Namibia PDNA 2009 - GFDRR

paltry in comparison to ongoing threats that desertification
and wind erosion pose to agriculture in that system. The
significance of erosion along the Okavango and Zambezi was
its impact on the tourism infrastructure, and this is accounted
for under the tourism section. Impacts on wild fish stocks will
probably be beneficial and are considered under the agriculture
and fisheries sector.
The few head of game animals reported killed in Caprivi are
not directly evaluated as a separate estimate of losses from the
reduced trophy hunting opportunities already included under
the tourism sector. Costs of feeding the stranded buffalo in
Caprivi were reported by the Ministry of Environment and
Tourism in Rundu as N$56,000 for purchase of 59t of feed,
plus N$67,000 in fuel costs for transport from Grootfontein.
Protected Areas
As for other tourist activities, park visitation and revenue has
grown strongly in recent years, but is expected to level out in
2009 due to the global down-turn. In line with the approach
followed for the tourism sector, 2008 data is therefore taken as
the projected park gate revenue in the absence of floods.
Roads were damaged by the flooding in Etosha National
Park in Oshikoto, Mahangu Wildlife Reserve in Kavango and
Mamili National Park in Caprivi, with a consequent impact on
gate revenues. In the other two parks in Caprivi, there was no
significant change in visitor revenue compared with the same
season in 2008. In Mahangu Wildlife Reserve, the main game
drive route was submerged, with a consequent loss of N$15,000,
compared to March and April 2008. The cost of rehabilitation
has been quoted at N$5 million. In Mamili, replacement of
lost bridges on the main access road is estimated to cost
N$2 million. Half the annual tourist revenue is expected to be
lost as a result, but this only amounts to N$9,000.
Road damage in Etosha was estimated at N$2 million by park
authorities, in addition to N$1 million of damage to fences
caused by displaced elephants. Although the relative extent of
the damage was far lower in Etosha than the north-eastern
parks and the period of impact shorter (two weeks as
opposed to two months or more), the overall losses from gate
revenues (estimated from projected changes in visitor number
rather than actual receipts) were substantially greater simply
because Etosha is such an important tourist destination. Losses
were also incurred in Etosha due to exceptional costs of park
protection in the face of displaced animals and flooded access
routes. Over-time payments to rangers, additional fuel and
boat costs totalled N$96,000.
No loss of revenue from trophy hunting was included as
hunting has not taken place recently in the state-protected
areas where it might have been impacted. Levies paid by
some tourist lodges to national parks are not believed to be
directly related to visitor numbers (as opposed to the joint
venture arrangements of some Caprivi lodges with community
conservancies, see below).
Clean-up operations
Costs of dealing with impacts to water quality and sewerage
systems are dealt with under the WASH sector. Given its diffuse
and low intensity nature, no overall estimate was generated for
debris removal in the north-central Regions. Refuse dumping
sites around Oshakati were affected, however, partly as a result
of additional waste generated by the flooding, and partly as a
result of being inundated themselves. The costs for establishing
one new dump (including access) and for fencing an existing
site in response to this was estimated by local authorities at
N$500,000.
Table 89: Damages and losses in environment sector
Sub-sector/
Component
Damage (N$000s) Losses (N$000s) Macro effects
value public private value public private BOP Fiscal
Oshikoto
Etosha NP 3,000 3,000 270 270 159.6 270
Oshana
Waste management 500 500 500
Kavango
Mahangu WR 5,000 5,000 15 15 15 15
Caprivi
Mamili NP 2,000 2,000 9 9 9 9
Buffalo feeding 123 123 123
Total 10,000 10,000 917 917 183.6 917
114
Namibia POST-DISASTER NEEDS ASSESSMENT