Growing the Wealth of the Poor - World Resources Institute

Creating Local OwnershipCore to the mission of the conservancy program has been givingcommunities the local ownership needed to benefit from betternatural resource management. By design, communities haveconsiderable control over the relatively nonprescriptive conservancyprogram. The program’s flexibility has enabled it to moldto local conditions across Namibia’s diverse communal areas(WRI et al. 2005:115).Responding to DemandConservancies have succeeded as demand-driven institutionsbecause they offer rural communities a vehicle to addressunmet needs. People living within the communal areas havelong suffered from a paucity of legal rights, particularly whenNamibia was under South African apartheid rule, prior toindependence in 1990. This has undermined their access toland and economic opportunity. Conservancies allow them achance to overcome these deficiencies by building political andeconomic institutions around proven tourism and wildlifeindustries (Harring and Odendaal 2006: 42–43).For example, the Nyae Nyae Conservancy in the northeastern partof the country grew out of the Ju/Wa Farmers Union from a demandfor a viable economic alternative to farming. The farmers’ union wasone of the first and most effective formal organizations of the Sanpeople—one of the country’s poorest and most marginalized minoritygroups (Harring and Odendaal 2006:37, 38). Due in part to theregion’s dry and harsh climate, however, the union’s agropastoralfocus offered little respite to the San. Following the passage of thecommunal conservancy legislation, the union evolved into the NyaeNyae Conservancy, taking advantage of considerable potential in thetourism industry. This is now one of the best-performing conservancies,bringing in N$914,000 (US$135, 610) in 2006 (WWF et al.2007:112). A portion of the money was allotted for conservancyreinvestment, while some was used to make cash payouts tomembers, with each of the conservancy’s 657 members receivingN$300 (US$44) (Jones and Mosimane 2007:26).Allowing Space for Local Decision-MakingConservancies themselves are effectively self-selecting units, sothey are built around communities’ willingness to work collectively.In many instances, they form when neighboring villagesand tribal authorities—sometimes with little history of cooperation—agreeto trace a boundary around their shared bordersand manage the wildlife within this area. Conservancies canalso be championed by local groups like farmers’ unions, trusts,and veld committees, building on preexisting institutionalarrangements—such as the Khoadi Hoas Conservancy, whichemerged from a strong association of local farmers known asthe Grootberg Farmers’ Union (WRI et al. 2005:115; Jones andMosimane 2007:10; Harring and Odendaal 2006:38).The flexibility of the conservancy program allows communitiesto choose diverse strategies to manage wildlife and distributebenefits according to their particular needs, customs, andnorms. Conservancies can choose whether wildlife is to be sold,hunted, used for ceremonial purposes, or left alone. Similarly,conservancy revenues are spent according to local discretion—provided that they are equitably distributed. Someconservancies have opted to invest in social services to supportschools, local farmers, and other groups in need (NACSO2006:41–42). Even questions regarding who qualifies as aconservancy member are resolved locally, resulting in arrangementsvarying from each person within the conservancyboundaries being considered a member to only the heads ofhouseholds as members. In other cases, membership is open toany individual wishing to participate (NACSO 2006:16).ParticipationSubstantive participation of conservancy residents is central tothe design of the program, though it has succeeded to varyingdegrees in practice. The usual challenges to participation exist,While conservancies do offer substantive rights over wildlifewithin the conservancy boundaries, they do not confer full landrights over the conservancy area. Conservancy status does notaffect other forms of land use such as livestock grazing oragriculture. In practical terms, this sometimes makes wildlifemanagement more difficult if outsiders try to move theirlivestock onto land the conservancy has reserved for wildlifeand tourism. In other words, conservancy status offers only apartial solution to the questions of resource and land tenure,since it does not confer the full right to exclude competing landuses. Nonetheless, it is a large step forward compared with thesituation prior to 1996 (Boudreaux 2007:40–43).