Benefit sharing from tourism in protected areas

{

!

Benefit sharing from natural heritage: Examples and challenges from Africa

Dr Anna Spenceley, Cape Town, April 2014

Protected area

Models of benefit sharing

Tourism enterprise

Protected area

Local revenue sharing

Local employment

Local procurement


!

Revenue sharing Protected areaLa % tourism revenue to

communities Financial benefits

Virunga Volcanoes, Rwanda 5% USD428,000 (2005-‐‑2008) Spent on social projects

Lake Manyara National Park, Tanzania

7.5% budget USD30,000 (2006-‐‑7). Spent on teachers house, classrooms

Kibale, Bwindi, Mgahinga National Parks, Uganda

12% (1994 policy) USD83,000 (1995-‐‑98). Spent on 21 schools, 4 clinics, 1 bridge, 1 road

Maputo Special Reserve, Mozambique

16% USD66,400 (2009-‐‑2013)

Lake Mburu National Park, Uganda

20% USD30,000 (2006-‐‑7). Spent on teachers house, classrooms

NB All state protected areas

Case study: Virunga Volcanoes u Mountain Gorillas: Rwanda, Uganda, DRC

u 32 groups: 359-‐‑395 gorillas (approx 700 globally)

u Price to visit gorillas: $750 (Foreign non-‐‑residents)

u 1 hour visit u Number international leisure arrivals to Rwanda similar to number of permits available (20,000)

Sharing 5% of tourism revenues

RDB-TC disbursed $428 248 on community projects around the Park between 2005 and2009. The projects include environmental protection, education, water and sanitation,basic infrastructure, and food security (see Figure 3). In both 2007 and 2008 theannual value of the disbursements was over $115 000. The value of these equates to atotal investment only $3.4 per person since its inception and an average of $0.85 perperson year (personal communication, Glenn Bush, Woods Hole Research Center, 30November 2009).

The projects that the funds have been used to implement are the following (personalcommunication, Uwingeli, 3 November 2009; Tusabe & Habyalimana, 2010):

. Education: Ten schools constructed, with 56 classrooms.

. Environmental protection: Tree planting, soil erosion control, and fencing in protectedareas to limit access by poachers.

. Water tanks: Thirty-two 25 000-litre water tanks constructed since 2005, providing 20litres per person per day, and each serving at least 1250 people.

. Income generating activities: Ten community associations supported directly throughthe revenue sharing scheme and a number of other projects implemented, such asbeekeeping and basket weaving.

To date no study has been published that assesses the impact the scheme is making on thelivelihoods of people living near the Park (Spenceley et al., 2009c).

3.4.2 Access to land and natural resources

Stoinski et al. state that the Virunga mountain gorilla represents ‘an isolated island popu-lation in an upland area surrounded by a sea of humanity at some of the highest humandensities found on the African continent with extremely poor, agricultural based localeconomies’ (2007:21). The high population density in some areas reaches 820 peopleper km2 (Plumptre et al., 2004). Stoinski et al. observe that these gorillas are ‘severelythreatened by anthropogenic disturbance, such as agricultural conversion and illegalextraction of resources (for example, snare setting for smaller mammals that entrapyoung gorillas, cattle grazing, etc.)’ and that ‘[w]hile these gorillas are no longer

Figure 3: Funds allocated to projects around Parc National des Volcans between2005 and 2008 from the 5 per cent revenue sharing processSource: Tusabe & Habyalimana (2009).

656 A Spenceley et al.

Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 08:49 8 December 2010

Rwanda Development Board issues calls for proposals: selection process at district levels

$428,242 on community projects (2005-‐‑8) •  $3.4 p/p over 4 years (approx. 126,000 people) •  $0.85 p/p/a

Sharing 5% of tourism revenues

10 community associations supported, beekeeping and basket weaving

Tree planting, soil erosion control, and fencing in protected areas

10 schools constructed, with 56 classrooms

32 x 25 000 litre water tanks, each providing 20 litres p/p/d, to 1250 people (40,000 beneficiaries)

Education

Water

Environment

Livelihoods

1. The value of money per person is very licle if divided among a large number of people.

6 Key Challenges

2. Benefits of social infrastructure (e.g. schools, water, clinics) are not always associated with conservation / are not linked to conservation responsibilities (i.e. reduced poaching). 3. Those that benefit are not necessarily the same as those who face costs of the protected area (e.g. HWC; Rwanda, Mozambique).

6 Key Challenges

4. The poorest do not always benefit (e.g. Rwanda, CBO members; Tanzania, 30% community contribution) 5. Community entities may not have the capacity / systems to agree on how to spend revenues (e.g. Sodwana Bay, South Africa).

6 Key Challenges

6. Legislation may constrain the process: e.g. Certain PAs send all tourism revenue to central government, then claim it back (not always successfully: e.g. Mozambique).

6 Key Challenges

u Long-‐‑term institutional support u Appropriate identification of target communities & project types

u Transparency and accountability u Adequate funding u Realistic expectations

Components of successful revenue sharing

Protected area


Tourism enterprise

Tourism enterprise

Local equity / ownership

Local employment

Local procurement


Joint Venture

Community Based Tourism Enterprise

Revenue sharing Tourism enterprise Equity Financial benefits Damaraland Camp, Namibia

60% Wilderness Safaris 40% Torra Conservancy

$300 p/a rent + 10% revenue $74 p/p in 2004 (enough for basic groceries for 3 months)

Sabyinyo Silverback Lodge, Rwanda

Kinigi & Nyange community IGCP (NGO) Government

$50 per night bed fee 7.5% net sales $8 bed night re-‐‑payment loan

Ndzou Lodge, Mozambique

60% Mpunga community 40% Eco-‐‑MICAIA

Not yet profitable

Rocktail Beach Camp, South Africa

75% Wilderness Safaris 25% SBDC

TBA

Bulungula Backpackers, South Africa

No formal agreement 60% ownership D. Martin 40% ownership NCT

$8,300 (2005-‐‑8)

Joint Venture

Case study: Damaraland, Namibia

Namibia

TorraTorra Conservancy & Conservancy &DamaralandDamaraland Camp Camp

Author: Anna Spenceley.

Photographs: Dana Alan, Wilderness Safaris

Joint Venture

u  Torra Conservancy

u  Namibian conservancy policy gives community rights to use natural resources & rights to occupy

Joint Venture Planning & development issues:Planning & development issues:

DamaralandDamaraland Institutional ArrangementsInstitutional Arrangements

Torra ConservancyLessor / partner

10% revenue.

£300 p/a rent

15-yr BOT

arrangement

Damaraland CampWilderness Safaris

Lessee, Developer and Operator

• Damaraland is a Build Operate Transferpartnership with the community (withWilderness Safaris) (a hybrid rental agreement)

• WS and INDRC organised community into Trustand organised rental/transfer agreement

• 15 year agreement between WS and the Torraconservancy for ~10 hectares (separate fromhunting concession area)

• 10% of the net accommodation fees from eachguest's stay are allocated directly to thecommunity

• For the last 5 years of the agreement wouldhave transferred 20% ownership of assets tothe conservancy and decrease payments of %turnover by 20% each year.

• By year 15 conservancy would have owned andmanage the lodge, and WS would continue tomarket it.

• Books presented to Trust 4x p/a• Joint management committee of WS and

community to discuss lodge development andwider area

StateLand owner

Permission to Occupy

Brian Jones, Jones and Ashley (2001), Bruce Simpson, Chris Roche

u  2 year negotiation u  IRDNC facilitated agreement (NGO)

u  BOT over 15 years u  10% net accommodation fees to community

u  Last 5 years of agreement transferred 20% p/a to community

u  Subsequently WS bought 60% equity

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

$1,600,000

$1,800,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

N$

va

lue Non-tourism income

Trophy hunting

Joint ventures

Income and disbursements in theTorra Conservancy 1999-2004:

Income to Conservancy and Households

Source: Data from WWF- LIFE on behalf of the CBNRMprogramme (2005) N$ to US$ exchange rates 1 June

(Spenceley and Barnes, 2005)

Non-tourism includes training,

laundry, firewood etc

Income to conservancy and households

100% revenue shared locally

Rocktail Bay Beach Camp, South Africa

1.  Governance of community trusts: weak communication with wider community; conflicts of interest (e.g. preferential employment/training etc); elites arise (e.g. Ndzou camp)

2.  Capacity to manage funds: weak accounting/record keeping; abuse of fund (e.g. Rocktail Bay Lodge; CBOs Okavango)

3.  Transaction costs are high: Long time / costly to set up institutional arrangements, ongoing support (e.g. Damaraland, Chemucane)

3 Key Challenges Joint Venture

!

Double Joint-‐‑venture

Tourism enterprise

Local equity / ownership

Local employment

Local procurement


Joint Venture

Community Based Tourism Enterprise

Revenue sharing Tourism enterprise Equity Tangible benefits

Thakadu, South Africa 100% Community $87.5 k lease fees to Trust (2008)

Buffalo Ridge, South Africa

100% Community $59.5 k lease fees to Trust (2008)

Kuru Dkar Trust Hostel, Botswana

100% Community $5,000 (2005)

Tsara Loky, Madagascar

100% Community

$600 (2005)

Tchuma Tchato, Mozambique

100% Community $50,000 (2005)

Tengeru campsite, Tanzania

100% Community $2,000 (2005)

Gairezi fly fishing, Zimbabwe

100% Community $2,000 (2005)

CBTE

Case study: Thakadu River Camp, Madikwe, South Africa

CBTE

u  24 Bed luxury tented camp u  Owned by the Batlokwa community

u  Operated by The Madikwe Collection

u  Opened 2006 u  Average 55% bed occupancy

u  Achieved rate $118 p/b/n

CBTE

u  Provincial conservation agency (NWPTB) manages protected area; supplies bulk infrastructure

u  Community Development Trust: 45 year BOT lease; sub-‐‑lease to private operator; participate Joint Liaison Commicee

u  Private operator: 10 year management sub-‐‑lease with strong empowerment clauses

Planning & development issues:Planning & development issues:Institutional Arrangements

Operating fee

(rental +10% of t/o)

Fair rental

(6% of t/o)

! Provincial conservation agency(NWPTB):

– Focuses on core expertise

(biodiversity conservation)

– Manages protected area

– Supplies bulk infrastructure*

– Optimises income for conservation

from private commercial leases

Community TrustLessee & Developer

NWPTBLessor

Private OperatorSublessee

45-yr BOT

lease

10-yr MOT

sublease JLC

CBTE Economic impacts:Economic impacts:

Local economic benefit

• During 2008, Thakadu will generate:

– R550k in lease fees to the NWPTB

– R875k in sublease fees to the Sebolao Trust

– R1.54m in wage payments (excluding gratuities)

– R155k in local business contracts*

– Total benefit of R2.57-m (excluding lease fees)*

• Buffalo Ridge will generate:

– R380k in lease fees to the NWPTB

– R595k in sublease fees to the Sebolao Trust

– R950k in wage payments (excluding gratuities)

– R145k in local business contracts*

– Total benefit of R1.69-m (excluding lease fees)*

• Operator planning philanthropic foundation

u  Trust rental to NWPTB: Fixed fee $2.8 k; variable fee 6% turnover u  Private partner: $500 per commercial bed; variable fee 10% turnover

u  Supportive state agencies/ institutional environment u  Clear rights framework u  Well structured contracts u  Legitimate CBOs with capacity u  Careful institution building u  Ongoing capacity building / administrative support u  Skills development u  Succession model / planning

Components of successful benefit sharing CBTE

Other benefits too . . .

Access to finance (loans, profit, donations), 45%

Employment, 39%

Community infrastructure development, 39%

Education/training (and support of education institutions) , 29%

Craft/product development and purchasing , 28%

Service provision, 22%

Access to resources, 18%

Health facilities ,

12%

Conservation/sustainable resource use, 11%

No benefit, 8%

Cultural conservation/celebration, 8% CBTE

218 CBTEs in southern Africa

u  Revenue sharing is one type of benefit from tourism based on natural heritage u  Other benefits are environmental, social and other forms of economic benefit

(e.g. employment, procurement)

u Protected Areas may have a % tourism revenue shared with local people: u  State protected areas -‐‑ national policy/legislation framework u  Tendency to allocate to social projects (e.g. education, health, water) u  Usually spent on projects, rather than shared as cash

u Tourism enterprises may have a % tourism revenue shared with local people, particularly if they are: u  Joint-‐‑venture companies: where a community entity has equity u  Community-‐‑based tourism enterprises: 100% community equity

Conclusions

What works: Benefit sharing u Clear agreement/policy of the % revenue to a community u  Implementation of agreement with transparency u A community entity that has:

u  Capacity u  Understanding of the agreement, tourism and conservation u  Accounting/business skills u  Good communication with partners and wider community u  Good governance u  Institution support / hand holding / technical advice in the long term

u  Realistic expectations of the benefits (when and how much)

What should be done differently? 1.  Capacity building of community entities vs

good financial management / governance of accountants? (CBO vs audit firm)

2.  Enterprises: Joint ventures or CBTEs lease management to private sector (>$$$)

3.  Protected areas retain revenue and distribute directly to communities (e.g. Mozambique)

4.  Benefits from natural heritage linked to improved conservation? (e.g. gorillas/rhino)

Thank you!

Dr Anna Spenceley www.anna.spenceley.co.uk

Benefit sharing from tourism in protected areas

Travel

Transcript of Benefit sharing from tourism in protected areas