CPRM through Community Conservancies in Namibia: A case study

Co-Govern Workshop

Cape Town, October 2003

Presentation Outline

• Introduction• Conservation Policy and Legislative

environment• Legal requirements and experiences in

implementing communal area conservancies• Impacts and Future potentials• Lessons learned and Recommendations for

the future

Introduction• Namibia covers an area of 823 988 Km2 and has a

total population of 1,826,854 people• Namibia gained independence in 1990 from

former South African colonial rule (apartheid)• Vast majority of black people (120 000

households) on 335 000 Km2 of land (41% of total) – Communal Land

• 362 000 Km2 of land (44 % of total) divided into 6200 private farms, for white farmers – Commercial Land

• Protected areas cover 114 000 Km2 of land (14 % of total)

Conservation Policy and Legislative environment

COMMERCIAL LAND:• 1968 / 1975 – Nature

Conservation Ordinance

• 1992 – Policy on Establishment of Conservancies in Namibia

COMMUNAL LAND:• 1995 – Policy on

Wildlife Management, Utilisation and Tourism in Communal Areas

• 1996 – Nature Conservation Amendment Act

Conservation Policy and Legislative environment

COMMERCIAL LAND• Ownership over huntable

game in 1975• Booming wildlife industry• Options for mixed farming

included game ranching and tourism

• Farming units (5000 ha) too small for wildlife movements etc., thus formed conservancies

COMMUNAL LAND:

• Wildlife remained state property

• Declining wildlife numbers (internal and external poaching; unsustainable harvesting by state (former SADF and hunting permit holders)

Policy and legislation for Communal Lands• 1992 Policy on “Establishment of Conservancies”

open for use on communal lands, but couldn’t be implemented due to lack of land or resource rights to communal area inhabitants

• Thus need for 1995 Policy on “Wildlife Management, Utilisation and Tourism in Communal Areas”

• Policy Objectives:Redressing past discriminatory policies and practices – Amendment of Nature Conservation Ordinance in 1996;

• Empowering local communities by linking rural economic development with wildlife conservation and wild landscapes;

• Granting limited wildlife and tourism rights to rural communities.

Legal requirements and experiences in implementing communal area conservancies

• Defined membership and registered members – ok for small, unscattered communities; flexibility of continuous registration for big / scattered ones

• Defined area with agreed boundaries – boundary disputes, loss of potential investment and revenue generation opportunities; on the other hand, strengthening of group coherence, and eventually positive neighbour relations through boundary negotiations, e.g. Torra and Khoadi //Hôas; or joint management (and revenue sharing) of disputed area, e.g. Nyae Nyae and Nqaćna.

Legal requirements and experiences - continue

• Legal constitution, providing for game management and utilisation plan & Equitable benefits distribution plan – constitution outlines conservancy purpose and objectives, define membership, management structure, elections, decision-making etc.;

• Representative management committee – either elect new or adopt and adapt existing one;

Impacts and Future potential (Governance)

• 29 conservancies, 38 000 registered members, 150 000+ communal area residents;

• 35 – 40 emerging conservancies, 100 000+ communal area residents;

• Total of 60+ communities mobilised into recognised governance bodies, 250 000+ communal area residents;

• Covers over 13 % of total population of Namibia;• Conservancies represent their members on Regional

and Constituency Development Coordinating Committees – Decentralisation Policy of 1997

Impacts and Future potential (Governance, continue)

• Conservancies forged positive relationships with Traditional Authorities;

• Conservancies represent their members on Land Boards – National Land Policy of 1998 and Communal Land Reform Act of 2002

• New wave of conservancies emerging in “non- wildlife or tourism” areas, but seen as opportunity for strengthening rights over other resources, as well as ensured representation on key decision-making fora at regional level

Impacts and Future potential (Natural Resources Management)

Area under Conservancies

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Years

Are

a (

km

2)

Impacts and Future potential (Natural Resources Management – cont.)

• Conservancies 74 000 km2 of land, which is 22 % of communal land and close to 9 % of total land area.

• Added to the 14 % of land covered under protected areas, communal conservancies will soon double amount of land under active resource management regime.

• 17 of 29 conservancies are adjacent to National Parks – increase buffer zone area, and provide important corridors for wildlife movements

Wildlife Populations & Trends in North-West Namibia

Estimated 2002 increase in asset value of plains game: N$21,000,000

Impacts and Future potential (Natural Resources Management – cont.)

• Growing potential and opportunities for integrated natural resources management – compatibility of conservancy institutional model and requirements with these of other resources, e.g.

• Forestry Policy (1992; 1999) - Community forests;

• Water Supply and Sanitation Sector Policy (1993) – Water Point Committees and Water Associations

• Inland Fisheries Policy (1995) – Community Fisheries Management Units

Communal Land Reform Act and CBNRM

• Tenure rights granted under national land policy include all renewable natural resources on that land, subject to sectoral policy and legislation

• Rights in respect of communal lands include Customary land rights and Rights of Leasehold

• Customary land rights, including grazing rights may relate to a farming unit; a residential unit or any other form of customary tenure recognised and described by the Minister of Lands in the Gazette

Communal Land Act…

• No specific provision of communal tenure over land and resources, although third option under customary land rights above, may open window of opportunity

• Land Administration in communal areas vested in Land Boards and Traditional Authorities

• Customary land rights are allocated by the Traditional Authority and ratified by the Land Board

• Rights of leasehold are allocated by the Land Boards, only with consent by Traditional Authority

Communal Land Act…

• Right of leasehold not allowable in areas already under customary land rights, unless negotiated with holder of customary land rights

• In conservancy areas, right of leasehold should consider conservancy management and utilisation plan

Impacts and Future potential (economic / financial benefits)

Namibian National CBNRM Programme 2002 - Benefits

0

2,000,000

4,000,000

6,000,000

8,000,000

10,000,000

12,000,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Conservancy Non-Financial Benefits

NR-based Household/Wage Income

Conservancy / Enterprise Committee Income

Summary CBNRM Programme Benefits by Percentage

Campsites/CBTE27%

Live Game Sale1%

Trophy Hunting18%

Joint Venture Tourism

20%

Game Donation9%

Thatching Grass10%

Interest Earned1%

Own Use Game5%

Game Meat Dist.4%

Crafts5%

Total Income = N$11,129,952Total Conservancy Income = N$5,074,402Total Household Income = N$ 4,090,464

Lessons learned and Recommendations for the future

• Community inputs in policy formulation gathered through socio-ecological surveys

• Pilot activities and policy reform process worked in tandem; thus policy influenced and shaped by local realities

• Conservancy formation is voluntary; self-defined community; no prescribed boundaries; freedom to choose own conservancy committee or use existing institution; Rights and full benefits directly to communities, not through local government structures; freedom to decide how to use income is empowering.

Lessons learned and Recommendations for the future (continue)

• Incentive driven and responsive to community aspirations, rather than regulatory and controlling

• Policy environment enabling and conducive for multiple stakeholder involvement through partnership arrangements e.g. NGOs, Academic institutions, Private Sector, etc.

• Serve as entry point for devolution of rights over other natural resources, in addition to wildlife

Lessons learned and Recommendations for the future (continue)

• Lack of land and full resource tenure makes it difficult for conservancies to exclude non-members from moving into conservancy for grazing needs etc.; or for conservancies to raise capital loans or to attract tourism investors as joint venture partners.

• Lack of clarity on purposes and procedures for granting leasehold rights under Communal Land Act may affect conservancy rights over tourism – ideal to exclude wildlife and tourism from lease system, and just strengthen community rights under current wildlife and tourism legislation

Lessons learned and Recommendations for the future (continue)

• Avoid land boards giving leases directly to private sector.

• Communal Land Act not as explicit as National Land Policy on making tenure rights granted, subject to sectoral policy

• Secure and exclusive group rights through full resource and land tenure essential for long term sustainability of CBNRM

Lessons learned and Recommendations for the future (continue)

• Clarify mechanism for granting resource rights to communities, e.g leasing land for specific resource use purposes or actual group tenure over land, with resource use being regulated and rights provided for in sectoral legislation.

• Strengthen links between wildlife policy and legislation, and other natural resource policies and legislation

Lessons learned and Recommendations for the future (continue)

• Strengthen cooperation between community resource management institutions and land control bodies, e.g Trad. Authorities and Land Boards

• Encourage positive relationships between community resource management institutions and regional development structures through clearly defined roles and responsibilities

Lessons learned and Recommendations for the future (continue)

• Conservancy institutional model based on common property resource institution design principles, thus useful for management of other resources (forestry, water, fisheries, etc.)

• Conscious attempts to avoid several resource management committees, but to integrate land and resource use planning and management under one management structure

Lessons learned and Recommendations for the future (continue)

• Consider scale when exploring institutional linkages across different resource management and utilisation units

• Pilot integrated resource management by granting full rights over all natural resource to at least one chosen community – analyse different levels and scales at which resources are managed and identify the level and scale at which decision making should be located – foster formal and informal links between different layers, I.e re. Land use planning and resource management plans.