Indigenous Peoples and Conservation Organizations

124 The Ju/’hoan in Namibia
the early months of the community grant to
devise a process of self-analysis and strategic
planning. That led to an internal review conducted
by a group comprising the NNFC’s managing
committee, 10 senior representatives from
the council, and 11 other community members.
As a critical first step, the LIFE technical advisor,
acting as a “neutral” observer, independently
conducted interviews in the community to assess
support for the NNFC. The review group then
identified the key issues and possible solutions.
They discussed traditional decision making; the
characteristics a modern institution had to have
to be seen as legitimate in the eyes of the larger
society and government; issues of representation,
specifically gender and age; and the different
roles of leadership. Meetings held over six
months allowed community members time to
debate these issues among themselves and with
the n!oresi kxaosi. Including community members
in frank and meaningful dialogue and joint
decision making incorporated local knowledge
and values into the design of more appropriate
structures. This process worked so well that it
eventually became an annual event, with the
LIFE advisor providing an independent audit of
institutional performance and the NNFC deciding
what adjustments could be made to build
broader participation.
As a result of the first review process, the
NNFC decided in March 1995 to create a Board
of Management to oversee the management
committee and make it more responsive to the
community. Two representatives were elected
from each of the four districts in Nyae Nyae to
join officers of the existing management committee
and form a board of 13 members. The
community selected new members on the basis
of traditional leadership values rather than modern
skills. Wisdom, experience, and how well a
person upheld the values of the society outweighed
literacy and the ability to communicate
with outsiders, and resulted in the election of
community elders, including some n!oresi
kxaosi. Although young men from the original
management committee remained on the new
board, power had effectively shifted back to the
elders. During this period, the NNFC also hired
an institutional consultant to provide board
members with training and support in staff management,
strategic planning, proposal writing,
work plan development, leadership, and financial
management.
The board scheduled bimonthly meetings to
review how the development program of the
NNFC was being handled, to set policies, and to
plan for the short and long terms. During the
intervening month, board members would hold
community meetings in their respective districts
to gather and share information. The board had
the authority to make decisions, and it was the
primary mediator between community members
and NNFC operating officials and outsiders (i.e.,
state agencies, donors, and NGOs).
To further insure that the new board did not
become alienated from the membership, special
attention was paid to the community rangers.
The new board met with the rangers in mid-1995
to clarify roles and establish accountability. The
rangers’ primary role was to create feedback
loops that facilitated the free flow of information
within NNFC so the board could assess the
impact of its actions and gauge community sentiment
and the community could participate in
decision making. Rangers were asked to make
monthly reports to the board about education,
health, and water in their districts—all of the
development issues facing the community.
During the following month, rangers would
report back to the n!oresi in their districts about
decisions made at the board meeting, provide
updates on visitors to the area, and disseminate
information on relevant legislative changes in
Namibia. To insure the accuracy of information,
rangers were insulated from conflicts of interest
by abstaining from any decision-making or representative
role. According to one community
member, “A community ranger is not an individual,
but all the inhabitants of the district.” In
effect, the eyes, ears, and consciences of local
people are opened to him, and he becomes “the
link that broadens community consciousness to
NNFC ... levels” (Powell 1995). The rangers
also collect information about the land and environment—including
data on animal populations,
grazing areas, bush foods, and plants—that
would otherwise be scattered among the n!oresi.
The NNFC hired a natural resource advisor in
1995 to train and supervise community rangers
in data collection techniques and analysis.
These skills proved crucial as the proposal for