation.
3. Track and support measures aimed at increasing land tenure security and local control over
natural resources.
4. Facilitate agreement among stakeholders on CBNRM performance monitoring indicators,
and encourage the incorporation of these performance indicators into the work planning,
approaches and reporting of conservancies, GRN services and CBNRM support
organizations.
101
Annex E
Conservancy Economics
1. Privatising, or De-nationalising, the Wildlife Resource
Historically, the wildlife resource was nationalized throughout the region, with landholders being
prohibited from using wildlife as a commodity. The use of rangeland consequently swung
heavily to livestock, especially as the sector was subsidization. In communal areas, wildlife had
little value, whereas investing in livestock was made profitable because private owned livestock
has free access to open access rangeland. By the 1990s, some 95% of large herbivore biomass in
the region was comprised of cattle, goats and sheep.
2. Wildlifeís Comparative Advantage
From the 1960s, policy and legislation began to recognize that wildlife conservation would be
best served by converting wildlife into a commodity that benefited landholders. This was first
translated into policy or legislation in Zimbabwe and Namibia in the early 1960s.
Economic research showed that by the 1990s, wildlife had a comparative advantage in using
rangelands, and was more profitable than livestock in terms of income, forex earnings and
employment. The terms of trade were also shifting steadily towards wildlife given increasing
demands for recreation, declining prices of primary commodities, and softening local currencies.
Wildlife has a comparative advantage as soon as the boundary of viable rainfed agricultural
production is crossed (about 700mm), but its relative value increases with lower rainfall. Not
surprisingly, wildlife also has an ecological comparative advantage. A wide range of mobile
species is adapted to Africaís savannas and their variable weather patterns. Sedentary, single￾species systems of exotic livestock are not. It is estimated that southern Africaís rangelands have
lost some 40% of their productivity through bush encroachment (let alone soil losses where over￾grazing is more serious). Not only has it resulted in widespread ecological damage, or
desertification, but conventional livestock production is not viable, except where herders can
free-ride on the environment: for example, in 1990, only 5% of commercial cattle ranchers in
Zimbabwe were viable.
With the granting of partial use rights to wildlife on private land, ranchers responded rapidly to
these economic signals. Wildlife enterprises grew rapidly, and even dominated traditional
livestock enterprises on private land. These land use trends, with a major shift to wildlife in
Zimbabwe, South Africa and Namibia where most private land in the region is found, confirm
the economistís assessment that wildlife is more profitable than alternatives, or at the least
should be added to the enterprise mix.
3. CBNRM and Resource Pricing
From the mid-1980s, several countries, most notably Zimbabwe (CAMPFIRE), Zambia
(ADMADE), Botswana (NRMP) and Namibia (LIFE) initiated CBNRM programmes. While
102
CBNRM had wider aims including rural empowerment, democratisation and conservation, it
served to modify the institutions governing property rights and benefits. The intention was to
improve economic institutions and pricing mechanisms to ensure that wildlifeís comparative
economic advantage was more closely reflected in private benefits, and thus in landholder
decision-making.
A major constraint to this process was the historical tendency to view wildlife benefits as a
public asset. Wildlife benefits were often used collectively for social infrastructure or to cover
the organisational overheads of communities. There was often bureaucratic resistance to
allowing people to benefit directly from wildlife. The more wildlife benefits could be treated as
public assets, the greater influence these officials and community leaders had over them.
However, wildlife benefits are managed as private benefits, through mechanism tat treat wildlife
just like other natural commodities (livestock, agriculture), economic signals will continue to be
stacked against wildlife.
The greatest progress in ìgetting prices rightî is associated with revenue distribution processes
where individual community members have the full right to allocate and use wildlife benefits,
including cash dividends. This also empowers people to drive their own destiny, since wildlife
revenues flow upward to the command of the entire community. Fiscal devolution of wildlife
revenues has begun to level the economic playing field for wildlife. It has also been a powerful
tool for grassroots empowerment, democratisation and institutional-building. There are few other
tools that can be used as powerfully to improve rural governance, while simultaneously avoiding
high levels of conflict. Most other resources have already been captured, so that the devolution
of benefits and promotion of equity creates serious conflict with entrenched elite groups.
While there are other reasons for supporting CBNRM, from the economistsí perspective two
institutional factors are important:

 the delineation of rights to wildlife and other resources as a basis for resource pricing and
allocation; and

 the removal of the differential taxation associated with the tendency to view wildlife as a
social asset.
The remainder of this section will assess the potential role of wildlife for improving livelihoods
in Namibia. First it is necessary to look at the economic potential of wildlife, and especially
whether the concept of conservancies is economically and financially viable. Second, it assesses
the institutional constraints that prevent the full realization of the value of wildlife. While this is
an economic assessment it obviously has repercussions for wildlife conservation. By ensuring
the private-community ownership of wildlife, incentives are created for sound natural resource
management. It also has consequences for livelihoods, where both the capture of benefits by
formerly disenfranchised Namibians, and the need to organise communities along democratic
lines to manage this new economic asset, can be strongly beneficial.
103
4. Wildlife Profitability and Conservancy Sustainability
Trends on private land confirm wildlife is profitable. In the twenty years to 1990, the number of
species increased 44%, biomass increase 80% and economic turnover doubled to N$56 million in
1990 values (Barnes and De Jaager 1992). This was before the major regional surge in tourism in
the 1990s, with tourism appearing to be Namibiaís fastest growing sector in the mid-1990s36.
Colonialism, and especially apartheid, had a massive impacts on wildlife, and the economic
institutions governing wildlife, in communal areas:

 Much of the wildlife in the communal sector was eliminated by the South African Defence
Force, the desert elephant and rhino in Kunene, and wildlife populations in Caprivi being
poignant examples. Indeed, prior to the conservancy programme, and its predecessor the
Community Game Scouts initiated by IRDNC, the future for wildlife in communal lands
looked bleak.

 The traditional conservation paradigm of ìprotectingî alienated wildlife from most
Namibians. They were excluded from gainful, legal participation in the sector for fully thirty
years after this failed protectionist policy was reversed on private land.

 Black Namibians were notably absent from the wildlife sector, and were excluded from
developing the relevant knowledge, managerial skills and institutions.
When analysing the National CBNRM and LIFE programmes, therefore, it is necessary to
recognize that the programme started from a near zero-base in terms of wildlife resources,
economic institutions, and human capacity. Immediate economic returns were impossible, nor
expected, but would depend upon investment in re-building this set of production capacities.
Barnes et al.37 developed detailed models to reflect a wide spectrum of conditions. These are
based on five conservancies:

 Torra, high potential in Kunene region;

 Khoadi Hoas, also with good potential in Kunene, but having to support relatively high
populations of people and livestock;

 Nyae Nyae, with reasonable hunting potential but basically too flat, remote and monotonous
for significant tourism potential.

 Mayuni, with high potential largely owing to its proximity to the Golden Triangle of the
Bwabwata National Park and the attractiveness of the Kwando river.

 Salambala, with relatively low potential owing to high human densities.
These models confirm regional evidence that wildlife has a comparative advantage and is a
sound investment. They also suggest that most conservancies can be viable while making a
significant, and even a large, contribution to household livelihood. As Barnes et al. conclude:
 
36 The real GDP of hotels and restaurants grew 35.94% from 1995 to 1999 against a national growth rate of 11.06%,
and outgrew any other sector. Despite this, tourism was not reflected as a sector (Standard Band Namibia, Namibia
in Figures, 2000/2001 edition.
37 J. Barnes, J. MacGregor, and L.C. Weaver 2001. ìEconomic analysis of community wildlife use initiatives in
Namibia.î Research Discussion Paper No. 42, Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of Environment and
Tourism, Windhoek, Namibia.
104

 Conservancies are economically efficient, and highly likely to be sustainable;

 Conservancies provide attractive returns for communities, even if the donor input is
calculated in as a cost;

 Achieving these potentials is highly dependent on the development of tourism joint ventures,
with safari hunting also being important;

 Restocking is only economically efficient if the conservation values of wildlife are included
(i.e. assuming that the donor input is free).
Barnes et al. conclude that in most conservancies, the financial returns justify the community
investing in wildlife even without donor input. The donor contribution is certainly economically
efficient and can be justified in at least three ways:

 It hastens the path to sustainability.

 It compensates for past discriminatory practices.

 It represents a payment for non-use values, and is a willingness by rich nations to pay for
wildlife conservation in poorer ones.
It is reassuring to note that all conservancies are moderately resilient to such factors as the
impact of political instability on tourism or animal rights on hunting, especially if they support
multiple uses and negative factors do not operate simultaneously.
Also note that this represents only the payment for the production of the wildlife asset by the
community. Tour operators then take this wildlife asset, convert it into a tourism product, and
add further value through outfitting or tourism services. The impact on the Namibian economy,
therefore, is considerably higher.
Table E1 The Viability and Sustainability of a Range of Typical Conservancies
Torra Khoadi
Hoas
Nyae Nyae Mayuni Salambala
Area 352,200 386,000 900,095 28,400 93,000
Wildlife area 108,586 177,650 900,095 13,300 11,000
Households 120 700 700 450 1,200
Ha/LSU 30 25 15 12 12
Tourism potential High Good Fair High Fair
Safari hunting potential Good Fair Good Low Fair
Return on investment (profitability)
Financial rate of return
(including donor costs)
44% 39% 18% 24% 17%
Financial rate of return
(excluding donor costs)
133% 205% 154% 220% 40%
Economic rate of return 131% 66% 22% 126% 31%
Impact
Cash income per HH 3,388 598 675 1,628 355
Cash income (per Ha) 1.2 1.1 0.5 26 4.6
Economic value added 1.4 1.2 0.3 29 4.9
Jobs created 8 12 26 22 12
105

 In rough terms, if the community makes $1.20 from tourism in Torra, this represents a direct
tourism turnover of $6.20 to Namibia. This is based on the assumption that a community can
attain 10% of the tourism turnover in user fees, and that a similar amount (10% of turnover)
accrues to the community in the form of wages. With a tourism multiplier approaching 2.0,
the economic impact on Namibia is about $12.40.

 Likewise, the safari hunting income of $0.5/ha in Nyae Nyae, translates into direct economic
turnover of $1.0 to Namibia. With trophy hunting, the revenue retained by a community that
has a fair bargaining position is usually about one third of what the client pays the outfitter.
This translates to $2.0 per hectare when the tourism multiplier is applied.
The relatively poor performance of some conservancies reflects the inclusion of non-essential
expenditures. In Nyae Nyae, for instance, high employment is more of a social welfare
mechanism than an investment decision. In other conservancies (not analysed here) there is also
a tendency to employ to many community game guards and to pay them too much. Such over￾expenditure is usually associated with supply- or budget-driven processes, that is governments or
donor as opposed to profit-seeking businesses.
5. The Potential of Tourism in Conservancies in Namibia
This has been discussed in some detail in annex C. Our basic conclusion is that the potential for
tourism in Conservancies, especially the Northwest, Caprivi, Nyae Nyae and even North Central
is large, probably far larger than previously estimated by the LIFE programme.
However, open-access to these areas means that tourism is uncontrolled and unplanned. It is
earning far less than it should (table C2), while imposing far higher ecological and other impacts
than should be acceptable. The leadership and policy framework for the tourism sector, and even
the tourism operations themselves, are unimaginative and sub-optimal. There appears to be little
communication within the sector. The industry is desperately in need of improved leadership,
Box E1
How Fair Are the Business Partnerships with the Private Sector?
One of the challenges with developing business partnerships with the private sector is a
misunderstanding of how the finances work. The achievement of a user fee by communities of about
10% for tourism, or 33% for hunting, is perceived to be unfair. This is a misperception since these
small percentages of turnover actually equate to a large proportion of the profit, usually as much or
more than half. A well-organized community with sound assistance and information to support their
negotiation, should gets more than half the ëprofití from the enterprise if the process is open and
competitive.
Without the benefit of time for a detailed analysis of the joint ventures so far concluded, my
impressions is that they represent massive gains in favour of the community. Merely introducing
tourism enterprises to formerly undeveloped areas provides significant benefits in the form of
employment to the community and economic activity and forex to Namibia. Communities are
averaging less than 0.5% of turnover. The Torra, Twyfelfontein and Spittzkoppe (potential) contracts
therefore represent a twenty-fold increase in community share. This is commendable, and the 10%
share negotiated appears reasonably fair when compared to similar arrangements in the region.
106
and the infusion of new ideas and foreign capital. The outmoded status quo needs to be opened
up to competition, and imagination. The growth potential predicted for conservancies is certainly
feasible given the quality of infrastructure and the wildlife, scenic and cultural resource.
However, the ëenablingí environment is the primary factor limiting this growth.
We have already mentioned that the
underlying problem is the open-access nature
of tourism in communal lands and
conservancies. This considerably reduces the
incentive for the careful planning of tourism,
since the lack of control makes
implementation difficult. It also creates
investment uncertainty, which increases risk
and therefore lowers prices and incentives.
This is unfortunate because careful planning
of the various regions (especially Caprivi and
the Northwest) is essential to optimise the
commercial and economic potential, and also
to control possible environmental problems.
However, as an adjunct to the previous point, we make the observation that the level of use can
be greatly increased provided it is carefully controlled. The ultra-conservative outlook of some
conservationists is to exclude use by tourists, or to keep this to the minimum, for instance is
ësensitiveí areas such as rhino habitat. These claims are probably more linked to proprietary
territoriality than to real risks of negative impact. Moreover, the long term sustainability of
wildlife is positively influence by linking it to careful commercial exploitation. This is illustrated
by the experience of private land, but also by the close correlation between wildlife numbers and
tourism operations in several African countries.
Returning the rights for rural Namibians to control the resources in their conservancies would
provide a powerful mechanism for rectifying these problems. With support from the LIFE
partnership and MET, they could plan and control the tourism industry. This would greatly
expand the size, and reduce the impact, of the tourism economy. Moreover, by acquiring these
rights, conservancies would be in a strong bargaining position, and could increase their share of
the profits twenty-fold. Assuming the industry quadruples in size, the income paid to
conservancies could be increased by a factor of 80. We have already described this in some
detail (annex C), but we again emphasis the magnitude of lost opportunity, and particularly the
continued inequity faced by Historically Disadvantaged Namibians living in subsistence
conditions in conservancies.
6. Solutions
Granting rights to exclusion, supported by assistance with training in business and tourism
planning and negotiation, is necessary to achieve this potential, as well as an equitable stake in
the sector by communities. To unlock this potential, we recommend that the Business Enterprise
and Institutional Team be strengthened to support conservancies to develop and implement
sustainability plans (see annex C).
Table E2
The Tourism Economy in Northwestern Namibia
Actual Potential
Impact on Namibian
economy
98,230,130 375,940,296
Enterprise turnover 49,115,065 187,970,148
Costs 43,949,502 149,009,590
Profits for operator 14,480,463 36,227,501
Wages to community 4,116,260 19,287,565
Community fees 1,049,303 19,672,993
Conservancy fees as
a percent of turnover
2% 10%
Note: If recently negotiated contracts are removed,
communities get less than 0.5% of enterprise turnover.
107
This will obviously require making conservancies aware of the need to become financially
sustainable before donor pullout. This awareness should then be translated into viability
planning, and from there into tourism plans to manage the trade-offs and impacts of tourism, and
to provide the basis for investment portfolios. The next step is to train and support communities
to find private sector partners and to negotiate with and contract them to develop viable tourism
businesses. Finally, support will be needed to maintain and oversee these relationships, and
occasionally to arbitrate when conflicts arise. The same basic process applies for safari hunting,
similar commercial skills but different technical skills are needed.
Establishing both tourism and hunting enterprises needs to be done in partnership with MET,
with whom the Business Enterprise and Institutional Team should be closely associated to the
degree that mentoring and training MET staff should be a priority of this team. This process
should assist MET in streamlining procedures such as quotas, tourism applications (PTOs) and
the like, leading iteratively to improvements in policies and regulations. The underlying
philosophy should be threefold:

 That wildlife conservation is most likely where the primary beneficiary is the landholder
community.

 That rights should be returned to rural Namibians as quickly and as fully as possible.

 That people should be empowered to determine their own destinies.
7. Economic Assessment of Programme
Given the time available, and the confounding of several inputs (other donors, MET) and factors
(drought, civil strife, general economic trends), we can provide only a crude indication of the
economic impact of the USAIDñLIFE intervention.
There is good data (annex 3) to show steadily, and even dramatic, increases in wildlife
populations. In rough terms, we have suggested that the annual incremental use value of wildlife
in North Western Namibia (if it were fully used) has increased by US$2 million. This figure does
not include important non-financial conservation values, such as the preservation of desert rhino
and elephants, or the many other forms of life that we cannot possibly quantify.
Table C3 provides a crude estimate of actual and potential size of the tourism industry that
depends on wildlife, culture and scenery in communal areas and conservancies. Both are
Box E2 The Catch-22 of Devolution
Devolution is sometimes hard to accept, mainly because it is a response to a catch-22 situation, and
because of the tendency (unsubstantiated) not to trust rural people with the responsibility for their
own lives:

 How can we give rights to people who have little experience with managing wildlife?

 But how can they learn to manage wildlife without actually managing it?
The only sensible option is to immediately entrust communities with use rights. Only by using these
rights will communities undergo the experiential learning process necessary to develop real
management capacity. However, this must be supported with careful monitoring, plus technical
advise to correct the legitimate mistakes that are integral to the learning process.
108
considerable. The USAIDñLIFE intervention has played an important role in securing the
institutional and natural resource base for this sector. There is little doubt that this has been a
wise investment of USAID money. However, the corollary is that failing to make the relatively
small additional investments that can convert this solid start into a really major sector, is
extremely unwise.
Table E3 Summary of Actual and Potential Tourism in Conservancies
Economic impact Enterprise
turnover
Wages Community
dividend
Actual 216,376,284 110,067,923 10,205,624 5,631,261
Potential 720,416,163 328,087,059 32,020,029 42,998,830
Many additional benefits of the programme relate to human and institutional capacity:

 Policies and norms are increasingly in place to devolve authority over natural resources,
especially wildlife and tourism, to Historically Disadvantaged Namibians in Conservancies.

 Methods have been developed for NRM and for commercial planning and negotiations. This
knowledge and experience is extremely valuable.

 At least 32 conservancies are sufficiently organised to use money accountably, and also to
organise NRM.

 There are at least ten functioning NGOs supporting the sector, half of which are headed by
black Namibians. Before the programme started, few of these were in existence, and they
were certainly not led by black Namibians.

 A great deal of knowledge and experience has been developed about the principles and
operationalisation of CBNRM, with global application.

 We should not under-estimate the value of the Namibian programme in the regional context.
It provides a secure beachhead from which to re-inspire such initiatives in the SADC region
once conditions are again conducive to devolution, democratisation and private-community
business partnerships.
We must therefore conclude that the LIFE investment has been worthwhile, but that the potential
for growth that it has been created should be secured through further strategic investment.
109
Table E4 Crude Cost: Benefit Assessment of Economic Status and Potential of Tourism Enterprises in the CBNRM Programme
Tourism sector Present situation Estimate of medium term potential
Economic
impact
Enterprise
turnover
Wages Community
dividend
Economic
impact
Enterprise
turnover
Wages Community
dividend
Tourism in Northwest 98,230,130 49,115,065 4,116,260 1,049,303 375,940,296 187,970,148 19,287,565 19,672,993
Tourism in Caprivi 74,460,376 37,230,188 3,723,019 116,177 119,202,000 59,601,000 6,048,600 5,287,200
Tourism in West Caprivi 23,075,670 11,537,835 1,153,787 26,243 80,000,000 20,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Tourism in North Central 80,000,000 20,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Safari hunting 14,477,540 9,651,693 321,723 3,217,231 53,273,867 35,515,911 1,183,864 11,838,637
Crafts 1,000,000 600,000 2,000,000 1,200,000
Community-based tourism
enterprises
 6,132,568 1,533,142 890,835 622,307 12,000,000 3,000,000 1,500,000 1,000,000
TOTAL 216,376,284 110,067,923 10,205,624 5,631,261 720,416,163 328,087,059 32,020,029 42,998,830
Note on estimates: Tourism multiplier is 2.0; campsite multiplier is 4.0; hunting multiplier is 1.5; outfitters gross 3 times what they pay in trophy and concession
fees; wages are roughly 10% of enterprise turnover; communities should acquire 10% of enterprise turnover in user fees.
110
Annex F
Institutional Development and Capacity Building
This section provides an overall assessment of the CBNRM program partnership as it is currently
functioning in Namibia, examining the set of organizations that comprise the institution of
CBNRM, and assessing how they are working together to achieve their common goal. See below
for some insights on how human resources and other issues within individual organizations are
affecting the partnership.
Institutional Assessment of the Partnership
The LIFE program and now NACSO have coordinated an impressive structure of support for
CBNRM and communal area conservancy formation in Namibia. Readers will be hard-pressed to
find such a cohesive, well-informed, productive partnership for CBNRM in another country. The
partner organizations and leaders of this program, from government to NGO, should be proud of
the strong institution they have established together, and the results they have been able to
achieve in a short eight-year period.
Achievements have been thoroughly documented elsewhere, however a few stood out for the
review team, including the fact that partners in the program had/were:

 Cooperating to develop and support implementation of a framework enabling the legal
protection of community wildlife use and management;

 Increasing the number of organizations involved in CBNRM from three to eleven;

 Recognizing the need for specialized organizations and either supporting fledgling groups to
fulfil that need or inviting new partner organizations into the group;

 Establishing memoranda of understanding between groups to facilitate coordination and the
use of each otherís services;

 Establishing a model built on having a lead agency in each conservancy, to buffer
communities from overlapping involvement of outsiders and to provide them with a secure
channel of support;

 At the field level, developing a productive collaboration between NGOs and MET staff,
particularly in regions with a long history of CBNRM;

 Every organization recruited to or functioning within the partnership has some impressive
capacity, in comparison to similar efforts in other parts of the subcontinent. Each has over a
decade of experience and/or solid leadership to contribute, some on conservation issues and
some on community development. Most are new to the marriage of conservation and
community development that is CBNRM, however they and their partners are striving to
bridge that gap;

 Creating a Namibian forum out of the USAID-supported partners of the LIFE program, with
membership from government and the NGO sector, and with a strong vision and respected
leadership; and

 Perhaps most importantly, facilitating communications between conservancy committees
from different areas and providing support to what may be the best hope for sustainability of
111
CBNRM in Namibia: the emerging regional conservancy associations in Kunene and
Caprivi.
Challenges or gaps are harder to define; many of those identified by the team have been
discussed in previous settings, including the 1998 LIFE evaluation, the October 2000 CAN
meeting at Gross Barmen, and the NACSO Vision Report. However we have tried to identify
some key issues for the partnership to consider.
Three specific challenges for the future of the partnership include:
1. Gap Analysis of Capacity in Key Service Areas
All the partner organizations are stretched to the limit by the demands for conservancy
development coming from the grassroots and seeking ideas for reducing/prioritising demand
and/or increasing their efficiency and numbers to meet demand. As a partnership they have not
cultivated new sources of capable personnel and in the context of Namibiaís critical shortage of
educated and experience conservation and community development candidates, this has led to
internalisation of demand (i.e., they poach from each other, compete on salaries, and often have
positions vacant for long periods without being able to fill them)
Despite the fact that each member of the partnership has some impressive strengths, these are
also quite shallow, being limited usually to two to three people. Thus our goal was to examine
both whether all services were available and resources for strengthening them or filling gaps
where they existed. For this assessment, we developed a skills roster for the partnership,
including a list of critical services (table F1) and a review of the individual programme partners
and the strengths and challenges they offer to the partnership (table F2). We worked closely with
the NACSO Secretariat and others in developing this roster and hope it will prove useful to them
in their own discussions. (As we wrote this, they met again on August 20 to work on some of
these issues.)
Table F1 lists the critical services, the organizations currently providing those resources, and
additional organizations mentioned to team members during our stay in Namibia as having
potential for adding to those resources in future.
At the bottom of the table is a special section on gaps that exist now, may exist after LIFE II
closes out, or are due to inconsistent application of services. Following is a brief discussion of
the gaps that are institutional/social in nature and may not be fully discussed elsewhere in the
report.
112
Table F1 Critical Services Supporting the CBNRM Programme
Critical Services Current resource
organizations
Organization(s) mentioned as having
potential in future to provide additional
resources
1. Sectoral Planning and
Coordination
Namibian Association of
CBNRM Support
Organizations (NACSO)
Secretariat, IRDNC
(quarterly planning
meetings)
MET, Conservancy Associations, Inter￾Ministerial Forum on NRM, Regional
Development Coordinating Committees,
National Planning Commission
2. Field level Organizing
Support to Conservancies
IRDNC, RISE, NDT,
NNDF, Rossing
Foundation, MET regional
and local officers
MET CBNRM unit, Conservancy
Associations
3. Grants Management NNF, WWF/LIFE, IRDNC
(informal grants)
EIF, NPC, private firm?
4. National and Conservancy
Level CBNRM Monitoring and
Evaluation Systems (Includes:
natural resource changes, socio￾economic impacts, institutional
and governance issues)
WWF/LIFE, NNF All NACSO partners, (especially
UNAM?)
5. Applied Research
(integrated into point above)
WILD, MET (SSSD),
UNAM
DEA Economic unit, Charly Paxton,
ECODET (with !NARA, Nicola-PRA),
NAPCOD III
6. Management of Wildlife
and Other Natural Resources
WWF/LIFE, MET (DRM,
SSS, DEA), NNF, IRDNC,
RISE, NDT
MET CBNRM unit (largely referrals to
DRM, etc.), MAWRD, DOF, DRM,
NAPCOD/DRFN
7. Capacity-Building /
Community Development
Training (Conservancy
Awareness and Formation,
Financial Management,
Community Representation,
Personnel Management, etc.)
Rossing Foundation,
IRDNC, RISE, NDT, NNF,
MET, NACOBTA
MET CBNRM unit, Polytechnic NRM
Program, !NARA, Conservancy
Associations, WIMSA, NAFEMI (Nam.
Fed. of Microfinance), Health Unltd.,
(other members of NANGOF?),
ECODET, NAPCOD, IMLT
8. Community-Based Tourism
Training and Outreach
NACOBTA, MET, RF,
Pahuka Trust, Gunter
Royber, !NARA, IHE,
Agrifutura, NATH, Isaskar
Hiakere, IRDNC
Polytechnic Tourism Program
9. Legal Support Services Legal Assistance Center Private Lawyers?
10. Advocacy and Lobbying NACSO, LAC Emerging Conservancy Association(s),
CANAM (?), NID (?)
11. Information Sharing and
CBNRM Outreach
DEA, NACSO TBNRM Program?
12. Small/Med. Enterprise
Development (Campsites,
Crafts, Other)
WWF/LIFE, RF, IRDNC,
NDT, NACOBTA
Business Training programs
(Polytechnic?), IMLT?
113
Gaps? Now or Later (when
LIFE closes)
13. Policy Coordination NACSO Working Group, NPC, Forum,
Parliamentís Standing Committee. on NR
14. Governance (at
conservancy level)
15. Communications, Conflict
Management
IRDNC (?), Rossing
16. Social Organization/
Community Governance,
Participatory Development
IRDNC, RISE, NDT !NARA
17. Gender/Age/Ethnicity/Class
Analysis Skills
Social scientist (UNAM?)
18. Benefit Distribution
Planning and
Implementation
RF, LIFE, IRDNC, RISE,
NNDF, NDT (planning)
(implementation)
19. Organizational Assessment
(Conservancies and Support
Organizations)
LIFE, NNF?, Social
scientist (UNAM?)
20. Trophy Hunting WWF/LIFE
21. Large scale Enterprise
Development and
Negotiation (Lodges/JV,
Hunting Concessions)
WWF/LIFE, MET, LAC,
IRDNC, NACOBTA
22. Microcredit Support for
Community-based
Enterprises
MTI (?), RISE, Other NANGOF
Members
23. HIV/AIDS Support to
Conservancies and
HIV/AIDS Policies within
the CBNRM Programme
DEA/NACSO and NNF lead? policy on
HIV/AIDS and CBNRM
Partnerships between field organizations
(IRDNC, NDT, RISE, Rossing, and
MET) and organizations with HIV/AIDS
extension mandate (Family Health
International, Social Marketing
Association, Min. Social Services, health
NGOs, etc.).
Source: Adapted from USAID/Namibia, LIFE Mid-term Review TOR, July 2001.

 Communications, Facilitation, and Conflict Management: While training skills in this area is
available and in use through IRDNC and the Rossing Foundation, they may be insufficient to
meet demand from conservancies in the future. It is suggested that modules for these skills be
included in the CBNRM Programme Training Toolbox, and that additional partner
organizations be trained to conduct these sessions with communities. See also below on
Capacity Building and Training in the Programme.
114

 Gender and other Socioeconomic Analysis, Methods for Participatory Development: In June,
the partners identified the need for greater integration of participatory tools in the broader
program use. They expressed the fact that although joint ventures will bring in money, they
will not be sustainable without a greater basis on social strengths at the community level.
Although these skills exist to a degree within the program, tools to allow communities to
carry out their own participatory facilitation are not widely available and are needed.38
Partners are moving toward more consistent use of participatory planning and monitoring
methods (IRDNC and partners are planning a workshop in October 2001 to focus on
developing participatory tools communities can use themselves), and thus the team applauds
that move and recommends that the program partners work closely together to integrate the
use of these tools into its work with each conservancy. To balance this increasingly rural
development oriented programmeís heavy NRM and enterprise development expertise with
credible social science expertise, we recommend a strong, experienced social science and
gender expert be brought on to the LIFE team for 2 years to serve and coordinate and build
capacity on these issues within the partnership. This person would help to institutionalise the
use of relevant data in those areas. They would help answer questions such as ìwhat would it
take to integrate participatory approaches and applied research more consistently into the
program work with conservancies?î They would help develop tools for community
management and monitoring, which may in turn facilitate the conservancy-to-conservancy
mentoring approach discussed in the NACSO vision report. They would build on the
contribution the WILD project will make, which is to help monitor the impacts CBNRM is
making on communities. It has also been suggested that this kind of person is needed to help
continue the use of Institutional Development Profiles and Conservancy Management
Profiles and could be tasked with both.
Recommendation: To balance this increasingly rural development oriented programmeís
heavy NRM and enterprise development expertise with credible social science expertise, we
recommend a strong, experienced social science, institutions, and gender expert be brought
on to the LIFE team for 2 years to serve and coordinate and build capacity on these issues
within the partnership. S/he should be linked with or based in one of the newer organizations
to the partnership (RISE or NDT) yet be able to provide technical input to serve the whole
national program. This person would help to institutionalise the use of relevant data in those
areas. (S/he would not necessarily have to be an expatriate, however there is strong support
for someone with extensive experience in the Southern Africa region.)

 Benefit Distribution Planning and Implementation: It was strongly noted that although
conservancies are required to establish equitable benefit distribution plans, none has yet
implemented an equitable (financial) benefit distribution, and revenues from joint ventures
 
38 Gender analysis skills were lacking in certain staff and reporting systems, a gap that would unfortunately (and
wrongly?) cause the programme to be labeled as missing a socially appropriate focus, particularly in places where
women-headed households, which typically have very different NRM and livelihood strategies, comprise such a
high percentage of the population (42% in Caprivi). However the active involvement of women in CRM and CGG
(in Kunene) positions and support of income-generation opportunities through crafts activities is laudable. It just
doesnít necessarily ensure a voice for women because the communities themselves may not have analyzed the
gender-based use of resources.
115
and hunting agreements are not always well accounted for within conservancy financial
management systems. (In fact, the capacity building specialist in Caprivi noted that revenues
should probably be returned to conservancies only in public meetings where the private
sector partner is present.) This issue has the potential to endanger the entire program as it
raises the visibility of the program before government and seemingly has failed to find
equitable methods of implementing benefit distribution. Related to this is the slow pace at
which conservancy committees are registering their full adult populations: in Mayuni, 422
out of 1,271 adults are registered; in Salambala 1997 out of 6,144 are registered, after three
or four years in existence (IRDNC). Finally, it is useful to relate these plans back to
socioeconomic baseline data about the communities and to continue to incorporate non￾financial benefits in the planning process. Employment seems to be a higher priority than
cash returns to nearly all conservancy members, for example.
Recommendation: Build on participatory appraisal plans from communities to create village
development plans, and to empower the people to use those to determine and then monitor
how benefits are distributed.

 Organizational Assessment: The latest of the LIFE Conservancy Management Profiles and
Institutional Development Profiles was completed in May 2001. These were seen as useful
but not linked systematically to program planning within the subject organizations. In July,
the person tasked with the assessment job completed his contract. He overlapped for one
week with another fully employed person on the LIFE staff who is supposed to continue this
service, and little or not at all with the NNF person, also fully employed, yet tasked with
eventually taking over his work. It is difficult to see how the program will continue to adapt
and implement these tools without someone dedicated or at least part time in that position.
Table F2 illustrates some of the strengths and challenges faced by individual partner
organizations, both through their own assessments and by the team (Note: the team did not
conduct in-depth organizational assessments of each partneróthis could not be done in a
month. Our notes are merely impressions and notes taken from interviews and background
reading). This gap will make it more difficult for partners and conservancies to know where
to focus their own capacity building efforts and to practice adaptive management.
Related to this issue is the concern of partners on ways to prioritise where to work. Requests
for assistance in developing a ìscreening toolî for new and emerging conservancies make
sense, however it also might be worthwhile for partners to explore formal ways to ìgraduateî
older conservancies from outside assistance. There is a danger of dependency on grants and
continuing technical assistance if an agreed-upon graduation plan is not developed with each
conservancy. Using the Conservancy Management Profiles as a final step might provide a
useful measurement for when each committee is ready to graduate.
Recommendation: Within the partnershipís planned M&E system, continue periodic use of
Institutional Development Profiles and Conservancy Management Profiles as part of a
qualified personís job description, preferably the person referred to in the discussion on
gender above. Expand the areas covered to include ìstrategic planningî and ìorganizational
learning/teamwork/documenting lessons learnedî; link the profiles to internal strategic
planning processes. Ensure that they can be adaptable as a self-assessment tool as well,
116
which means including controls to alleviate bias (see Levinger and Bloom undated). The
other part of this equation is the need to cultivate closer ties with educational institutions that
can provide trained, committed new candidates for positions now unfilled in the program.
Even the most capable
organizations have only a
few staff members with
experience and commitment
to CBNRM; most have just
two or three. At the
moment, most organizations
also seem to be seeking
qualified applicants for one
or more positions in their
CBNRM portfolio.
Inadequate attention has
been given by the program
to developing formal
linkages with institutions
capable of providing good candidates. The sources of capable new Namibian staff are few,
however there are promising signs from the Polytechnic especially (see figures F1 and F2, K.
Nott 2001), and UNAM-MRCC to a degree, that given some effort, these can increase as
valuable partners in developing new capacity for CBNRM.
The Polytechnicís NRM Program provides
a diploma in conservation and a distance￾education bachelorís, called the B-Tech,
for more advanced students. Already the
program is working with IRDNC on
several intensive (one-week) exposure
trips to Wereldsend to introduce students
to CBNRM. And graduates of both
programs are in increasing demand from
NGOs and the MET and are themselves
expressing great interest in CBNRM.
Recommendations: That the program strengthen its formal ties with the Polytechnic NRM
program, e.g., that NACSO requests IRDNC, which already has strong connections there, to
work with the Polytechnic NRM Program leadership to enhance the programís focus on
CBNRM for the benefit of the entire partnership (including in-service in partner
organizations, participatory methods training, and socioeconomic development). Increase
knowledge of community development organizations and staff, both in Namibia and in other
countries in the region, that might prove as resources for the CBNRM program. UNAM may
also play an increased role in future if it can organize to develop courses related to CBNRM
at some point, and/or organize a broader pool of faculty qualified to provide more consistent
research services.
National Diploma in Nature 
Conservation: Where did the 
graduates go?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percent of
Graduates to
Government 
Percent to
Private Sector
(game lodges,
etc.)
Percent to
CBNRM NGOs
1999
2000
Figure F2 B-Tech Nature 
Conservation: Where Do Students 
Work?
0 50 100
1st Intake
2nd Intake Percent with
NGO
Percent with
Government
0 50 100
1999
2000
Figure F1 National Diploma in Nature 
Conservation: Where Did the Graduates Go?
Percent of Graduates
to Government 
Percent to Private
Sector (game
lodges, etc.)
Percent to CBNRM
NGOs
117
Additional gaps that the partnership should consider (some appear elsewhere in the report)
include:

 Cooperation with MET is profoundly lacking, from both NGOs and MET itself. Low morale
and lack of proactive coordination and trust vis-‡-vis the NGOs involved in CBNRM in
Namibia are a symptom of this problem. An example of this state of affairs is the demand
from within MET for an external survey of certain conservancies. This issue might be better
handled through a collaborative dialogue and information-sharing process between the MET,
NGOs, and the tribal authorities in question. MET and the NGO community have the same
goal, which is to ensure the widest possible benefits to communities from the sustainable use
of wildlife. They should avoid allowing authorities with a narrower focus to derail progress
in that regard. The USAID/Namibia program in democracy and governance might also
provide useful contributions to this discussionópartners noted that a policy directive is
needed stating that the principle of ìmajority rulesî decides such conflicts. Similarly, the
NGO community could be more creative and proactive in its cooperation with MET. An
example might beóinstead of holding meetings where MET involvement is crucial outside
the Ministry, working with key ministerial personnel to co-host meetings in MET
boardrooms to make it easier for them to attend for the full length of the meeting. This is
often done by organizations aiming to improve relations with busy USAID staff in
Washington, DC.
Recommendation: MET should increase its involvement in NACSO activities even before
the CBNRM unit positions are filled by delegating a proxy from DOF or other directorates
with similar interest and capacity. Simultaneously, NACSOís secretariat and members should
strongly increase ties to MET Namibian staff (even before and beyond CBNRM Unit).
Include them in all field visits, training events, planning sessions, publicity events, etc. Begin
outreach to other potential partners in government (e.g., MAWRD, Lands, Fisheries,
Parliamentary Committee on NR, etc.).

 The NACSO ìvisioningî document includes numerous references to ìopening the doorsî of
the CBNRM program in a pro-active way to involve other development sectors and actors in
addition to those traditionally linked to conservation. The decision several years ago to seek
the involvement of organizations such as NANGOF, NDT and RISE was partly based on a
desire to bring in groups with more general rural development experience. Unfortunately, the
way these groups have become integrated into the CBNRM partnership has forced them to
conform to the pre-existing programmatic approach (wildlife, tourism, natural resource
monitoring) rather than having the addition of new organizations and experiences lead to a
broadening of the program model.
A number of factors are making it increasingly imperative that the Namibian CBNRM
program adopts a broader development vision. First, donor resources for Namibia are
declining. It is unlikely that a narrowly focused conservation program will be able to
generate the level of funds that have been enjoyed in the past and the incorporation of other
sectoral assistance programs will be necessary to provide the conservancy communities the
support they need. Secondly, communities themselves are advocating for more integration
118
between the environment and natural resource focus of the conservancies and the other
social, economic and political development needs and opportunities faced by rural
Namibians. Kwandu Conservancy in Caprivi and Khoadi-Hoas in Kunene are examples of
communities that are requesting support from outside to implement their integrated
development vision, which incorporates natural resource management within the broader
plan. These two should be models for replication in other conservancies in the program
(however the process by which the Kwandu plan was done should be revised to include team
members with participatory methods and gender analysis skills).
It is important to note that the team does not feel this would require extensive additional
inputs to achieve. Much of the groundwork, i.e., doing broad, development oriented
participatory planning in new communities, is already part of the process. It needs to be made
consistent, given a credible socioeconomic groundtruthing, and then used as the basis of
further work in these communities. These suggestions are provided to help partners visualize
how to integrate the NRM work into the framework communities lay in the participatory
methods process. WWF/LIFE and the NACSO secretariat have an opportunity to foster and
facilitate an expansion of the scope of the CBNRM program. Definite emphasis should be
placed on making that shift in support within the coming year, by moving to an improved
understanding of the contributions community development organizations can provide to the
partnership. In the time remaining, LIFE should draw upon its resources and connections to
help transform the internal and external perception of the program from a narrow
conservation focus to a broader rural development orientation. A LIFE Phase out Plan should
include detailed actions, benchmarks and objectives to accomplish this transformation.
Recommendation: Step 1 should be to support conservancies to establish integrated
development plans with broad community participation early on in the process, moving to
address wildlife and other natural resources once that context is agreed upon. Step 2 should
be to begin learning more about what organizations with a community development
background can contribute to the CBNRM program. A ìstrategic alliancesî approach, linking
each conservation-oriented organization with a community development group for long-term
collaboration and mutual learning, is recommended. Step 3 should be to cultivate and
incorporate additional organizations with an existing CBNRM program (such as
DRFN/NAPCOD) or strong capacity and interest in contributing to CBNRM (such as
Polytechnic, NANGOF, etc.) as more active members of NACSO.

 It is understandable that USAID and the LIFE staff want to see rapid advancement and
results from large-scale income generating joint ventures and enterprises operating in the
conservancies. However, we must emphasize two key realities: first, rural households are in
need of small-scale livelihood improvements first, which can prepare them for larger
opportunities later. Small influxes of cash at opportune moments in the yearly cycle of
survival make a significant difference to poor families and opportunities that provide those
on a wide scale, rather than concentrating large amounts in the hands of a few better￾equipped families, should be the focus of the programís enterprise development efforts (e.g.,
community-managed camps, use of game for biltong sales, use of palm for basket sales, etc.).
If the program can build adequate protections into the process of benefit distribution to
ensure that happens even with large-scale ventures, then it should continue as is; however it
119
is yet to be seen whether this can happen. Otherwise, the program should refocus enterprise
efforts on small and medium activities that specifically target community ownership and
management.
Second, the way in which large-scale ventures are being developed by the program raises a
red flag. When LIFE staff take on most of the responsibilities for accomplishing large-scale
deals themselves, they are doing a disservice to the communities and to the Namibian support
organizations. If Namibian capacity in this area is to be established, Namibian organizations
need to take the lead with LIFE providing a nurturing and supporting role. Most importantly,
communities themselves need to drive the process. The team heard of several instances
where the process was rushed and inadequately consultative, and was also completed without
legal review of contracts to ensure the best deal for the community (e.g., in Nyae Nyae,
Mashi, and Spitzkoppe). This may slow down the process and mistakes may be made, but in
the long run it is the only sustainable route. In the final analysis, it is not the existence of the
joint ventures and enterprises alone that will make the CBNRM program successful and
sustainable. They are only part of the larger development and empowerment opportunities
that the program offers and these larger goals will be more effectively realized if capacity
and experiences are gained in the process, and if built on solid, broad support from the
community.
Recommendation: LIFE staff should move from the front seat to the back seat in carrying
out negotiations on the conservanciesí enterprise development initiatives. These should be
spearheaded by conservancies themselves, with support from Namibian institutions and
preparations and back up from LIFE.

 LIFE needs to move away from being directly responsible for a broad range of results in the
CBNRM program to making sure that other institutions in the partnership have the capacity
to get similar results. One way to make this transformation occur is to physically locate LIFE
technical staff members within the offices of the support organizations. The terms of
reference for the LIFE staff should also be amended to emphasize mentoring
accomplishments rather than direct achievements. Finally, this secundment should be
temporary by design so as not to build dependency, and perhaps this could be best
accomplished by instituting a rotation system in those instances where specific capacities are
being built in more than one organization.
Recommendation: Initiate a Phase Out Plan that includes the temporary placement of
current LIFE staff in the support institutions that will remain when LIFE closes. Move from
ìmanagement to mentoringî role, and attach 2 or 3 Namibian counterparts to each LIFE TA
position (including those in MET). Agree on reduced ìproductsî and greater ìcapacityî
targets with USAID.

 The DPWM has a fulltime Human Resource Development Advisor supported by LIFE II to
assist the directorate to meet such challenges as:
1. Despite having guidelines on competency for various positions within the directorate,
being perceived as operating more within the guidelines of political expediency
120
2. Addressing a long list of knowledge and skills required by the soon-to-be appointed
CBNRM Unit officers. Although it seems that the Polytechnic can be of assistance in
addressing some of the training needs for this group, LIFE and NACSO may need to be
proactive in helping the HRD and CBNRM Advisors and their counterparts to fill these
gaps.
3. Generally, providing strong support for the implementation of HRD strategies and plans
during the tenure of the Advisor, who despite an incredibly productive tenure to date,
cannot enforce the use of his tools, draft performance management framework, and other
contributions.
However, it is clear that more budget needs to be committed within MET to training and
capacity building. The current figure of N$50,000 cannot begin to serve the needs of some
1,000 employees. Finally, it is not clear why, when the HRD Advisor has a relatively short
(two-year?) appointment, one of his counterparts was permitted to leave for graduate training
and the other resigned and has not been replaced. While graduate education is important, it
should be arranged to take place in a different period than when such a resource person is
available to provide hands-on training and practice. The directorate should fill the second
position and/or appoint replacement counterpart staff immediately so as to utilize the full
potential of the advisorís short time in the MET.

 Little will is being applied within the program to document and share lessons learned. The
approaches, successes, and impacts of the program are not well understood even by some
partners within the program, let alone shared with politically important allies in government,
fellow practitioners in other countries, or funders. In addition, little interaction with those
fellow practitioners is leading to ìinside-the-boxî thinking within the program, due to the
excuse of time focused on implementation. This can lead to decreased capacity to grow and
adapt as program needs change.
Recommendation: Incorporate time and budget into workplans to conduct objective, applied
research and to document and share lessons learned.

 The CBNRM program has matured into a national program and the factors that previously
limited WWF/LIFE and USAID actions to specific geographic regions of the country are no
longer valid. In the context of a plan to phase out and hand over responsibilities to national
organizations operating throughout the country, it no longer makes sense to financially and
technically favour specific projects over others. It seems unfair that the traditionally
supported conservancies and support organizations should receive grants many times larger
than those received by new entrants to the program, particularly when it is the new entrants
who may need the assistance more than the long involved organizations.
Recommendation: Remove the WWF/LIFE and USAID funding bias that emphasizes and
disproportionately supports CBNRM efforts in Caprivi and the Nyae Nyae area.
See table F2 for a detailed breakdown on the partner organizations within the CBNRM
programme and the strengths and challenges they face.
121
Table F2 Partners in the CBNRM Programme: Roles, Strengths and Challenges
Partner From the NACSO Vision Report and Self-Assessments Impressions from the LIFE Review Team
Organization Roles* Strengths** Challenges** Strengths Challenges
MET (Dept.
of NRM)

 Coordinate between
directorates responsible
for NRM
N/A N/A 
 Can coordinate between
NR directorates ñ planning
workshop to identify roles of
directorates and methods for
coordinating their work
(plan to include Tourism
too). Conduct integrated
planning workshops.

 Can request
representation of all NR
directorates to NACSO and
Technical Committee within
MET/ subcommittee on
CBNRM

 Can improve two-way
information flow between
HQ and MET field
officersócontinue 2-day
workshops with all Chief
Control Wardens on policy
discussions regularly

 Proactive on
decentralization?

 Strengthen focus on additional
NR, not only wildlife

 Legal conflicts over MET policy
implementation practice

 Strengthen coordination with
DOT

 Strengthen inter-ministerial and
donor coordination

 Publicize economic
achievements and potential of
program

 Implementing re-organized
structures

 Fill vacancies, retain existing
expertise, reduce turnover

 Encourage MET to implement
HRD/Training improvements
(training needs assessment ñ 1994,
merge units, move unit higher up,
expand training budget, effective
use of well-trained personnel,
professional technical standards for
positions, establishing policies and
procedures for decision-making,
etc.)

 Support continued role of
technical experts (even if not
Namibian) where needed
122
Partner From the NACSO Vision Report and Self-Assessments Impressions from the LIFE Review Team
Organization Roles* Strengths** Challenges** Strengths Challenges
MET (DEA) 
 Policy/legal
framework, research,
information
dissemination, linking
CBNRM programme to
others e.g., NAPCOD
and WILD, EIA

 Behind scenes
support (e.g., PTOs)

 Government/outside
employee mix

 Broad approach ??

 15% budget, 17%
staff on CBNRM

 Institutional
constraintsópartners
in MET

 History of strong policy
development

 Capitalize on linkages between
CBNRM, desertification control,
biodiversity conservation and
environmental assessment

 Focus information dissemination
about CBNRM on socioeconomic
gains and potential

 Target Parliament, private sector

 No field presence, must
coordinate with DRM

 Publicity program having
impact? Should focus on other NR
and development to start changing
perceptions of program.
MET
(DPWM, ex￾DRM)

 Wildlife and
protected area
management,
parks/neighbours
facilitation, CBNRM
policy framework
implementation,
community liaison and
liaison with other NRM
agencies in field,
conservancy
registration, training
conservancy in wildlife
management/
monitoring, ltd.
financial support, quota
setting, part. in
conservancy wildlife
management
committees, game
translocation, conflict
resolution, international
liaison

 Mandate to lead on
policy/legislative issues

 Unclear
understanding of
concepts to
implement and
coordinate CBNRM
programme

 Human/financial
capacity

 Forthcoming CBNRM
Unitópoints of contact in
MET and 29 field officers

 Assuming conservancy
program management
responsibility within MET

 New certificate programs
at Polytechnic designed
specifically for staff needs

 Plans for community￾based tourism officer/
cooperation with
NACOBTA and CBNRM
unit

 Declining field capacities for
parks management, other positions

 Need for strategic planning

 Huge field staff to coordinate
and build capacity

 How to strengthen intra￾ministerial coordination on
CBNRM?

 Land ownership and tenure
status of conservancies

 Training CBNRM Unit officers
in range of skills needed (NRM
skills, participatory development,
conservancy formation,
constitutional development,
facilitation and conflict
management, etc.). Manual
(NACSO Training Toolbox?) to
accompany?

 Implement HRD improvements
(training plan, strategic planning,
performance management
framework, etc.)
123
Partner From the NACSO Vision Report and Self-Assessments Impressions from the LIFE Review Team
Organization Roles* Strengths** Challenges** Strengths Challenges
MET (DOF) 
 Forestry services to
conservancy, remote
sensing, community
liaison and extension,
support to community
forestry

 Strategic
frameworks,
performance/
management systems

 Approx. 30% of
budget, 4% of staff, for
CBNRM

 No standard
CBNRM approaches

 Learning curve
flat and long

 Hard to attract
best staff to CBNRM

 Entrepreneurial
skills (for CBOs)

 Diversification of
income gen. skills

 Have ongoing CBNRM
projects

 Have extension staff in
field

 Interested in
collaboration

 Legislation provides for parallel
organization of community forestry
management
MET (DSS) 
 Management plans,
scientific advice and
support
N/A N/A 
 Repository of research
capacity and scientific
expertise

 Little information sharing
between directorates unless
requested

 Just lost top two people, high
quality
MET (DOT) 
 Community-based
tourism policy
formulation,
concessions and PTO
recommendations,
tourism statistics,
marketing, tourism
support to
conservancies
N/A N/A 
 Good working
relationship with
NACOBTA

 Hiring two community￾based tourism officers to
coordinate with new
CBNRM Unit team in DRM

 Strengthen initiatives to capture
huge potential growth in tourism

 Build up staff numbers and
qualifications

 Strengthen intra-ministerial
coordination on CBNRM
124
Partner From the NACSO Vision Report and Self-Assessments Impressions from the LIFE Review Team
Organization Roles* Strengths** Challenges** Strengths Challenges
NACSO
Secretariat

 Taking over LIFE
role of strategic
planning/ coordination
for national programme

 Commitment and
belief of partners to
principles of program
and to working together

 Human resources
(numbers) for
secretariat

 Commitment to
action in working
groups difficult since
relying on people not
accountable to
secretariat

 Strong, well-respected,
experienced leadership

 Effective partnership
coordination

 Can help individual
partners look ìoutside the
boxî for additional partners
(smaller NGOs, private
sector, etc.), broader rural
development experience,
etc.

 Lean and mean

 Strengthen creative involvement
of MET and other ministries

 Strengthen advocacy, planning
and coordination for whole
CBNRM sector

 Working group model gives
members two jobsóactivities for
NACSO must be priority for home
institutions as well

 Balance between need for
ìassociationî v. implementation
(housing specialized officers, etc.)

 Staying neutral in dialogue
between government and NGO
sectors

 Supporting Conservancy
association formation

 Sustainable funding for
secretariat?
WWF/ LIFE 
 Technical assistance,
funding, grants
management, capacity
building, strategic
planning/ coordination
for national programme

 Good planning,
technical skills

 Ability to get
external funds

 Regional and intíl
perspective

 Everywhere

 People with NRM
and planning skills

 People with savvy
negotiation skills

 Respected and utilized
leadership and technical
assistance

 Grants management
flexibility

 Support to MET for
coordination and trainings

 Maintain support for capacity
building, socioeconomic, and
organizational assessment/
monitoring consistentlyó
coordinate beyond LIFE grantees

 Ensure that emphasis on large￾scale enterprise development is
grounded in community demand (as
opposed to local control over rural
development and small -medium
enterprises) not outside interests

 Move lead on work to Namibian
organizations and provide support

 Ensure joint venture agreements
get legal review before signed
125
Partner From the NACSO Vision Report and Self-Assessments Impressions from the LIFE Review Team
Organization Roles* Strengths** Challenges** Strengths Challenges
IRDNC 
 Logistics,
institution-building, NR
monitoring,
development of
community campsites/
villages, support in JV
negotiations, support
for organizational
development of
conservancies

 Field experience

 Flexibility

 Good rep./track
record (walk the talk)

 100 % budget for
CBNRM

 Lack of GRN
coordination and
understanding

 MET inertia to
implement policy

 Different
interpretations (?)

 Field-based
facilitators

 Linkages with
regional structures

 GRN resources
for staff and greater
allocations for
tourism

 Strong experience in
CBNRM and understanding
of rural systems

 Committed, capable staff

 Building capacity in
communities and hiring as
staff

 Quarterly planning
meetings and support for
conservancy associations

 Linkages with
Polytechnic NRM program

 Support for womenís
involvement and family
income-generation (crafts)

 Good outreach through
radio

 Balance between conservation
and rural development

 Strengthen socio-economic
expertise, esp. gender analysis, for
Kunene and Caprivi

 Facilitate sub-conservancy units?

 Facilitate formal (i.e., strong)
conservancy association in Caprivi

 Document lessons learned

 Strengthen capacity-building in
Caprivi

 Address non-wildlife
problemsópalm gardens in
Caprivi?

 Sustainability of transport?
Rossing
Foundation

 Training to broader
CBNRM community
(including NGOs,
government, and
conservancy
committees), crafts
development and
marketing and field
facilitation in target
areas (Nyae Nyae and
N-C)

 Ability to do training

 Rural development at
community level

 CBNRM budget 35-
40%, staff 15%

 Human capacity

 Financial
resources

 23 Yearsí experience

 Training ability

 Scholarship program

 Hire LIFE Namibian staff

 Potential to influence
national program through N￾C work

 Crafts development and
marketing

 Revise training approach to
consolidate, train trainers only,
recruit additional organizations to
do direct training

 Recent loss of good training staff

 M&E work to integrate closely
with other CBNRM implementers

 Outsource crafts marketing? Find
private sector partners with
experience rather than build wheel
twice?

 Sustainable funding?

 Ensure NRM experts involved
126
Partner From the NACSO Vision Report and Self-Assessments Impressions from the LIFE Review Team
Organization Roles* Strengths** Challenges** Strengths Challenges
RISE 
 Field support to
conservancy in southern
Kunene and Erongo
N/A N/A 
 Community development
experience, savings and
microcredit, water users
associations

 Relationships with
farmers unions, groups

 Four staff in South, five
in North, four in Erongo,
three in Windhoek

 Focus on deepening community
development skills, less expansion
to new areas - pull in high-level
NRM and other expertise as needed

 Partnership approach

 Ensure responsiveness to
communities (e.g., present survey
findings back to them, provide
conflict management training, etc.)

 Sustainable funding?
NNF 
 National level
support to NGOs and
CBOs through grants
management,
fundraising, M&E, NR
monitoring, project
formulation and
proposal development

 Training and
capacity building

 Financial/funds
management and grant
making

 Wide perspective/
broad responsibilities
w/in envít sector, links
to donors, etc.

 CBNRM budget
28%, staff 36%

 More technical
people to support
conserv. for sector

 Training of
technical personnel
at all levels for sector

 Financial needs
for sector

 Grants management

 Commitment to CBNRM

 Efforts at affirmative
action/integration and
capacity-building within
staff/board

 Wide range of partners

 Strengthen capacity building for
NGO community on financial
management

 Avoiding ìdonorî role

 Overly diverse? Staff stretched
(three-four technical staff for wide￾ranging program)

 Strengthen M&E and
socioeconomic analytic skills

 [From the IDP] Participatory
management and team building,
staff retention
127
Partner From the NACSO Vision Report and Self-Assessments Impressions from the LIFE Review Team
Organization Roles* Strengths** Challenges** Strengths Challenges
NDT 
 Support to
conservancies in
southern Namibia

 Well-established
organization

 Good grassroots
contacts/skills

 Budget for CBNRM
40%, staff 50%

 Expertise in
NRM/ENV

 Human resource
capacity

 Resources

 Environmental
experts (human
resources)

 Tourism sites
(financial resources)

 Land use planners
(HR)

 Community
development, cooperatives,
experience (11 years)

 Extensive PRA
experience, community
theatre, etc.

 Experience with
HIV/AIDS impacts on rural
areas

 3 staff persons on
CBNRM (2 in field, 2 half￾time in Windhoek)

 Working with existing
institution (water usersí
groups) in South

 Good networking skillsó
beyond conservation
community

 Support from outside
donor (Oxfam affiliate),
recent 6-month extension,
also USAID/WID.

 Contacts in NAPCOD/
DRFN

 Strengthen number of staff with
good capacities

 Building sustainable funding
baseónot in LIFE target area

 South not strong wildlife areaó
other attractions?

 Focus on deepening existing
strengths not expanding to new
areas yet

 Follow up on discussion of
alliance with conservation groupó
staff ìswapî idea.

 Ensure NRM experts involved
NNDF 
 Training and
capacity building
support to Nyae Nyae
Conservancy and
Farmersí Cooperative

 Small organization

 Close relationship/
intimate knowledge of
target group

 CBNRM budget
43% staff 29%

 Lack of technical
staff

 Lack of
management
capacity with
conserv.

 Additional human
and financial
resources

 Diversification of
income

 Mentoring conservancy 
 Sustainable funding?

 Strengthen financial
management
128
Partner From the NACSO Vision Report and Self-Assessments Impressions from the LIFE Review Team
Organization Roles* Strengths** Challenges** Strengths Challenges
NACOBTA 
 Training and
capacity building in
development of CBTEs
throughout Nam.,
promotion of CBT,
marketing, advice on
negotiating JV

 Skills in product
development and
planning

 Training and
marketing

 Linkages with
related organizations in
Uganda, RSA, Bots.,
Zimb.

 CBNRM budget
about 50% staff 86%

 Resources

 Technical skills in
tourism/biz.
development

 Stronger support
from partners/better
coord.

 Increased
resource base

 Human and fin.
resources to increase
community
awareness

 Strong roster of training
partners and outsourced
work

 Large portfolio of
enterprises under
development

 Good contacts and
outreach to private sector,
tourism industry,
international counterparts

 Experience from NW
Tourism Master Plan

 Raising own funds from
diversified sources

 Supporting studies of
industry

 13 staff with coordinators
for business and training, 3
in N-C region

 Strong management
committee

 Web site, other
information sharing tools

 Strengthen training dept. to
alleviate over work

 Utilize TOT methods for
conservancy business development

 Focus on capacity building in
CBTEs (esp. for conservancies), not
management of enterprises

 More personnel for South?

 Strengthen fee-for-service and
membership fee approach

 Monitoring for impacts on
communities?

 Focus on community-managed
enterprises

 Struggle with bureaucracy and
banking sector to get loans for
community enterprises

 Dealing with conservative
tourism industry
129
Partner From the NACSO Vision Report and Self-Assessments Impressions from the LIFE Review Team
Organization Roles* Strengths** Challenges** Strengths Challenges
LAC 
 Legal assistance and
advice to programme
and to commís,
education and training
on legal issues,
advocacy and lobbying
support, litigation on
behalf of commís and
NACSO members

 Reputation as
independent body
listened to by
government and NGOs

 Not involved in daily
politics of CBNRM

 Experience in
litigating for large
communities not just
individuals

 Not just technical
legal assistance also
issues of justice and
marginalisation

 CBNRM budget
70% (of LED program
or total?), staff 7%

 Human resources
ltd.

 Difficult to find
experienced people
in this work

 Commitment to and
expertise in legal support for
CBNRM

 Involvement since 1992

 Research on common
property rights in Southern
Africa

 Land, Environment and
Development program focus
on CBNRM ñ with outside
funding

 4.5 people

 Outsource routine activities to
others in legal community?
Recruit/train other resource
firms/groups

 Consider legal/CBNRM
internships for law students w/in
SADC

 Ensure staff have enough support
to address demand for services
UNAM￾MRCC 
 Socioeconomic surveys as
commissioned by
partners

 Management, project
execution, quality
output

 Human and material
resources

 CBNRM staff 15%

 Finances

 Transport,
computer, human
resources

 Mgt-level and fin.
admin. human
resources

 Capacity building
field workers

 Adequate
logistical resources

 Socioeconomic analysis,
organizational assessment,
research skills

 Submit concrete proposals to
NACSO partnership for UNAM
role and ensure follow up

 Consolidate interested faculty
within UNAM as CBNRM team,
focus on improving skills in gender
analysis, rural economic
development, community
development, etc.

 Raise outside funding
130
Partner From the NACSO Vision Report and Self-Assessments Impressions from the LIFE Review Team
Organization Roles* Strengths** Challenges** Strengths Challenges
NANGOF 
 Promote CBNRM
within NGO sector and
act as a link for
NACSO to broader
community. Support
policy development and
information
dissemination on
CBNRM, promote
policy research.

 Recently
strengthened
organizational mission
which enabled them to
mobilize members

 Work on policy,
networking, strong
executive cmte.

 Human capacity

 Exposure to
CBNRM is low

 Links to broader NGO
sector, advocacy experience

 History in supporting
CBNRM advocacy/
organization

 Strengthen on NRM

 Raise funds for CBNRM
* Source: Annex 4. Specific Roles and Responsibilities of NACSO Members, Development of a Five-Year Strategic Vision for CBNRM in Namibia, July 2001
(Identified at August 1998 national programme planning workshop).
** Source (for Strengths and Challenges): Self-assessment Questionnaires, Development of a Five-Year Strategic Vision for CBNRM in Namibia, July 2001
131
2. Capacity Building and Training Approaches
Consistency and Focus
Capacity building in the program consists largely of training and expert mentoring of Namibian
counterparts and organizations. Extensive effort and budget goes into direct training for
conservancy committees. While the former seems to have been effective for NGO and MET
partners, training for communities as it is currently implemented in the program seems inefficient
and may drain the over-stretched staff. Although training is a critical component of institutional
capacity building, it is vital that skills acquired through training are put into practice as soon and
as intensively as possible if they are to stay with the individuals and serve the organization. This
method can add cost in initial stages, but the return on investment can be impressive. Rossingís
course in community development facilitation provided a successful example of this approach.
Capacity building approaches for the programís conservancy work could benefit greatly from
two additional considerations. First, as the NRM ìkneesî team has pulled together the contact
persons on NRM to work together and coordinate across the program, it would be helpful for the
point persons on capacity building and social/economic information in each field organization to
meet and work together on each otherís programs and in trainings on a regular basis. Second, as
noted in the LIFE Evaluation of 1998 and still not tightly followed, community based
organizations need checks and balances to ensure accountability. The committees the team
visited were apparently doing well (most) in managing their grant funds, yet some were not as
clear on joint venture and hunting revenue accounts, few had posted their constitutions for all to
see, only one had posted photos of the committee representatives and their roles, none that we
saw had posted minutes of their recent meetings, and only two had regular mechanisms for
communication and listening to the broader conservancy body about each meetingís decisions.
Although Namibia has fairly positive literacy statistics, it was not clear how literate these
particular communities were in any case, and although asked, no committees had plans to
establish broader training in literacy to ensure wider comprehension and use of conservancy
information, which would have been a useful indicator of democratic capacity being built.
Coping with programme expansion
Table F3 shows that some 10,000 days of training effort were provided by LIFE. In the first few
years, training was targeted toward developing the capacity of personnel in NGOs and MET,
while more recently considerable effort has been targeted towards communities.
Table F3 Summary of Training Effort
Number of Courses
Held
Training
Days
NGO / MET
Participants
CBO
Participants
1993 2 110 20
1994 12 46 105 28
1995 18 804 110 45
1996 19 1,286 142 254
1997 11 673 20 87
1998 2 4,073 58 287
1999 51 3,219 33 652
Total 115 10,211 488 1,353
Source: LIFE I report.
132
Table F4 shows a wide spread of training by subject matter, with a substantial effort to train
communities in small-scale tourism and in natural resource monitoring in 1998 and 1999. There
are two additional points of interest. The balance of training supports the conclusion that the
programme is much stronger on resource monitoring than on institutional development. If the
number of courses is multiplied by the number of attendants, this conclusions is amplified. It is
also somewhat surprising that, given the increasing demand for training, most training has been
targeted directly at communities with relatively limited training of trainers, a strategy that is
effective at start-up when building relationships with community leaders is important, but which
is less efficient once the demand for training services increases.
Table F4 Summary of Training Supported by LIFE
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Total
Subject covered by training
Ecology 2 1 1 1 3 8
CBNRM/Social science 3 3 2 1 4 2 15
Admin, finance, grants 3 5 1 2 1 2 14
CCG/CRM 3 2 2 16 23
Institutional, managerial 3 2 5 3 5 5 23
JV Tourism 1 6 1 7 15
Campsites, guides, tourism 1 1 15 17 34
Crafts 2 2 1 5
Technical 5 1 1 7
Application of Training
Workshops, NGO/MET training 2 3 6 3 4 6 6 30
Training of trainers 2 1 4 1 8
Direct training of community 7 11 14 7 23 44 106
The preceding two paragraphs represent a crude input analysis at the level of project activities.
The success of the programme is becoming rapidly evident in high-level objectives (development
objective and project purpose), with increasing wildlife populations and the demand for
conservancy formation being useful indicators. This leaves three questions: How effective is the
training as measured at the level of output? How efficient are the input delivery systems? Is the
right training being provided?
Recommendations: LIFE staff should focus on mentoring and moving out of managementó
begin by attaching two to three counterpart staff to each TA. The partnership should organize its
conservancy capacity building ìteamî to work together and fulfil its mission more completely.
NACSO should establish a Training Working Group to examine the efficiency and costs of the
current training paradigm.
The model used for training, monitoring and facilitation is based on direct contact between
support personnel and communities, with the latter usually being based in Windhoek or a field
centre. So far this has been effective as measured by high-level indicators. We need, however, to
assess whether it is efficient, especially as the programme scope expands and the budget does
133
not, and as methodologies (e.g., monitoring of natural resources) solidify and less
experimentation is required39.
Tools and materials
MET and other NACSO partners should prepare a series of training modules (part of or
expanding on their Training Toolboxes?) aimed at the provision of technical guidance and
capacity building for the priority tasks related to CBNRM planning. This would allow for
CBNRM Unit officers and/or community-based ìactivatorsî to take over work with the
communities during the pre-registration phase of conservancy development (except for
participatory methods and other participatory planning/research efforts, which would need
outside involvement by experts in participatory method use for at least the first few years). This
would also then allow the overstretched NGO community to focus on the more advanced, post￾registration activities and capacity building efforts with conservancies.
In a number of areas that have not received sufficient attention to date by the programme
(business planning, enterprise development, market surveys, marketing, accessing and managing
rural credit, socioeconomic analysis, rural development planning and implementation,
participatory appraisal/extension methods, coping with HIV/AIDS, etc.) the partnership should
be more proactive in seeking out expertise in the private sector and among other rural
development organizations (i.e. not just look to current NACSO members).
These second stage CBNRM planning elements (and training modules) could, for example:
1. Identify specific management objectives and timeframes for steps needed to ensure
sustainable use and to support the adoption of improved NRM practices in designated areas
(second and more detailed level of land use planning, linked to the identification of
appropriate NRM practices and other parameters for sustainable use)
2. Incorporate economic analysis of resource use and management options
3. Provide for the adoption of procedures and locally enforceable regulations to guide NR use
4. Provide more details about expanded level of communication, extension, outreach and
monitoring (patrolling) to control use, promote improved NRM and manage higher or more
intensive levels of resource use
5. Plan for more detailed resource inventories, as needed, to establish baselines for sustainable
use
6. Provide more details about timetable and allocation of permissible levels of use, harvesting
or utilization plans, terms of agreements for proposed hunting concessions, etc.
7. Include plans for regeneration, restocking or other activities designed to ensure sustained
yield or increase resource productivity
 
39 In the time available, it is only possible to test one data-point (East Caprivi) against one benchmark (CBNRM in
Luangwa Valley). This crude comparison shows that the Luangwa system is ten-fold cheaper than East Caprivi.
Luangwa is much stronger on community institution building and financial management, is similar in terms of anti￾poaching, does less resource monitoring only counting wildlife once annually, and supports a similar number of
community businesses. Luangwaís innovation is the placement of a community facilitator in each Conservancy.
This is cheap. It is also effective, provided the facilitators are regularly supported, debriefed and re-skilled. The
facilitators provide a high quality of on-going support, follow-up and monitoring of community progress and
performance (committees, participation, projects, financial management, auditing, institutional training, conflict
resolution, etc.) and being closely in touch with their communities and able to address challenges proactively.
134
8. Provide more detailed provisions for monitoring and reporting on natural resource condition
and trend (periodic game counts, provision for data collection on indicator species, additional
resource inventories, etc.)
9. Development of additional plans for longer term investments, including joint ventures for
camps, lodges, water points, etc.
10. More detailed and specific plans for benefit distribution
Overall Capacity Building Program Recommendations: LIFE staff should focus on
mentoring and moving out of managementóbegin by attaching two to three counterpart staff to
each TA. NACSO should establish a Training Working Group to examine the efficiency and
costs of the current training paradigm. If appropriate, revise the training approach to focus on
training of trainers, consolidation (practice once trained), networking (to continue learning), and
follow up (to share learning further within home organization). Examine NACOBTAís model
(which recently received a positive evaluation) for lessons that can be shared more broadly
within the partnership. Invest in recruitment of training capacity outside the core NACSO
member organizations, for example using !NARA to train NGO staff and MET CBNRM unit
staff in participatory methods. Experiment with preparing an activators task force (2-3 people?)
in each conservancy to conduct all pre-registration training, and using them to work in nearby
emerging conservancies after their own is registered. Invest the LOE and budget to complete the
current toolbox and establish a second phase toolbox.
3. Collaboration Mechanisms
The partnership is coordinated now through regular planning and feedback meetings, a planning
calendar, and memoranda of understanding between groups working together in target areas.
They do not yet maintain a skills roster to refer to for specialized needs. There are reportedly also
difficulties with the meetings, in that they do not provide sufficient time to discuss and share
learning on thematic issues. Finally, the memoranda of understanding were adequate between
partners when they were all being supported by grants through the LIFE program and did not
need to exchange funds to draw upon each otherís services. Gradually, however, they seem to be
eroding in power in certain instances, where the agreements have been too weak to ensure
coordination and have not prevented confusion on the part of the community.
Recommendations: It is suggested that the secretariat establish a simple information-sharing
program to inform and coordinate with members and others more frequently, perhaps through a
bi-weekly e-mail news bulletin, web site, and outreach to other nationís CBNRM programs.
Periodic contributions by each partner to the NRM Tracker (www.nrmtracker.org), maintained
by USAIDís Africa Bureau in Washington, DC, would be one simple way of ensuring that the
world knows about the progress being made by Namibiaís CBNRM program.
MOUs can be strengthened by increasing the specificity of agreement timetables and requiring
that they be reported by all parties at NACSO membersí meetings. It is suggested that members
experiment with fee-based contracting to coordinate collaborative efforts in target areas, and
with strategic alliances between conservation and community development organizations that
work together in multiple areas. Both have been considered by various members of the
partnership and should be followed up on. It would also help to designate roles more clearly in
the partnership, and allow each organization to focus on strengthening its specialty.
135
A Final Note
Institutional assessment versus organizational assessment: It is useful, though difficult to keep in
mind the distinction here. Institutional assessment means looking at the set of organizations that
comprise the CBNRM sector in Namibia, and assessing how they are working together to
achieve their common goal. Organizational assessment means examining the individual groups
that make up the CBNRM sector. In this review, we have only gathered organizational
information where it seemed that an individual organizationís capacity might affect the
sustainability of the whole sector.
Capacity building: In our review of the Namibia CBNRM program, it was frequently stated that
many of the Namibian institutions involved lack the experience and the capacity to provide
necessary services and undertake the quantity or magnitude of activities demanded by the
emerging conservancies. The need to ìbuild capacityî is the mantra of the movement.
Unfortunately, there is also a tendency to equate capacity building with training. It is crucial to
remember that although training is a critical component of institutional capacity building, it is
not synonymous with institutional development or by itself sufficient to achieve capacity
building objectives. It is vital that skills acquired through training are put into practice as soon
and as intensively as possible if they are to stay with the individuals and serve the organization.
Experience has shown that personnel training, plus organizational inputs such as equipment, and
combined with gradual increases in responsibility and accountability for specific tasks is one of
the most effective approaches to build institutional capacity. This method can be very time- and
labour-intensive, but the return on investment can be impressive.
Since capacity building is integral to development success and sustainability, it is crucial to
design programs with local institutional capacity building objectives in addition to development
results and impact objectives. There is also widespread agreement that these two types of
objectives are, in fact, fully entwined. Achieving positive results is a key indicator of
institutional capacity building and demonstrated success in building capacity is a very significant
development impact. But measuring progress in capacity building requires more than just
tracking numbers of people or economic statistics and while indicators of this type have grown
steadily more sophisticated and reliable, the refinement of indicators needed to assess advances
in institutional capacity has lagged behind.
There is a tendency in some capacity-building programs to overwhelm fledgling organizations
with funds or demands once they have proven themselves capable on a previous activity. This is
in contrast to the catch-22 situation that many small, local NGOs find themselves inówhere they
canít build capacity because no one will work with them because of their limited capacity.
Finally, the perceived role and objectives of intermediary organizations, such as international
NGOs or capital-city NGOs working with community organizations, play an extremely
important part in the success or failure of capacity building programs. If the intermediary
organizations see the smaller, local NGOs as potential competitors rather than eventual
replacements, they will be less likely to transfer all of the skills and responsibility needed to
bring the developing organization to its full potential. Authentic capacity building requires a
commitment to work yourself out of a job, or at least into a different one.
136
Annex G
CBNRM Support Systems, Tools and Methods
1. Introduction
This annex includes an assessment of the achievements of the WWF/LIFE team and other
conservancy support organizations with respect to the development of support systems, tools and
methods to enable the conservancies to benefit from the sustainable utilization of wildlife and
other natural resources. A number of issues, gaps and concerns about the apparent challenges
faced by the national CBNRM programme over the next few years are then presented, together
with a set of recommendations developed by the review team.
Particular attention is given to technical support systems and tools developed to support NRM
planning. Additional details and analysis related to institutional/capacity building and training
aspects can be found in annex F; annexes C and E include more analysis related to the support
provided for business planning, joint ventures, community based tourism and other enterprise
development activities.
2. Programme Achievements
With respect to the partnershipís efforts to develop support systems for CBNRM, the following
impressive achievements are particularly noteworthy:

 Establishment of effective community-based wildlife protection and monitoring systems
using community game guards, ìenvironmental shepherdsî and community resource
monitors

 Innovative use of visualized ìevent booksî, posters and other tools

 Early emphasis on capacity-building, empowerment and local institutional development

 Effective use of study tours and exchange visits to stimulate dialogue, capitalize on lessons
learned and to promote the adaptation and adoption of CBNRM activities

 Systematic use of quarterly planning meetings to increase participation in reviews of progress
and work planning

 Efficient support for mapping boundaries, compilation of resource inventory information and
related GIS data

 Utilization of satellite imagery for base maps and participatory land use mapping

 Impressive level of collaboration in the organization and reporting of game counts in the
Northwestern regions

 Systems developed to support translocation of game

 Organization of an enterprise/business planning/community based tourism team to assist with
the negotiation of more favourable terms for joint ventures, promotion of community-based
tourism enterprises and support for regional tourism planning

 Useful experience gained with the Forum for Integrated Resource Planning (FIRM) in the
Khorias area (Grootburg Farmers Union/Association)
137

 Conceptualisation of an improved methodology for integrated development and NRM
planning

 Organization of an integrated planning workshop in Kwandu Conservancy (July 2001)
For example, in the Kunene region in the Northwest and in the Caprivi region in the Northeast,
IRDNC helps to organize and facilitates quarterly meetings with the conservancy committees.
These meetings provide an opportunity to review progress in accomplishing planned activities,
and serve as a forum to share information, promote transparency and accountability to the
conservancy members, and address other critical issues related to the functioning of the
conservancies40.
The entire membership is invited to participate in annual general meetings, and in the interim,
communication with all conservancy members is helped through radio broadcasts and regular
interactions with Community Resource Monitors and Game Guards. However, more structured
and regular meetings and other procedures for sharing information and enhancing participation in
conservancy affairs could help to strengthen and deepen the degree of local ownership in
CBNRM activities.
In addition to quarterly review meetings, the WWF/LIFE team and conservancy program
partners have worked together to develop a number of innovation and effective tools, like the
visual ìevent booksî, to support natural resource monitoring in the conservancies. Over the past
year, the monitoring and information management methodology has been refined and training
has been provided to make it easier for game guards and conservancy management committees
to collect, record and compile credible information that can be used to inform management
decisions, and to guide needed interventions by MET and other support organizations. During
the field visits by the review team, each of the conservancies visited demonstrated that this
system has been adopted and is helping the game guards in their work.
The emergence of a ìmapping and information unitî (MIU), jointly housed at MET/DEA and
NNF, has provided the technical support needed by the Conservancies to map and describe their
boundaries. Without the technical support of the MIU, the conservancies would have a difficult
time fulfilling one of the essential conditions for registration of a conservancy: submission to
MET of a statement setting out the boundaries of the geographic area of the proposed
conservancy.
IRDNC has also helped to introduce environmental education materials in local schools, and
assisted with macro-level tourism development planning and zoning in the Kunene region, in
collaboration with NACOBTA and WWF/LIFE.
A particularly impressive level of collaboration was achieved over the past year through the
organization of a game count in the Kunene and Erongo regions. Some 13 technical specialists
from WWF/LIFE, IRDNC, RISE, NNF, DEA, MET field offices, and Save the Rhino Trust
worked together to assess population changes, trends and distributions of wildlife over the past
 
40 While these meetings do help the members of the Conservancy Management Committees to track progress in
implementing annual work plans and the like, it is unclear to what extent the entire membership is briefed and made
aware of decisions taken by the committee during these quarterly reviews.
138
several decades. The effort compared and utilized information from aerial censuses, ground
counts, and organized a new series of road counts to develop a more accurate estimate of wildlife
in northwest Namibia. The findings were presented to key MET and NGO stakeholders at a
workshop in February 2001. As a result, the programme has been able to document the
extremely positive impact of community based approaches to wildlife conservation, with
dramatic increases in nearly all wildlife populations. This should enable the conservancies to
obtain more easily quotas for a higher level of utilization and economic benefit.
Table G1
Species 1980 2000
Springbok Less than 500 More than 25,000
Oryx Less than 200 Over 15,000
Giraffe Less than 200 More than 1,000
Hartmannís zebra Approximately 100 Almost 8,000
Elephant Around 225 Almost 600
3. Issues, Concerns, Gaps
It is easy to underestimate the effort required to establish 14 conservancies and to support the
emergence of nearly 30 more conservancies over the past 5 years. The case of Kwandu
Conservancy in the Caprivi region is perhaps illustrative of the lengthy, complicated and time￾consuming process that has been most often followed; it could not have been done without the
consistent support of dedicated and competent field staff with support organizations like IRDNC,
NNDFN, RISE, NDT, Rossing Foundation and others and the WWF/LIFE team.

 1996óInterested community members reviewed the information in the conservancy Tool
Box with ministry staff, and began to increase their awareness of the conservancy program.

 1997óThe community proceeded to define the membership of the conservancy, and over the
next few years, signed up more than 1,600 adults.

 1998óConservancy members elected a Management Committee at their Annual General
Meeting and completed the process of preparing their constitution, laying out an agreed upon
resource management strategy, principles for benefit distribution.

 1999óAfter more than two years of discussion and negotiation, the members reached
agreement with neighbouring communities on the boundaries of the conservancy; with the
assistance of the MIU, a map and boundary description was prepared.

 June 1999óIn consultation with MET, the conservancy application is formally submitted
and forwarded to the ministry for consideration.

 December 1999óAfter an internal review by MET to ensure compliance with the provisions
of the conservancy legislation, the minister approves the application and the conservancy is
officially gazetted.

 2000óConservancy Game Guards and Community Resource Monitors are employed to
monitor resource use, and to educate the members about sustainable use of natural resources;
building on the information gained during study tours to Zambia and Botswana as well as
other capacity building and training workshops, the conservancy discuss and begin to make
plans to control fire, manage fisheries resources, initiate a craft enterprise, develop a
139
campsite and tourism joint venture, control timber poaching and manage a community forest
within their conservancy.

 July 2001óThe conservancy hosts an Integrated Planning Workshop, to review their Vision
and Strategy, outline a Development Plan and to take stock of the information available and
needed to proceed with the preparation of more detailed Management and Implementation
Plans. The Zonation Plan will serve to orient crop cultivation and grazing in areas not
targeted for wildlife and tourism uses; revenue from the Game Products Trust Fund will be
used to develop water sources.
The case of Kwandu Conservancy also helps to illustrate that substantial progress has been made
in the establishment of conservancies, but much additional planning, capacity building and other
support will need to be done to enable the conservancy to become a sustainable institution and
economically viable venture. Some five years after the Kwandu community embarked on their
efforts to establish a conservancy, the level of tangible benefits flowing from the sustainable use
of their natural resources is still quite modest. Several years will be required to complete and
follow through with the various management plans and implementation plans outlined in the
conservancy development plan. These plans will need to be implemented in order to realize the
conservancyís development vision, and to generate the level of income needed to offset the
expenditures required to continue the various management and monitoring activities designed to
ensure the sustainable use of the natural resources in the conservancy.
The Tsiseb Conservancy is illustrative of the status of more recently formed conservancies. With
the assistance of RISE, Tsiseb was registered in January 2001. Assistance from RISE has
enabled the conservancy to improve their skills and capabilities in the areas of committee
organization, financial management and conflict resolution. Three sub-units of the conservancy
meet monthly, in addition to regular meetings of the Management Committee to carry out the
business of the conservancy. The conservancy is now well known to both to the community of
some 1200 people, and to local authorities. The WWF/LIFE team has worked with RISE and the
conservancy to initiate the use of the ìevent bookî to assist with monitoring of resource use, that
is being used by 5 game guards patrolling some 800,000 hectares. Information is being collected
for the conservancy development and management plans, and a preliminary zonation map has
been prepared. A campsite generates an annual income of some $93,000, however, expenditures
for salaries and other running costs are currently about $134,000.
While much progress has been made, clearly the work of the support organizations like IRDNC,
RISE, NDT and others needs to continue, if both the established and emerging conservancies are
to benefit from the improved management and sustainable utilization of the wildlife and other
natural resources in their conservancies. As the following table makes clear, despite the
impressive progress made to date with substantial levels of funding and organizational effort, the
conservancy program is just beginning to reach many important benchmarks, and the majority of
the conservancies have not yet been able to fully capitalize on the potential benefits of the
program (annex C).
140
Table G2
Status of Progress with Selected Activities41 Number
Emerging conservanciesónot yet registered 34
Conservancies with active natural resource monitoring 28
Conservancies with bank accounts 17
Conservancies with constitution in use 16
Registered and established conservancies 14
Support for crafts 14
Office established for staff and meetings 11
Campsites developed 10
Conservancies with regular, well-attended annual general meetings 10
Conservancies with democratic sub-units 8
Conservancies with over $100,000 in annual income 5
Safari Hunting organized 5
Development plan and/or NRM plans under preparation 5
Game hunting (own use) and meat distribution underway 4
Local employment from guiding for tourism 4
Exclusive high cost joint ventures negotiated 4
Conservancies with benefit distribution plan in use 3
Natural resource management plans prepared 3
Conservancies that regularly forward NR monitoring data to relevant
government agencies
1
Natural resource management plans that have been formally reviewed, approved
and recognized by relevant government agencies
1
Financial self-sufficient (income covers recurrent cost expenditures) 1
Conservancies with functional performance monitoring and reporting system 0
Adaptive resource management system based on a completed management plan
in place and operational
0
Integrated development plans prepared, adopted and implemented in
collaboration with relevant government services
0
Access to/use of commercial credit 0
The essence of CBNRM is the development of a process and institutional capacity to support the
participatory management and sustainable use of renewable natural resources at the local level.
To date, the conservancy program has achieved significant progress in providing for the
establishment of a legally constituted community-based organization (CBO), the conservancy, to
represent the local community of resource users and stakeholders in CBNRM. Over the coming
years, the program stakeholders will need to work together to ensure the continued strengthening
of these CBOs as representative, democratically organized and accountable institutions that
provide for equitable and transparent decision-making with regard to the use of natural resources
and the distribution of benefits from NR-based enterprises. While the review team did raise a
number of questions in this regard (see annexes D and F), on the whole, the early emphasis on
these institutional and capacity building issues has helped to establish a foundation for CBNRM.
 
41 For further details and supporting information, see database on the status of Communal Area Conservancies,
compiled by Anna Davis, NNF (August 2001).
141
4. The Importance of Local Development/NRM Plans in CBNRM
A strong conservancy or CBO is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a successful
CBNRM programócapacity and systems are needed to provide for the improved management of
the communityís natural resources. Improved management depends on the provision of some
degree of control over access to a given resource, and some measure of guidance for the use of
the resource. There is a need to move from open access and uncontrolled exploitation of
resources, to a situation in which common property resource management systems or alternative
management systems are reinforced, agreed upon and enforceable. Communities will need to
acquire the capacity to employ various planning and management tools to ensure that land and
resource uses are compatible with land and resource capability, and to foster more sustainable
modes of resource use, including appropriate provisions for the protection, regeneration and
restoration of harvested resources. Most communities will find it helpful to bring together these
various conventions concerning the use and management of natural resources into some sort of
plan. These natural resource management plans, when they have been reviewed and endorsed by
the relevant government agencies, can also serve to legitimise the communityís NR management
objectives and modes of resource use. And, most importantly, the implementation of such a local
development / NRM plan can put the community on the track of reduced environmental
degradation and increased resource productivity, with corresponding increases in economic,
environmental, social and other benefits.
In short, to be effective and sustainable as a CBNRM activity, the development of conservancies
needs to be paired with the development of local capacity to prepare and implement NRM plans.
While the conservancy program of Namibia has helped to establish some 14 conservancies, the
progress achieved to date in natural resource planning at the conservancy level is more mixed.
Most established conservancies have not progressed beyond the initial compilation of available
resource inventory information. The few management plans that have been prepared to date are
not uniform in their content, format or level of technical detail. They have tended to focus on the
management of wildlife resources, and been prepared largely with technical assistance from
support organizations. None of the draft plans incorporate sufficient cost/benefit analysis of
management options, nor do they fully integrate activities and plans related to capacity building
and institutional development of the conservancy as a community-based organization.
Over the past two years, the partnership has mobilized a NRM team to address these
shortcomings, and much progress has been made. The philosophy and cooperative working
relationships of these individuals and organizations is to be commended. They have developed a
number of innovative and well adapted tools, techniques, approaches and methods. Most
importantly, there appears to have been a steady growth in the development of staff capabilities
in the various support organizations working in each region in the area of NRM planning.
However, the team is not yet able to meet the growing demand for technical support. With the
projected phase out of WWF/LIFE technical support, the Review Team is concerned that no
NACSO member has emerged as a centre of excellence and leadership in NRM planning.
While the NRM team has tried in recent years to build capacity within MET in the areas of NRM
planning, the role of MET field staff and technical staff at the central directorates in the work of
the partnershipís NRM team has been quite limited. It is unlikely that the MET will be able to
assume the technical support function in NRM planning in the foreseeable future unless:
142

 A CBNRM Unit is established and staffed to provide technical support and advice in
response to inquiries and requests for assistance from Conservancies and other CBOs
engaged in CBNRM

 Key MET staff are identified for intensive training and mentoring by the current group of
NRM specialists supporting the CBNRM program

 MET arranges to provide this staff with the logistical staff required to function effectively
5. Integrated Planning Workshop and FIRM
The Integrated Planning Workshop organized in July 2001 in Kwandu Conservancy reveals
some of the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach. The process brought in a range of
interested institutions, stakeholders and technical specialists (including DRM, local government,
governor), Ministry of Lands, Farmers Union, Agriculture and Forestry. The stage is being set
for making progress with ìintegratedî NRM. Emphasis is being placed on development a
common vision and objectives, as a point of departure for thinking about development plans in
key areas (enterprise and institutional development and NRM).
However, from the perspective of conservancy members, it must seem somewhat challengingó
as they are thinking about and preparing to work on many aspects simultaneously: development
of business enterprises, capacity building with the committee (including monitoring, training,
communication, staff recruitment, fundraising, construction of an officeóbut not the preparation
of a benefit distribution plan?) and NRM planning. In the aggregate, as a result of decisions
made by the workshop participants (not all the conservancy members), their development and
NRM plans are supposed to address game guards, resource monitors, zonation, joint ventures in
the forest reserve, sustainable cropping, livestock, wildlife management, fish harvesting, forest
products utilization, and ground water management as well as infrastructure development.
It is unclear to what extent the conservancy membership fully understands and endorses the
contents of these plans, and to what extent they comply with the requirements, standards or
guidelines of the MET. In a few cases, copies of the draft NRM plans have been passed along to
MET and are on file with the Directorate of Parks and Wildlife Management (DPWM).
However, no plans have been formally submitted to and reviewed by the Research and Planning
Section of the MET/Directorate of Scientific Services (DSS). This section is responsible for the
technical guidance and oversight of the preparation of all management plans for parks and
protected areas.
One particular approach to conservancy-level NRM planning that shows considerable promise is
the model developed with the support of the Forum for Integrated Resource Management
(FIRM) in #Khoadi Hoas in the Kunene region. This model was developed with the support of
several GTZ funded projects, including SARDEP and NAPCOD, in collaboration with DEA,
NNF and others. It aims to integrated planning for the improved use and management of all
natural resources, including range for livestock and water as well as wildlife resources. The
planning process is jointly managed by the Farmers Association and the conservancy, and has
served to orchestrate and coordinate the technical support provided by a range of projects and
143
organizations that meet regularly as a forum. But despite the promising results achieved to date
and the experience gained with this model since the mid 1990s, it has not been widely replicated.
6. Progress in the Integration of Local Development and NRM Planning
During the recent ìvisioningî exercise for NACSO and its members, it was recognized that
communities manage natural resources in an integrated way42. As such, the program now aims to
support the integrated management of NR as a means to increase the ultimate impact of the
program. Integrated environmental management will enable local communities to promote
biodiversity conservation while securing local livelihoods, empowering resource users with
additional capabilities for sustainable use, and generating increased economic benefits.
During the field visits and review of conservancy constitutions, vision statements and resource
management strategies, it was also clear that the conservancies would like to develop plans for
integrated NRM and sustainable rural development. The interviews by the review team also
confirmed the need for the conservancy program to shift from an emphasis on wildlife
management, to promote a more integrated approach to environmental management.
Over the past year, a highly capable technical support team in NRM has emerged, composed of
NR professionals, technical staff and field workers in the programme. Considerable progress has
been made in developing tools, methodologies and systems for supporting integrated NRM at the
community level. The team works to support a process of adaptive management, using available
information to draft up an initial set of plans. Local-level consultation and technical support are
focused on seven areas:
1. Mapping
2. NR inventory
3. Community game guards
4. Monitoring
5. Management plans
6. NR management
7. Research
This team is committed to working with conservancies to assist them in the preparation of plans
which are responsive to their needs and to the requirements of the government, user friendly,
concise and cost-effective to prepare and utilize, effectively linked to annual work plans, and
amenable to being produced in an incremental, progressive manner, as more information
becomes available and as specific management needs arise.
At this time, the team envisions working with each conservancy to produce a plan that includes
the following sections:
1. Overview
2. Development Plan
 
42 B. Jones, J. Wahome and N. Araseb, Development of a Five-Year Strategic Vision for CBNRM in Namibia.
Report of a consultancy for the Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO). July 2001.
144
3. Annual Management and Monitoring Activities
4. Zonation
5. Information Inventory
6. Procedures and Regulations
7. Implementation Plans
The team estimates that some 30 person weeks of technical support is needed to help a
Conservancy establish its boundaries, evaluate and map land use, set up a ranger system with
event books and patrols, prepare management plans, develop monitoring systems and improve
NRM skills needed to implement the plans. If particular NR development activities are also
envisioned and supported (such as game introductions, fencing, water development), additional
technical needs to be budgeted (approximately 10 weeks). Once a system and plans are in place,
the NR team would still need to provide 2ñ3 weeks of technical support each year, to help
maintain the systems and implement the plans.
In the recent NACSO visioning exercise, the review of gaps in the support provided by the
programme highlighted the need for more attention to enterprise development, business planning
and associated enterprise development, as well as a broadening of skills among some of the
relatively specialized support organizations. To the extent that the GRN and other stakeholders in
the national CBNRM programme see conservancies as a mechanism for developing community
based institutions capable of managing NR at the community level, it is vitally important that the
skills and capabilities of the NR team be deepened and extended.
Given the existing and currently projected demand for NR planning services, the NR team
anticipate a steadily increasing demand for their technical support services over the next several
years, which would peak around 2003 and gradually taper off after 2010. At that point, assuming
there is continued provision for a minimum level of technical support, the conservancyís NR
systems should become sustainable. Concurrently, or in a phased approach, the partnership
would need to provide technical support in the areas of organizational development and capacity
building, and business planning/community based tourism planning and enterprise development.
According to present estimates of the growing demand for services by emerging conservancies,
the estimated need for these support services is not expected to peak until 2006. Accordingly, the
review team recommends that the programme secure funding to enable the necessary technical
support teams to remain in place for another 5ñ10 years.
7. NRM Planning: Meeting Anticipated MET Requirements
MET requires a strategy for sustainable use to be incorporated into the constitution of every
registered conservancy. This is apparently being done, as a first step. MET seems to now want a
plan to confirm that the proposed offtake or harvesting of wildlife will be sustainable, as a
condition of granting quotas. So, in terms of a NRM plan, what is relevant and adapted to the
community needs and within their capacity to produce, with minimal dependence on outside
technical support and resources? One approach would be to simply provide the conservancies
with the technical expertise needed to quickly develop offtake plans for wildlife harvesting.
Given the orientation of most conservancies towards more broadly conceived sustainable local
development and NRM plans, we suggest that the partners consider working to support the
communities in preparing:
145

 A listing of activities that the community agrees to undertake in the short term, to protect and
conserve their resources, and to help ensure sustainable use.

 An agreed upon set of rules, to be enforced by the conservancy (with government support
and backing) that would help to control access to the resources, limit or orient use, regulate
harvesting and ensure regeneration.

 A schedule of follow-up NRM planning activities, to gradually and progressively increase
the level of sophistication and detail included in their management plans.
A relatively basic, locally adapted, first stage management plan covering these basic elements
could be prepared, vetted with all the conservancy members and formally approved and adopted
by the membership within a year, and serve as the basis for further planning by the conservancy.
The objective would be to engage the community in local development/NRM planning at an
early stage, leading to the formal adoption of a basic plan within a relatively short period of time.
Up until recently, NRM planning by conservancies seems to have been a progressive process,
adapted to local circumstances. This has its advantages, in terms of fitting with limited local
capacity (at the outset), limited partner support capacity, and differences among conservancy
members and partners as to what is needed in a plan. However, the result is a collection of draft
plans, more or less in process, that may or may not satisfy the requirements of MET and that are
liable to confuse conservancy members as they struggle to deal with a diverse collection of plans.
There is an urgent need for the NACSO partners to seek agreement from MET on a reasonable
template and other guidance for NRM plans (as was done for the constitution and as is also
needed for Benefit Distribution Plans), before MET unilaterally imposes requirements for more
sophisticated or specific NRM plans that could pose problems for the program.
It would also be highly desirable to agree with MET on a series of steps to be pursued in the
development of various plans by the conservancies. A phased or step-wise approach to planning
is need, with a clearly defined series of benchmarks to be achieved. Ideally, by reaching these
benchmarks in NRM planning, a conservancy would be entitled to additional specific rights. The
relationship between a given level of planning and advantage, incentive or benefit is currently
not well defined. Investments by the community in planning should be encouraged and rewarded
by certain additional rightsómuch as the registration of members, adoption of a constitution and
demarcation of boundaries leads to formal gazetting of the conservancy and receipt of rights to
huntable game. What are the rights that can reasonably be conferred or earned as conservancies
progress with NRM planning? The following possibilities could be discussed with communities
and with MET in order to reach agreement on how to build in additional incentives for NRM
planning into the program. For example, a community could seek to gain the following:

 expedited allocation of game hunting quotas

 preferential access to ìsurplusî game to be translocated from other areas

 rights to local enforcement of land use restrictions within their conservancy

 preferential access to co-investment by government in infrastructure development
146
8. Suggested Approaches for an Integrated Development Planning Process
The team encourages the current efforts towards developing a checklist for the possible
components of a conservancy development plan, with a considerable larger scope than a
simplified NRM plan. These plans may not be formally required by the legislation, but can serve
as a tool to help the conservancies plan, organize and manage activities related to the
achievement of the goals of the program (in the realms of environmental conservation, economic
development, and empowerment). Annual work plans (or user friendly checklists, indicating
approximate time frames and assigning lead responsibilities, and estimated costs) can be derived
from the Conservancy Development Plan as it evolves. The members could consult the binder
with the Development Plan, but the annual workplans would be more fully communicated and
carefully scrutinized at the conservancy AGM, and allow the members to assess costs and efforts
associated with the various planning tasks, as they are being planned and before they commit to
support the effort.
As with the recently developed approach to conservancy development and NRM planning, the
conservancy development plan could be prepared in sections and evolve incrementally. But there
is a need to focus more attention (and work planning) in the earliest stages of conservancy
development to a range of activities not directly related to NRM planning (and perhaps
somewhat neglected to date?), especially staffing, training, financial management, benefit
distribution and communicationóas well as a more focused approach to the first stage of NRM
planning.
The first stage of CBNRM planning aspects could focus on a series of initial consultations with
the community designed to reach agreement on and local ownership of basic NRM principles,
the conservancyís management objectives, recognition of principle land uses, identification of
anticipated benefits of investments in NRM, and clarification of principles and guidelines for the
benefit distribution plan. Collectively, these consultations would help develop a strong local
identify for the conservancy (perhaps including a logo, a philosophy or slogan, other
distinguishing characteristics to signify local ownership). This is happening to a degree in some
conservancies, but may not have been deliberately incorporated into the planning process by all
support organizations in all regions.
This consultative and facilitated activity would be done concurrently with the following basic
CBNRM planning activities:
1. Boundary survey (identification and posting of borders of the conservancy land area)
2. Provisions for controlling access and monitoring use within that area (recruitment of a
relatively small number of community game guards and CRMs, initial training in use of
events book, reporting procedures, etc.)
3. Evaluation and mapping of land use (current land use and land capability, through
participatory mapping)
4. Compilation of other baseline information from initial surveys and resource assessments
(incorporating local knowledge, information from socioeconomic and ecological surveys in
the area and other readily available information that is determined by the community to be
highly relevant to NRM planning),
147
5. Identification of preferred land use, and areas to promote/adopt improved NRM practices (or
areas requiring special controls to limit non-sustainable use, or restoration and reclamation),
6. Listing of additional management planning activities to be undertaken by the
conservancy in order to proceed with more intensive uses, such as trophy hunting
concessions, etc.
7. Identification of needed training or other capacity building activities, to develop the expertise
and manpower needed to support NRM activities
8. Reporting on and posting of the results of this initial stage of NR planning to the entire
membership and associated partners.
After the initial planning steps have been documented, vetted with all members and local
authorities and submitted to the support organizations, MET and others providing technical
oversight, the conservancy would aim to have them formally adopted and approved. Ideally, this
level of planning would satisfy the intent of the conservancy legislation with respect to a strategy
that would commit the conservancy to ensure sustainable use of wildlife and natural resources.
Perhaps MET would agree that this initial first stage management plan would also enable the
conservancy to proceed with ìown useî harvesting of selected game, under the supervision of
local MET staff.
The next stages of CBNRM planning would entail the development of specific and more detailed
resource management plans for key resources related to livelihoods and current or potential
economic benefits (grazing areas, wildlife, scenic areas, water resources, cropland, fisheries,
forests, etc.) It would also enable the conservancy to proceed with higher levels of game
cropping in keeping with MET quotas, and to enter into concession agreements, apply for PTO
for CBT investments, and so on43. More attention would be devoted to economic (cost/benefit)
analysis of alternative NRM options.
These second stage CBNRM planning elements could, for example:
1. Identify specific management objectives and timeframes for steps needed to ensure
sustainable use and to support the adoption of improved NRM practices in designated areas
(second and more detailed level of land use planning, linked to the identification of
appropriate NRM practices and other parameters for sustainable use)
2. Incorporate economic analysis of resource use and management options
3. Provide for the adoption of procedures and locally enforceable regulations to guide NR use
4. Provide more details about expanded level of communication, extension, outreach and
monitoring (patrolling) to control use, promote improved NRM and manage higher or more
intensive levels of resource use
5. Plan for more detailed resource inventories, as needed, to establish baselines for sustainable
use
6. Provide more details about timetable and allocation of permissible levels of use, harvesting
or utilization plans, terms of agreements for proposed hunting concessions, etc.
7. Include plans for regeneration, restocking or other activities designed to ensure sustained
yield or increase resource productivity
 
43 Such as Permission To Occupy (land use permit) for community based tourism infrastructure development.
148
8. Provide more detailed provisions for monitoring and reporting on natural resource condition
and trend (periodic game counts, provision for data collection on indicator species, additional
resource inventories, etc.)
9. Development of additional plans for longer term investments, including joint ventures for
camps, lodges, water points, etc.
10. More detailed and specific plans for benefit distribution
Specific plans could be prepared that focused on the essential elements required for a given
activity (offtake plan for a hunting concession, PTO for a lodge, etc.) These plans would be
incorporated into the overall Conservancy Development Plan and integrated into annual work
planning for other activities targeted in the Development Plan (including, for example, staffing
and training plans). Assistance could be provided to comply with the specific requirements of
plans related to the use and improved management of other NR besides wildlife, such as forests,
fisheries, water resources, cropland, pastures, etc.
In keeping with the principle of providing incentives for higher levels of management effort,
progress in preparing these more detailed plans would be rewarded by conferring additional
rights and benefits to the conservancy. For example:

 Rapid and constructive response to situations involving ìproblem animalsî (and priority for
intervention by the MET Problem Animal unit, if it is established)

 Expedited processing of requests for game hunting quotas, approval of trophy hunting
concessions, etc.

 Authorization to harvest and sell forest products (timber and non timber forest products)
under a locally managed permit system

 Authorization to establish and locally enforce ìsanctuariesî or breeding areas for local
fisheries, no catch periods, or other controls on fishing

 Expedited assistance from farmers union and livestock extension agents to deal with
livestock health, range improvement or other farming issues

 Training and other assistance to enable conservancies to access commercial credit or other
sources of financing

 Access to government funding for co-financing for water point protection, etc.
While it is recognized that traditional, detailed management plans are not appropriate and that
their preparation would strain the capacity of MET, NACSO partners and conservancy members,
increased investments in NR related enterprises as well as more intensive NR use do require a
higher level of management. This management must be planned and organizedówith the fullest
possible participation by the community. Conservancy members are the best judge or the
relevant level of detail, amount of information needed and reasonable level of effort that should
be committed to the preparation of such plans.
Communities should be fully empowered to take responsibility for CBNRM planning and
maintain ownership of the planning process. The Conservancies should be facilitated to call on
technical and other support as needed, but in accord with terms that they decide upon. Technical
support for CBNRM planning should be demand driven/user driven. Provision should be made
for NACSO and its members to be accountable to the conservancies (through their associations
149
and directly) for providing the technical support needed to comply with the requirements of the
policy and regulations. It would be most unfortunate if deficiencies or delays in NRM planning
impeded the implementation of the conservancy policy and the achievement of the goals of the
national CBNRM program.
9. Recommendations for Strengthening the CBNRM Planning Support Systems
The Namibia CBNRM program can be truly demand driven and supportive of community based,
participatory approaches to multiple use and integrated CBNRM, if more attention is given to the
following aspects in the years ahead:
Ensure that the planning process is led by the community and fully accountable to it through its
representative committees and Conservancy sub-units, and not driven by the technical support
team. As the planning process proceeds, the community should be enabled to prioritise the
provision of needed technical support services, and to set the terms of such support to contribute
to the development of a community-based institution that is capable of managing the land and
NR of the community. The NRM planning process can be a powerful form of leverage for the
community to gain greater control over the planning process, and increased accountability from
government agencies and other service providers. The end result will be local level coordination
and multi-sectoral integration, in response to local needs and opportunities for improved NRM.
In this regard, the programme should closely assess, document and apply the experience gained
from the FIRM model in #Khoadi //Hoas.
Local communities should be vested with more authority to manage budgets and resources
committed to support the planning process. In order to encourage a least cost approach to NRM
planning and to ensure that local priorities are addressed, the representative structures of the
Conservancy should be entrusted to manage the resources allocated for the NR planning process.
In the NRM planning process, more attention should be given to the integration of cost/benefit
and other economic analysis. This analysis should be carried out as early as possible in the
process. The support organizations should refrain from imposing too many costs on the
conservancies at the outset, even if they are funded by grants. The communities should decide on
what staff is needed and when. The support organizations should fund the activities of a local
facilitator, not game guards, monitors and other staff that may be needed by the conservancy to
carry out their management activities.
Inventory information needs to fully capitalize on indigenous knowledge of natural resources
and their management. To date, the programme has tended to start the planning process by
compiling the maps, GIS data (geo-referenced biophysical information primarily), species lists
and other information which the NR team feels would be of use to the CBNRM planning
process. In keeping with a more bottom-up, locally driven process, the NR teams should invest
more effort in facilitating a process to take stock of and to document local knowledge about NR,
their extent, past and current uses, traditional management practices, and the like, as a basis for
the development of the NRM plans.
Give more attention to contingency planning and conflict management. The planning process
should also take account of the impact of drought or other natural catastrophes as well as
150
instability and potential conflicts, and contingency plans that may be needed in such cases. The
periodic use of NR within the conservancy by outsiders should also be assessed, and the
conservancy encouraged to develop procedures and systems to manage potential conflicts or
disputes over resource use.
Give more attention to provisions for the sustainable use of all renewable natural resources
within the conservancy. To date, in keeping with the original orientation of the LIFE programme,
the NR team has given more attention to implementation plans related to wildlife management
(including game translocation/restocking, water point development, and the like). As the
programme broadens its vision and scope, and supports the development of conservancies and
CBNRM activities in all regions, including areas with much less potential for wildlife based
enterprises and tourism, the NR planning effort should give more attention to range improvement
and sustainable use of rangelands by livestock, promotion of practices consistent with more
sustainable cropping systems, water resources management, more intensive management of
fisheries, sustained yield management of natural forests, and promotion of agroforestry and
reforestation (as appropriate, with due consideration to local needs and priorities, market access,
and so on). Without a more holistic and integrated approach to CBNRM, competition over
resources and conflict is more likely in the years ahead, and sustainable use will be jeopardized.
Zonation maps need to be prepared in a participatory manner, with adequate attention to all
user groups. The mapping team needs to include someone with a social organization and gender
analysis background, to ensure that less vocal groups and their access to resource are taken into
account. For example, certain veld and forest products are typically collected by women in
Caprivi and they could lose access to them by planning that excludes their customary uses in
designated tourism areas and fails to provide alternative access.
Field teams need to be mindful of not simply mapping ìcurrent useî in zonation maps; these
mapping exercises can be used as a tool to identify and limit non-sustainable practices, and to
shift land use towards more sustainable patterns of land use, which are consistent with land
capability as well as local livelihood requirements and community aspirations.
Monitoring activities need to be sensitive to the needs and constraints of the entire community.
The policy under which CGGs and field owners in some conservancies are led to patrol fields at
night excludes women-headed households, which comprise 42 percent of the population of rural
East Caprivi (Ashley and LaFranchi 1997). Culturally women are not able to participate in such
patrols, thus a substantial portion of the fields needing protection from problem animals are
being missed. Women also report higher insecurity in being able to access forest resources when
wildlife numbers are higher, and report higher damages to palm and crops. These forest
resources form a key part of these householdsí overall economic diversification, thus the
costs/benefits to be gained from higher wildlife numbers need to be accepted by the households
affected before plans include expansion of wildlife.
Resource Monitoring Plans may need to be broadened, to track a wider range of potential
threats to sustainable use. To date, the focus of the work of the CGG, CRM or environmental
shepherds have been developed in consultation with the local community. A number of ìeventsî
have been targeted and included in the monitoring effort and are recorded in event books.
151
Communities should be encouraged to consider the costs of collecting such information, the
value of such information in maintaining income from NR based enterprises, and the relevance
of such data to the improved management of their natural resources. For example, does the
monitoring system track and report on incidences that may impact the quality of tourism
experiences in designated areas? The system should be open to consider other types of
information, such as incidences of unguided and destructive (self-drive) tourists, grazing by
cattle owned by outsiders, clearing of new fields, timber poaching and the like. Provision could
also be made for less frequent but regular (once a year?) surveys of other potentially relevant NR
indicators (availability of fuelwood, changes in crop yields, etc.).
The Development Plans can serve as a driver for equitable and sustainable local development if
they take account of alternative livelihoods for all resource users in the community and carefully
weigh the trade-offs and impact of proposed development options. The process for the
preparation of a community development plan and integrated management plan should reinforce
gender equity and be elaborated and communicated in a transparent manner consistent with good
governance. The development planning process needs to consider who wins or benefits, and who
is liable to lose. For example, crops and livestock are the most common and the preferred source
of household income in Caprivi, therefore for wildlife expansion activities, reducing wildlife
damage ìcan make as much of a difference to livelihoods of nearby residents as assisting with
new enterprise developmentsî (p. 73). For poor, remote, or one-head households which may not
have the opportunity to have someone be employed with a conservancy enterprise, ìexpanding
opportunities to earn small amounts of cash from sales is just as important as expanding
permanent jobs. Joint venture agreements could therefore seek to maximize purchases of local
goods, as well as jobsî (p. 70). ìActivities focused on tree/river/veld products are just as
important as wildlife-focused developments. Although the subsistence or cash gains might be
small compared to wildlife activities, the benefits are more widespread (both within communities
and across Caprivi), and can make a big difference to cash-strapped householdsî (p. 71).
Before investments are made to carry out the Conservancy Development Plan, the conservancy
needs to discuss, agree upon and document the principles that will guide the distribution of
anticipated benefits. By law, conservancies need to be committed to equitable benefit
distribution as a condition of being registered. In practice, most conservancies tend to wait until
incomes begin to materialize to address the practical aspects of benefit distribution. This
approach is quite risky, and problems can be minimized if more effort is made to clarify and
develop benefit distribution plans at the earliest possible stage in conservancy planning. The
benefit distribution plan should be widely communicated among the members, and publicly
posted. It can be updated and made more specific as different income streams and other benefits
are generated.
NACSO and its members need to organize a working group to consider the ways and means of
promoting greater collaboration and integration between the NR team, and other teams
supporting the development of conservancies. For example, the teams aimed at promoting
enterprise development and those addressing capacity building, gender equity, strengthening of
financial management and performance systems, and other topics need to work together and
ensure that the conservancy-led planning process serves to coordinate and integrate their various
interventions and support activities.
152
The sectoral technical agencies of the government (line ministries) have an opportunity to build
on the successful establishment of conservancies, and to utilize them as pillars for integrated
environmental management. To this end, the GRN will need to harmonize the legislation and
regulations stipulating the conditions to be met to enable CBNRM across all sectors (extending
beyond wildlife, to include water resources, forests, fisheries, rangelands, communal area land
use planning, etc.). Procedures should be simplified and enable existing conservancies to acquire
the rights for management and sustainable utilization of other NR through the integrated
planning process. Each line ministry should aim to provide guidance for an appropriate degree of
planning for community based management of a given NR, and enable local communities to
adapt and apply the principles of NRM and sustainable use, without being held to rigid and
imposed requirements for inventories, offtake plans, detailed management plans and the like.
In turn, the NR teams needs to facilitate collaboration between the conservancies and
representatives of local line Ministries to ensure that NRM plans prepared by the conservancies
are responsive to the guidance and orientation of GRN technical departments, and recognized by
the relevant government agencies, including regional government and the Ministry of Lands.
10. Summary of Key Recommendations
For MET and GRN:
1. Establish the CBNRM Unit in MET
2. Consult with CBNRM stakeholders and agree on guidelines for management plans
3. CBNRM Unit to coordinate the review of conservancy plans and associated information
sharing among the relevant directorates of MET
For NACSO and its members, including the WWF/LIFE team:
1. Adopt a screening tool to orient and prioritise interventions of technical support services
2. Promote greater integration of technical support teams (institutions, NRM, enterprise) in
response to a locally-coordinated planning process
3. Incorporate indigenous knowledge about NRM into the planning process
4. Increase the attention given to socioeconomic analysis in development/NRM planning, and
weigh trade-offs and impacts of proposed development options on local livelihoods
5. Give more attention to contingency management and conflict management in CBNRM plans
6. Accelerate the development of appropriate training materials and coordinated mobilization of
efforts to transfer planning and management skills to local communities
7. Work towards a planning process that is participatory and led by the community, with
priorities set through local control of the budgets for planning assistance and implementation
of management plan
8. Ensure support for planning/management support teams through the period of peak demand
(beyond 2006)
153
Annex H
Internal Sources of Finance for the CBNRM Programme
The material in this annex complements the discussion in the main report on sustainable funding
for the CBNRM programme over the medium and longer term (Strategic Recommendation No.
10). During the Workshop to Review Findings and Recommendations of the Mid-Term Review,
several participants noted the usefulness of this examination of internal sources of funding and
recommended that it be brought to the attention of the NACSO membership.
Achievements

 Mobilization of relatively high levels of financial support for conservancies.

 The establishment of the EIF (Environmental Investment Fund) close to completion.

 The Game Products Trust Fund functioning and benefiting conservancies.
Issues and Gaps

 Staffing and other costs imposed by support organisations on conservancies.

 Demand for support services exceeds institutional capacity and available funding.

 Government financing facilities not exploited by the program fully.
1. Environmental Investment Fund (EIF)
Sources of Revenue

 Moneys appropriated by Parliament for the fund.

 Conservation fees to be paid by foreign tourists upon arrival or departure from Namibia.

 Levies on users of natural resources, e.g. tour operators.

 Donations from local philanthropists.

 Donations from international donor agencies.

 Interest and other revenues generated from endowments and other investments.
Activities To Be Funded

 Conservation, protection and management of natural resources, conservation of biodiversity,
or the maintenance of ecosystems.

 Economic improvement in the use of natural resources

 Training and education of Namibians in environmentally sustainable practices.

 Public awareness and environmental information dissemination.

 The development and implementation of environmental policies and strategies.

 Sustainable rural development.

 The management and operation of conservancies and nature reserves.
2. Game Products Trust Fund (GPTF)
Sources of Funding

 Concession fees in national parks
154

 Trophy hunting in national parks

 Selling of live animals

 Selling of ivory

 EIF (Potential source)
Projects and Activities To Be Funded

 Any project geared toward the reduction of human/animal conflicts, such as building of
elephant dams
3. The GRN Development Budget
Sources of Funding

 Government (MET needs to apply for this funds)
Projects and Activities To Be Funded

 Community-Based Natural Resource Management Program
(Stakeholders to identify priority areas)
4. The Namibian Investment Centre
Sources of Funding

 Equity capital in the form of FDI (foreign direct investment)
Projects and Activities To Be Funded

 Lodge joint ventures

 Tour Operators (JVs)

 Professional hunters operations (JVs)

 Other investments, such as mining, agriculture, etc.
5. Ministry of Trade and Industry
Sources of Funding

 Ministry of Trade and Industry
Projects and Activities To Be Funded

 Feasibility studies and drafting of business plans

 Lodes, campsites and other projects can benefit from this funding.
6. Small Business Credit Guarantee Trust
Sources of Funding

 Government guarantees 80%

 The entrepreneur puts up 10%

 The bank guarantees 10%

 The maximum loan available is N$250,000
155
Projects and Activities To Be Funded

 Any bankable project proposal from any industry
6. Microlending
Sources of Funding

 Ministry of Trade and Industry

 Funding is below N$ 20 000

 To start in 2002
Projects and Activities To Be Funded

 Very small community or individual projects, such as tyre repairs, sewing projects, etc.
The CBNRM programme partners need to explore and utilize all the available facilities, e.g.,
Ministry of Regional and Local Government and Housing (Small and Medium Enterprise
Development), the cooperatives division in the Ministry of Agriculture and other donor funded
projects which assist enterprise development.
156
Annex I
LIFE and the RCSA-Funded Transboundary Natural Resource
Management Program
In 1995, the USAID Regional Center for Southern Africa (RCSA) began to consider the
potential of collaboration among regional actorsógovernmental, non-governmental and
communitiesóin the management of shared natural resources. Following a study carried out by
WWF in 1999, key areas within the SADC region were identified. Chief among these was a
broad area inclusive of Hwenge and Victoria Falls National Parks in Zimbabwe, Kafue in
Zambia, Chobe in Botswana, and the Caprivi in Namibia. After a four-year process, the RCSA
received approval for their strategic plan in December 1999. The overall Mission goal is to
promote equitable, sustainable economic growth in a democratic southern Africa. As part of this
strategy, the mission maintains a strategic objective of ìincreased regional cooperation in the
management of shared resourcesî, with one result anticipating the adoptions of viable practices
for sustainable management of shared natural resources. This result includes the establishment of
a select group of transboundary natural resource management (TBNRM) areas as well as the
documentation and dissemination of viable approaches for regional application. RCSA decided
to begin implementation of TBNRM in two areas; the Gaza-Kruger-Gana Rizhou (GKG) areas
along the Limpopo and the 4-Corners Area of which the Caprivi forms a part. Development
Alternatives Inc. is implementing the GKG activity, while African Wildlife Foundation (AWF) is
implementing the 4-Corners activity.
The AWF-led program aims to achieve the results called for in the RCSA strategic plan through
adopting a two-pronged approach building upon its expertise in landscape management and the
promotion of a climate favourable to regional tourism. Though still in draft form, the AWF 4-
Corners program description outlines four components, each with a series of results (AWF
2001):

 Collaborative TBNRM conservation improved

 Conservation planning processes at TBNRM level initiated, facilitated and strategies
implemented and monitored;

 Conservation planning processes at site specific levels initiated, facilitated and strategies
implemented and monitored;

 Tourism and environmental planning at scale of TBNRM and specific sites linked; and

 Understanding of conservation status of TBNRM and specific sites improved and used in
planning.

 TBNRM enterprise environment improved

 Existing community private partnerships in TBNRM analysed and optimal conditions
assessed;

 Potential for new community private partnerships in TBNRM assessed; and

 Community private partnership tourism plans for area and site specific levels developed
and new partnerships initiated.
157

 Policy and institutional environment designed and operational

 Inter-ministerial and technical committees for 4-corners established and functional;

 Working groups for wildlife, water and enterprise development established and
functional; and

 Site-specific working groups established and functional.

 TBNRM collaborators informed and knowledgeable

 Database of TBNRM stakeholders and activities established and maintained; and

 Information centre services all stakeholders including tourists.
In addition to activities carried out specifically by AWF, LIFE received US$1 million to carry
out site-specific activities in the Caprivi. A meeting among Namibian collaborators was held to
outline key recommendations for collaboration with the 4-Corners activity. The Namibian
stakeholders recommended that AWF recognize the vested interests of the Namibian institutions
active in the Caprivi and that a steering and coordination mechanism be developed at the level of
the project and specific sites. The group identified a need to streamline communication and
coordination of TBNRM activities between AWF and the Namibian stakeholders through a
formal agreement between WWF and AWF. A series of activity areas and lead Namibian
institutions was developed to promote transboundary management through the Caprivi in the
areas of training, natural resource product marketing, tourism planning and marketing, TBNRM
research, TBNRM activities, transboundary planning and facilitation, regional exchange visits,
and project steering and coordination.
This coordination meeting was particularly important since the TBNRM program has been
perceived by local governmental and non-governmental interests as having been developed
without sufficient consultation in Namibia and that its aims and programs have not been
sufficiently communicated to national stakeholders. Nevertheless, TBNRM training activities in
landscape planning have taken place with significant Namibian participation.
The TBNRM grant to the LIFE program is important in terms of enabling LIFEís contribution to
the TBNRM effort. However, funds have been used primarily to broaden the Namibian coverage
of the LIFE program rather than undertake new activities within the Caprivi in support of
transboundary natural resource management.
Conclusions
The consideration of transboundary issues and opportunities in regards to the LIFE Program
reflects both toward the LIFE Program itself and toward the TBNRM concept. Clearly both
programs have considerable opportunity for mutual benefit and when one considers the overall
trend in the region, no one national CBNRM program may exist in isolation from those of its
neighbours. In order to best draw conclusions from the linkage between LIFE and TBNRM,
however, it is necessary to differentiate the concept of transboundary management activities
from the USAID-sponsored TBNRM program.
The project team pointed to numerous instances where there was a demand for transboundary
management of resources and LIFE involvement. In particular, there have been requests from
158
Botswana for capacity support by CBOs in the Chobe Enclave as well as discussions on
transboundary management of fisheries. WWF, FAO, NORAD and USAID funded a two-day
workshop on the co-management of fresh water resources in the Okavango and Zambezi river
systems (WWF 2000).
The USAID-funded Transboundary Natural Resources Management Program represents an
effort by a regional entity to generate a program with national impacts. The dialogue thus far has
focused on general issues, policies and the promotion of approaches in broad rather than specific
terms. In order for the 4-Corners activity to have impact in the Caprivi, as well as surrounding
countries, the implementers must effectively communicate the program to governmental and
non-governmental actors. Further, the transboundary efforts must recognize that considerable
progress has been achieved by local organizations without and prior to the 4-Corners activity.
Strengths

 LIFE has a robust set of partners that can provide essential technical assistance in the
TBNRM activity. To a large extent, the 4-Corners Activity needs the collaboration of the
LIFE program more than the reverse.

 The 4-Corners activity can bring regional skills and resources to bear on issues affecting the
LIFE Program, particularly those requiring international collaboration.
Weaknesses

 LIFE and the national CBNRM program are already burdened by the need to develop key
capacity and human resources while simultaneously meeting a burgeoning demand among
conservancies in Namibia. To expand beyond the borders of Namibia has a high likelihood of
overstretching these resources to the detriment of Namibian communities who depend upon
the LIFE Program.

 The late stage of implementation of the 4-Corners activity, with two years remaining in the
life of the current phase of the 4-Corners program, may limit the contribution that it makes to
LIFE Program progress both in local and international terms.
Opportunities

 Maintenance of ecological integrity among the key resources found in areas surrounding the
Caprivi is essential for the long-term viability of wildlife-based tourism in the region.

 The economies of scale from strengthening regional tourism can only benefit all surrounding
areas and the inclusion of Namibian communities in this will add to the economic benefits
received.

 To the extent that the TBNRM program encourages the exchange of CBNRM experiences,
the 4-Corners program can help to buttress success achieved through its predecessor NRMP.
Threats

 Internal political tensions in the region, if left unchecked, will have a negative effect on
tourism and, should the rule of law decay, may result in significant losses in biodiversity, a
decline or disappearance of tourism revenues, and potentially detrimental population
movements.

 The establishment of a highly funded activity by a relative newcomer organization to the
region may result in locally grown efforts being overrun by outside initiatives. This is
159
particularly the case in which local conservancies or communities may be promised resources
that LIFE had not been willing to make available. In the case where competition outstrips
collaboration among programs, the communities would be the ultimate loser.
Recommendations

 USAID needs to strengthen its official liaison with GRN on TBNRM. Though this is
essentially the responsibility of the RCSA, it should not be ignored by the Namibian Mission.

 TBNRM program must maintain local initiatives and actors already in place. Considerable
progress has been achieved in an organic manner. The 4-Corners Activity should make every
effort to avoid the perception or the occurrence of competition with the national program.

 Close collaboration is necessary to prevent dilution or duplication of effort. An initial
memorandum of understanding has been drafted. This understanding should be reviewed
periodically and communication systems established in order to avoid duplication of effort.
160
Annex J
Workshop to Review Findings and Recommendations of the
Mid-Term Review Team
Rossing Foundation August 16, 2001
Workshop Schedule
Welcome Carol Culler, USAID
Patricia Skyer, NACSO
Introduction of Participants
Workshop Objectives George Taylor
Review Team Presentations Brian Child
1. The Conservancies
Discussion 
2. The National CBNRM Programme: Policy Bob Winterbottom
Discussion
Review Recommendations/Discussion of
Priorities and Action Responsibilities
3. The National CBNRM Programme: Overview George Taylor
and NACSO
Discussion
Break 1000ñ1030
4. The National CBNRM Programme: Support Kara Page
Institutions
Discussion
5. The National CBNRM Programme: Economics Brian Child
Discussion
6. The National CBNRM Programme: Support Bob Winterbottom
Systems, Tools and Methods
Discussion
7. The National CBNRM Programme: Funding Klemens/Awarab
Discussion
161
8. The National CBNRM Programme: USAID Review Team
support, GEF support etc.
Discussion
Lunch 1300ñ1400
Review Recommendations/Discussion of Review Team
Priorities and Action Responsibilities and Participants
Wrap-Up and Next Steps George Taylor
Closing Comments Carol Culler/Patricia Skyer
Workshop Participants
Patricia Skyer NACSO Secretariat
Andrew Long DEA/MET
Jon Barnes DEA/MET
Helen Snich DEA/MET
Linda Baker DEA/MET
Andrew Long DEA/MET (WILD)
Carol Murphy DEA/MET (WILD)
John Hazam DPWM/MET
Norman Tjombe LAC
Mathilda Dempers NDT
Wendy Viall NNDF
Maxi Louis NACOBTA
Michael Jimmy NACOBTA
Chris Brown NNF
Anna Davis NNF
Alfons Mosimane UNAM/MRCC
Len LeRoux Rossing Foundation
Margaret Jacobsohn IRDNC
Lynn Halstead IRDNC
Colin Nott IRDNC
Jacky Gaingob RISE
Sima Luipert RISE
Brian Jones Consultant
Karl Aribeb Private
Chris Weaver WWF/LIFE
Kandukira Da Costa WWF/LIFE
Roger Collinson WWF/LIFE
Andee Davidson WWF/LIFE
Usiel Ndjavera WWF/LIFE
Greg Stuart-Hill WWF/LIFE
162
Russell Taylor WWF/SARPO
Carol Culler USAID
Chris Warner World Bank
Klemens/Awarab Review Team
Brian Child Review Team
Kara Page Review Team
George Taylor Review Team
Bob Winterbottom Review Team
Priorities Recommended by Workshop Participants
Business/Enterprise

 Joint Venture development and business development in NACSO. Contract Business Advisor
to assist in business development planning. Identify priority areas within conservancies for
implementation (2)

 Development of business skills

 Shift to greater emphasis on financial viability

 Promote financially-based integrated development planning (3)

 Promote business based integrated development planning and benefit distribution
Institutions/Institutional Arrangements

 Accelerate establishment of the CBNRM Unit (6)

 Promote integration of technical support teams (NRM, enterprise, institutions) in response to
locally coordinated planning (2)

 Strengthen NACSO Secretariat and support key Working Groups

 Leadership, innovation and adaptive program management and development

 Empower institutions that lack skills before LIFE phases out

 Develop HIV/AIDS strategy

 Invest in lessons learned (documentation)
Conservancies

 Devolve/empower village level; institutionalise democratic process (11)

 Policy/integrated NRM driven through conservancy associations (2)

 Planning process led by community

 Planning budget controlled locally

 Planningóintegrated development planning

 Get away from joint ventures
Policy

 Strengthen policies to give conservancies true authority over NRM plans, tourism, etc. (3)

 Strengthen policies to affirm mandate and authority of conservancies and other CBOs to
locally coordinate and implement integrated NRM (3)

 Find a way to involve MET and other GRN Ministries in CBNRM

 Track and support harmonization of sectoral policies related to CBNRM
163

 Address gaps in community-based tourism policy implementation and legislation to secure
greater rights and benefits for local communities

 Develop strategy to develop all 7 policy recommendationsócrucial
Natural Resource Management

 Need to broaden NRM scope to integrate all natural resources

 Ensure support for NRM Team and other support/planning systems through the peak period
(beyond 2003)
164
Annex K
People Contacted
Washington, DC
Jon Anderson, USAID Africa Bureau (AFR/SD)
Sabrina Atwater, Capacity Building Coordinator, Pact
Paul Bartel, USAID Africa Bureau (AFR/SD)
Ruth Buckley, Social Analyst, USAID Africa Bureau (AFR/DP)
Oliver Chapeyama, USAID/Regional Center for Southern Africa (RCSA)
Christophe CrÈpin, Regional Coordinator for Africa/Namibia Task Manager, World Bank
Pat Isman FníPiere, USAID Global Bureau Democracy Center (G/DG)
Andrea Freeman, PACT
Curt Grimm, USAID Africa Bureau (AFR/DP)
Robert Hitchcock, University of Nebraska
Betsy Kummer, PACT
Mike McGahuey, USAID Africa Bureau (AFR/SD)
Kate Newman, Director for East and Southern Africa, World Wildlife Fund-US
Sharon Pauling, Analyst, USAID/Africa
Tony Pryor, Senior Manager, International Resources Group, Ltd.
Gabrielle Rechbauer, Environmental Specialist, World Bank/GEF
S.K. Reddy, USAID/Regional Center for Southern Africa (RCSA)
Asif Shaikh, President, IRG, Ltd.
Barbara Wycoff-Baird, Aspen Institute
Windhoek
Karl Aribeb, UNDP, formerly Secretariat, CAN
Linda Baker, Publicity Specialist, DEA
Jon Barnes, Natural Resource Economics Advisor, DEA
Dhyani Berger, Coordinator, ECODET
Shirley Bethune, DEA/MET
Ben Beytell, Deputy Director, DRM/MET
Chris Brown, Director, Namibia Nature Foundation
Paul Collair, Training Manager, Rossing Foundation
Roger Collinson, Joint Venture Development Specialist, LIFE
Andrew Corbett, Legal Advisor Support to LAC
Carol Culler, LIFE Program Manager, USAID/Namibia
Pintile Davids, Director, Sima Luipert, CBNRM Coordinator, Rural Institute For Social
Empowerment
Andee Davidson, Usiel Ndjavera, Business Advisors, LIFE
Anna Davis, CBNRM Specialist, NNF
Rose De Buysscher, Country Coordinator, Family Health International
Willem de Wet, Manager Country Lodge
Ronnie Dempers, Director, Namibia Development Trust
Uhuru Dempers, NANGOF
165
Tina Dooley-Jones, Director of Technical Programs, USAID/Namibia
Tangeni Erkana, Permanent Secretary, MET
Volker Grellmann, Anvo Hunting Safaris
Joseph Hailwa, Director of Forestry, MET
Immanuel Hamunyela, Economist, Multilateral Programmes, National Planning Commission
Secretariat
Clinton Hayes, Head of Fresh Water Fisheries, Ministry of Marine and Fishery Resources
John Hazam, CBNRM Technical Advisor to MET
Frank Heger, Head of Namibia Professional Huntersí Association
Chris Hendersen, DFID
Ben Hochabeb, Alphons Mosimane, CBNRM Researcher, UNAM
Hosabe/Honeb, Mgt Mentor, Wendy Viall, Financial Administrator, Kxao Moses, Public
Relations Officer, Nyae Nyae Development Foundation
W.J. Jankowitz, Dean, School of Natural Resources and Tourism, Polytechnic
Brian Jones, Consultant
Maria Kapere, Undersecretary for Parks and Wildlife
Sam Kapiye, Land Use Planning Div., Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Holger Kolberg, Conservation Scientist/Planner, Scientific Services, MET
Bertus Kruger, Desert Research Foundation of Namibia
Goran Larson, Support Donor, SIDA
Len le Roux, Director, Beans Ngatjizeko, Coordinator, Paul Collair, Head of CBNRM Training
Unit, Rˆssing Foundation
Andrew Long, Team Leader, WILD-MET
Maxi Louis, Director, Theo Ngaujake, Dep. Director, Namibia Community-Based Tourism
Association
Joe Magan, DEA Consultant
Philemon Malima, Honourable Minister, MET
Greg Miles, MET/LIFE Human Resources Specialist
M. Mutinga, Director of Industrial Development, Ministry of Trade and Industry
Karen Nott, Office Manager, Integrated Rural Development & Nature Conservation
Garth Owen-Smith, Margaret Jacobsohn, Co-directors, Integrated Rural Development & Nature
Conservation
Hanno Rumpf, Permanent Secretary, National Planning Commission Secretariat
Joy Sasman, Namibia Investment Centre, Min. Trade & Industry
Harry Schneider, Chair, Frauke Rˆschlau, Secretary, Conservancy Association of Namibia
Simwanza Simenda, Deputy Permanent Secretary, MET
Patricia Skyer, Secretariat Coordinator, National Association of CBNRM Support Organizations
Flip Stander, Predator Specialist
Greg Stuart-Hill, Raymond Peters, Natural Resource Planners, LIFE/WWF
Jo Tagg, Natural Resource Monitoring/Mgt Specialist ñ DEA/MET
Norman Tjombe, CBNRM Legal Advisor, Legal Assistance Centre
Ilene van der Linde, UNIQ
Dave van Smeerdijk, Director of Wilderness Safaris/Namibia
Diana Swain, Mission Director, USAID/Namibia
Russell Taylor, Coordinator, WWF-SARPO
Peter Ward, Tourism Consultant
166
Chris Warner, Senior Environmental Officer, World Bank/GEF-SA
Chris Weaver, Chief of Party, WWF/LIFE
Stanley Wilson, Wouter Schalken, European Union Tourism Project
Helmut Woehl, GTZ Advisor-NAPCOD, DEA/MET
East Caprivi Region
Bennety Busihu, Conservancy Manager, Kwando
Richard Diggle, Program Coordinator, IRDNC-Caprivi
Lynn Halstead, Enterprise Development Facilitator, IRDNC-Caprivi
Charles Kachele, Capacity Building Facilitator, IRDNC-Caprivi
Fabian Kangumu, Secretary, Kwando Conservancy Committee
Janet Matota, Community Capacity Building (CCB) Facilitator and CRM Coordinator, IRDNC￾Caprivi
Chief Mayuni, Headman of Mayuni Area, and fellow Indunas
Michael Mumbalu, Training Facilitator-NRM, IRDNC-Caprivi
Beavan Munali, Senior Facilitator/CGG Coordinator, IRDNC-Caprivi
Carol Murphy, Social Researcher, WILD-Caprivi
George Mutwa, Committee Chairperson, Salambala Conservancy
Nathaniel Nuulimba, NRM Facilitator, IRDNC-Caprivi
Dusty Rogers, Island Lodges Pty. Ltd
Otilia Sakachele, CRM/Crafts Program, Salambala Conservancy
Loveless Shitaa, Field OfficeróCCB/CRM, IRDNC-Caprivi
Florence Siambango, Environmental Awareness/Outreach Facilitator, Salambala Conservancy
Hon. B.S. Sibalatani, Governor of Caprivi Region
Peggy Tutalife, Mashi Crafts Coordinator, IRDNC
John Wambach, Professional Hunter, Salambala Conservancy
Kunene/Erongo Regions
Paula Adams, Secretary/Community Activator, Torra Conservancy
Andrew and Sharon, Damaraland Camp Managers, Torra Conservancy
Bernadette /Awarab and Aloysius, Damaraland Camp Staff, Torra Conservancy
Duban, Conservancy Manager, Tsiseb Conservancy
Anton Esterhuizen, Senior Facilitator, NRM, IRDNC
Wanda Esterhuizen, Crafts Development Facilitator, IRDNC-Kunene
Riann Gariseb and Ashna, Tourism Rest Camp Coordinator, Spitzkoppe Community
Development Association
Gabriel Goagoseb, Technical Advisor, Bernadus Guibeb, Environmental Shepherds Coordinator,
Helga Howoses, Information Liaison/Womenís Desk Coordinator, #Khoadi-//Hoas
Conservancy
Alan Hendry and Gesa, Ugab Camp Managers, Tsiseb Conservancy
Nahor Howoseb, Chief Information Warden, MET-Kunene
Ed Humphrey, Enterprise Development/Benefit Generation Senior Facilitator, IRDNC￾Kunene
Anton Mapanka, Vice Secretary, Torra Conservancy
Shebby Mate, Regional Program Officer, RISE/Namibia-Kunene/Erongo
Ernita Morwe, Student Intern/PolyTechnic, IRDNC-Kunene
167
Collin Nott, Consulting Tourism Coordinator, IRDNC-Windhoek
Usiel Ndjavera, Business Advisor, LIFE/WWF
Aino Paavo, Capacity Building Specialist, IRDNC-Kunene
Patricia, Female CGG, Tsiseb Conservancy
Benny Roman, Coordinator, IRDNC-Kunene and Treasurer, Torra Conservancy
Eric Xaweb, Coordinator, Tsiseb Conservancy
Elias Xoagub, Conservancy Chairman/PTO Owner, Uibasen Conservancy
Nyae Nyae Conservancy
Dries Alberts, MET Officer
Kivit, Conservancy Chairman
Kxao Moses, Coordinator/Public Relations Officer
Tsum Kxao Moses, Financial Manager
Kallie, Crafts Manager
Kaliki, Committee Member
Hosabe /Honeb NNDF Management Mentor
168
Annex L
References
ABCG (Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group). 2001. Meeting Minutes: ABCG Meeting on
the Implications of the HIV/AIDS Pandemic on Africaís Natural Resources and the
Conservation Workforce (April 17, 2001). Washington, DC: ABCG.
Allison, Caroline, and Study Team. 1997. Study of Namibian NGO Capacity and Development.
Windhoek, Namibia: Namibia Non-governmental Organizationsí Forum (NANGOF) and
USAID.
Ashley, Caroline. 1998. Intangibles Matter: Non-Financial Dividends of Community-Based
Natural Resource Management in Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: LIFE Program.
Ashley, Caroline, and Christopher LaFranchi. 1997. Livelihood Strategies of Rural Households
in Caprivi: Implications for Conservancies and Natural Resource Management. Windhoek,
Namibia: WWF/USAID.
AWF (African Wildlife Foundation). 2001. ìFour Cornersî: A Trans-Boundary Natural
Resource Management Initiative for the Okavango/Chobe/Hwange/Caprivi/Mosi-Oa￾Tunya/Kavue AreaóProgram Description and Budget. Washington, DC: AWF.
Barnard, Phoebe, ed. 1998. Biological Diversity in NamibiaóA Country Study. Windhoek,
Namibia: Namibian National Biodiversity Task Force.
Barnes, J.I., J. MacGregor, and L.C. Weaver. 2001. Economic Analysis of Community Wildlife
Use Initiatives in Namibia. Research Discussion Paper No. 42. Windhoek, Namibia:
MET/Directorate of Environmental Affairs.
Beyers, Bruce A. 1996. Environmental Threats and Opportunities in Namibia: A Comprehensive
Assessment for USAID/Namibia Synthesis Report. Washington, DC: Environmental and
Natural Resources Policy and Training (EPAT) Project/Winrock International Environmental
Alliance for USAID/Namibia.
Brinkerhoff, Derick, Lynn Carter, and Patricia FníPiere. 2001. NGOs and Civil Society in
Namibia: A Rapid Assessment and Recommendations for USAID. Washington, DC: USAID
Global Bureau/Center for Democracy and Governance for USAID/Namibia.
Dewdney, Richard. 1996. Policy Factors and DesertificationóAnalysis and Proposals.
Namibian Programme to Combat Desertification (NAPCOD).
GEF (Global Environment Facility). No date. Proposal for a PDF-B Grant: Namibia
Biodiversity Conservation and Integrated Ecosystem Management through the Namibia
National Conservancy Program. Washington, DC: GEF.
169
Hagen, Roy, Barbara Wycoff-Baird with Steve Johnson, Tim Resch and Dorothy Oyier. 1998.
Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE) Evaluation. Windhoek, Namibia: MET and USAID.
Hagen, Roy, Brian Jones, Barbara Wycoff-Baird with Dorothy Oyier and Jon Barnes. 1998.
Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Sector Assessment for Namibia.
Windhoek, Namibia: MET and USAID.
Hagen, Roy, Brian T.B. Jones and Barbara Wycoff-Baird. 1998. Support for the National
CBNRM Programme beyond the current LIFE Programme: Concept Paper for USAID.
Windhoek, Namibia: USAID.
IRDNC (Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation). 2001. Kwandu Conservancy
Integrated Management Planning Workshop 18-19 July, 2001. Katima, Namibia: IRDNC.
óóó. 1994. Community-Based Conservation in East Caprivi: A Three-Year Grant Proposal.
Windhoek, Namibia: IRDNC for WWF/LIFE.
Johnson, Steve, ed. 2000. A View of the Future: Community-Based Natural Resources
Management in Namibia. Proceedings of the CBNRM Association of Namibiaís Planning
Conference Gross Barmen Resort, Namibia 3ñ5 October 2000. Windhoek, Namibia:
CBNRM Association of Namibia.
Jones, Brian T.B. 2000. An Overview of Key Developments in the Legal and Policy Environment.
Thematic presentation to the CBNRM Association Planning Conference.
óóó. 2000. Support to Development of a CAN/MET Proposal to GEF for Project
Development Funds. Windhoek, Namibia: WWF/LIFE.
óóó. 1999. Community Management of Natural Resources in Namibia. IIED Issue Paper no.
90.
óóó. 1999. Rights, Revenues and Resources: The Problems and Potential of Conservancies
as Community Wildlife Management Institutions in Namibia. Evaluating Eden Discussion
Paper no. 2, IIED, London.
óóó. No date. Lessons Learned and Impacts of LIFE Project Phase I: CBNRM Policy and
Legislative Review and Analysis. LIFE working paper.
Jones, Brian, James Wahome, and Nathanael Araseb. 2001. Development of a Five-Year
Strategic Vision for CBNRM in Namibia. Report of a consultancy carried out for the
Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO). Windhoek, Namibia:
NACSO.
Kruger, A.S., ed. 2001. Coping in a Fragile Environment: The SARDEP Experienceó
Sustainable Animal and Range Development Programme (SARDEP) in the Communal Areas
of Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: SARDEP, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural
Development.
170
Levinger, Beryl, and Evan Bloom. 2001. ìDevelopment Oriented Self-Assessment (DOSA)
Capacity and Success Factors.î http://www.edc.org/INT/capdev/dosafile/capareas.htm.
 Margoulis, Richard, Cheryl Margoulis, Katrina Brandon, and Nick Salafsky. 2000. In Good
Company: Effective Alliances for Conservation. Washington, DC: WWF, Biodiversity
Support Program/Analysis and Adaptive Management Program.
Matanyaire, E.J., and Emelia Timpo. 1999. The Impact of HIV/AIDS on Farming Communities in
Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: Food and Agriculture Organization.
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development. 2000. National Water Policy. White
Paper.
Ministry of Environment and Tourism. No date. Questions and Answers about Communal Area
Conservancies in Namibia. Tool Kit for Conservancies.
Ministry of Environment and Tourism. 2001. The Parks and Wildlife Management Bill.
Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation. 1998. National Land Policy.
Mullins, Dan. 2001. Land Reform, Poverty Reduction and HIV/AIDS. Paper presented at the
SARPN conference on Land Reform and Poverty Alleviation in Southern Africa GB
Regional Management Centre, 4ñ5 June 2001. Pretoria, South Africa: Oxfam.
Nabane, Nontokozo. 1995. Gender as a Factor in Community-based Natural Resources
Management: A Case Study of Nongozi, Lianshulu, Lizauli and Sachona Villages in East
Caprivi, Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: WWF/LIFE.
NACOBTA (Namibia Community-Based Tourism Association). No date. Community-Based
Tourism: Regional Profiles and Enterprise Fact Sheets (Khomas, Kunene, Erongo, North￾Central, Caprivi, Karas and Otjozondjupa Regions). Windhoek, Namibia: NACOBTA
NACSO (Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations). 2001. Constitution of the
Namibian Association of Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM)
Support Organizations. Windhoek, Namibia: NACSO.
óóó. 2001. Namibiaís Community-Based Natural Resource Management Programme:
Enhancing Conservation, Development and Democracy in Namibiaís Rural Areas.
Windhoek, Namibia: NACSO.
NNF (Namibia Nature Foundation). 2000. Namibia Nature Foundation Annual Report
1999/2000. Windhoek, Namibia: NNF.
Travel News Namibia. 2001. Conservation: The Importance of the Environment for
Development in Namibia. Special Edition of Travel New Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia:
Venture Publications in collaboration with the Ministry of Environment and Tourism.
171
USAID/Namibia. 2001. FY2003 R4 Results Report and Resource Request. Windhoek, Namibia:
USAID.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund). 2000. The Co-Management of Fresh Water Resources in the
Okavango and Zambezi River Systems: Proceedings of a Consultative Workshop.
óóó. 1999 World Wildlife Fund Proposal for Phase II of the Living in a Finite Environment
(LIFE) Programme August 1, 1999ñOctober 31, 2002. Windhoek, Namibia: WWF.
óóó. No date. Integration of Caprivi Transboundary Natural Resource Management
Activities into the LIFE project. Windhoek, Namibia: WWF/LIFE.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund) and LIFE (Living in a Finite Environment). 2001. LIFE Phase II
Semi-Annual Report for the period October 1, 2000 through March 31, 2001. Windhoek,
Namibia: Submitted by WWF, Rossing Foundation and MSI to the LIFE Programme
Steering Committee.
óóó. 2000. Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Namibia: An Overview of
Progress & Prospects. Windhoek, Namibia: WWF/LIFE.
WWF (World Wildlife Fund), Rossing Foundation, World Learning Inc., and Management
Systems International. December 2000. Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE) Project: End
of Project Report Phase I for the Period May 7, 1993-June 30,2000. Windhoek, Namibia:
Submitted to USAID/Namibia.