At left: African Elephant (Loxodonta africana), Hoarusib River bed area, Kunene Region, NW Namibia (Source: Photo taken by A. Pollard, 08/20/03)
I. Identification
1. The Issue:
Tourism in Namibia is still in its infancy. Like much of southern Africa, Namibia’s primary tourism attributes are its diverse wildlife and vast and dramatic natural landscape. Recognizing the need to include communal lands and the local population in any tourism development scheme, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) has embraced the concept of community-based management as a means to allow local communities to benefit from tourism.
This case study will broadly review Namibia’s adoption of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) program policy as a strategy to promote tourism and wildlife conservation and focus on the country’s elephant population and the role elephants play in the nation’s tourism policy.
2. Description:
CBNRM: Community-Based Natural Resource Management
CBT: Community-Based Tourism
CITES: Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
DEA: Directorate of Environmental Affairs (Namibia)
DfID UK: Department for International Development
DPWM: Directorate of Parks and Wildlife Management
IRDNC: Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation
IUCN: The World Conservation Union
MET: Ministry of Environment and Tourism (Namibia)
NACOBTA: Namibia Community-Based Tourism Association
NACSO: Namibian Association for CBNRM Support Organizations
NDT: Namibia Development Trust
NGO: Non-Governmental Organization
NNF: Namibia Nature Foundation
TBNRM: Trans-Border Natural Resource Management
WILD: Wildlife Integration for Livelihood Diversification
WWF: World Wide Fund for NatureNamibia
A large country covering over 824,000 square kilometers (approx. 318,000 sq. miles, or roughly 3 times the size of Colorado), Namibia is located on the west coast of southern Africa. Bordering Angola (north), Botswana (east), Zambia (northeast), and South Africa (south), Namibia is an extremely arid country with vast geographic diversity and a comparatively small population base of 2 million. The country can be categorized into four primary regions: the Namib Desert and Coastal Plains along the Atlantic coast; the eastward sloping Central Plateau; the Kalahari sands along the borders with Botswana and South Africa; and the wooded bushveldt of Kovango and Caprivi (Jenkins, 2000, p. 113).
Namibia, with all of its natural wildlife and environmental attributes, looks towards tourism as one of the most important contributors to its national economy. In fact, tourism has become the fourth largest income earner, creating approximately 10,000 jobs throughout the country (DEA website, 2005). With national parks such as Etosha and Skeleton Coast, wildlife tourism has been able to successfully develop and provide economic benefit to those associated with or living within the national park boundaries. However, the majority of the country’s biodiversity actually lies outside of these parks. According to World Bank figures (2005), 85% of Namibia’s population lives in the rural areas outside of the park regions and must rely on limited livestock and only marginal grazing lands for their livelihood. Additionally, while Namibia’s GNI per capita is far from being the lowest in the world, income distribution is one of the most unequal – the richest 10% of the population receives 65% of the income and about half of the population survives on about 10% of the average income (World Bank, 2005).
.
Etosha National Park watering hole - Elephant, Wildebeest and Springbok
(Source: Photo taken by A. Pollard, 08/27/03)Community-Based Natural Resource Management Program
White commercial farmers received rights over wildlife in 1968 and were further formalized in 1975 under the Nature Conservation Ordnance. These rights, however, did not extend to people living in communal areas (Jones & Murphree, 2001, p. 41-42). Namibia’s Community-based Tourism Policy was established in 1995 and the Community-Based Natural Resource Management Program (CBNRM) officially came into existence with legislation passed by the Government in 1996. The 1996 legislation, the Nature Conservation Amendment Act, corrects the previous discriminatory conservation laws, a hold over from the apartheid era, with the aim of giving the inhabitants of communal areas the same legal rights to manage and benefit from wildlife and tourism as freehold landowners (Svedsen, Collinson & Long, 2000, as cited in Long, Murphy & Vaughan, 2001, p. 8; Jones & Murphree, 2001, p. 42). Unfortunately, without such a policy, more often than not local populations are not the beneficiaries of what the land and environment has to offer.
Hoarusib River bed area, Kunene Region, NW Namibia
(Source: Photo taken by A. Pollard, 08/20/03)Namibia’s pre-independence history and the implications of ties to South Africa’s apartheid policy, as it applies to land and ownership, presents the government with many challenges in developing community-based policies. According to Namibia’s DEA, the CBNRM Program, a partnership between the national government, donor organizations, local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) and communities, is defined as:
o A natural resource management and conservation program – it promotes wise and sustainable management of natural resources, and encourages biodiversity conservation by creating the necessary conditions for sustainable use;
o A rural development program – it seeks to devolve rights and responsibilities over wildlife and tourism to rural communities, thereby creating opportunities for enterprise development and income generation; and
o An empowerment and capacity-building program – it encourages and assists communities and their local institutions to develop the skills and experience to sustainable development and pro-actively pilot their own futures. (DEA, CBNRM Program, 2005)The idea is for communities to form what are called conservancies, a defined entity established as a land-management concept. A conservancy allows the local population to not only have a say in how communal wildlife is managed but to also share in the economic benefit of wildlife sustainment and tourism activities within the conservancy. As per the legislation, to become a conservancy, the following must be achieved:
o Defined membership;
o A representative management committee;
o A legally recognized constitution that makes provision for the development of a wildlife management strategy and an equitable benefits distribution plan; and
o Defined boundaries. (DEA, Enhancing Conservation, Development and Democracy in Namibia’s Rural Areas, 2005)The reported number of registered conservancies in Namibia varies. According to the DEA website, there are fourteen communal area conservancies thus far designated in Namibia, seven of which are in the Kunene region of NW Namibia; at least another 30 conservancies in the country are at various stages of development (DEA, Conservancies-Facts and Figures, 2005). The DEA acknowledges that the greatest potential for resource-based economic gain for rural populations lies with a productive tourism base (DEA, Enhancing Conservation, Development and Democracy in Namibia’s Rural Areas, 2005).
Elephants in Namibia
Highly intelligent and often displaying many human-like characteristics, elephants have been and continue to be a favorite amongst the young and old alike; in literature, at the circus, or on safari. But elephants, specifically African elephants, have also been a favorite of poachers. In Namibia, poaching came from a number of sources: government officials, South African Defense Force personnel, Portuguese refugees from Angola (after 1975), and local residents on communal land (WWF, 1995, as cited by Jones, 2001, p. 162). Randomly killing the largest tusked beasts and decimating the herds, the poacher seeks nothing more than the elephant’s valuable ivory tusks for trade. The impact of the ivory trade on the elephant population in Africa has been well documented. The public outcry led to a world-wide ban on ivory trade in the late 1980’s. Elephants were placed on the Appendix I list of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered species of Wild Flora and Fauna (CITES) in 1989 (McPherson & Nieswiadomy, 2000, p. 14). See CITES section below. The dedicated conservation efforts have led to the subsequent increase in the elephant population across the continent. This positive reversal of fortune on the fate of elephants has been such that many regions are now faced with an elephant population that is beyond the carrying capacity of the ecosystem (McPherson & Nieswiadomy, 2000, p. 14).
The elephant population in Namibia, located predominantly in the Kunene region of Northwest Namibia, has grown significantly over the last 20 years. Down to 220 elephants by 1982, reportedly due to illegal killings, the numbers rose to 7,700 by 1995 (Viljoen, 1987 & Lindeque, et al, 1995, as cited in Barnes, et al, 2003, p. 153). In fact, the elephant population has reached a satisfactorily high enough level that Namibia had its elephant population transferred to Appendix II status under CITES in 1997 (World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 2003, as cited in Barnes, et al, 2003, p.153). See CITES section below.
Unlike the Asian elephant (Elephas maximus) that is revered for its religious and spiritual symbolism, the African elephant (Loxodonta africana) has long been sought out primarily for either its ivory tusks or for sport/trophy hunting. For sportsmen, hunting the Big Five (elephant, lion, leopard, rhino, and water buffalo) is the challenge and avid hunters are known to pay exorbitant fees for the right to shoot an elephant. For ivory poachers, much money is to be made on the black market. It has really only been in the last two to three decades, with the decline in elephant populations across the continent (primarily due to poaching) and the implementation of CITES that the potential economic role of elephants in tourism (“trophy” fees) has been truly recognized (CITES does not ban hunting of elephants, only the trade of ivory). But the Big Five are also the main attraction for photo safaris, often just as popular as hunting safaris. Arguably, photo safaris tend to attract a more diverse client, such as environmentalists, nature/animal lovers, amateur and professional photographers, etc., and provide a more (relatively) affordable attraction for tourists. After all, there are no “trophy” fees to observe or “shoot” pictures. As a result, while attracting a different tourist base, the combination of both types of safaris provides an incredible opportunity for rural communities to economically benefit from this natural wildlife resource.
While much of eastern (primarily Kenya and Tanzania) and southern (primarily Botswana and South Africa) Africa recognize, and have taken advantage of, the popularity of elephants to enhance their respective tourist trade, Namibia has yet to really capitalize on their elephant population in this manner. Ironically, the same animal that can wreak such havoc on natural vegetation and local crops is the same animal considered one of the most popular by the average tourist
Man-made watering hole, Hoanib River bed area, Kunene Region,
NW Namibia (Source: Photo taken by A. Pollard, 08/23/03)CITES is an international agreement (currently 167 Parties to the treaty) aimed to ensure that international trade in specimens of wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival and safeguards certain species from over-exploitation. To date CITES accords varying degrees of protection to more than 30,000 species of animals and plants (CITES, 2005).
By definition, the treaty is dealing with the issue of trade. In the case of the elephant, the product is ivory. Unfortunately, to get the ivory the elephant is killed. The three Appendix of the treaty that categorizes what can and can not be traded are:
o Appendix I – includes all species threatened with extinction which are or may be affected by trade. Trade in specimens of these species must be subject to strict regulation in order to not further endanger survival and will only be authorized under special circumstances.
o Appendix II – all species which may not necessarily be immediately threatened with extinction but may become so if trade in specimens is not strictly regulated
o Appendix III – includes all species which any Party (member) identifies as being subject to regulation within its jurisdiction for the purpose of preventing or restricting exploitation. (CITES, 2005)
In 1997, due to increased pressure from many southern African countries, to include Namibia, participating countries voted to relax the CITES ban effective in 1999. Zimbabwe (20 tons), Namibia (13.8 tons) and Botswana (25.3 tons) were each given permission to export a limited amount of ivory to Japan (Sugal, 1997, as cited by McPherson & Nieswieadomy, 2000, p. 16).
3. Related Cases:
Legal Elephant Ivory Trade, Case Number 483
Cheetah Conservation in Southern Africa, Case Number 490
Elephant Population in Botswana, Case Number 543
Ivory Trade 2, Case Number 564
CAMPFIRE, Case Number 567
Kenya Tourism, Case Number 7374. Author and Date:
Andrea (Andi) Pollard
Master of Tourism Administration Candidate
Department of Tourism and Hospitality Management
The George Washington University
600 21st, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
Submitted Spring 2005
5. Social:Historical ties with the Republic of South Africa have resulted in a similar set of struggles in the post-apartheid era. Namibia must overcome the social inequalities brought about during those years of oppression in order to fully capitalize on its natural attributes and successfully deal with regions of economic depression and unevenly distributed wealth.
CBNRM provides a framework for the management and sustainment of wildlife. It empowers the local populace with the necessary legal framework to allow for direct contribution to the operation and management of wildlife and tourism enterprises and direct receipt of associated economic benefits. As elephants are more destructive in terms of farmland and crops then other wildlife, economic gains received from tourism enterprises potentially provides compensation to the rural farmer to continue to make a living at farming. Most certainly, the economic benefit provides motivation to protect and sustain the elephants as a vital resource.
6. Environmental:
CBNRM program seeks to provide incentives to communities to manage and use wildlife and other natural resources in sustainable and productive ways (DEA, 2005). In accordance with CITES, elephants are categorized under Appendix I and II criteria (see CITES section). Namibia became a Party to CITES in 1991.
Elephants play diverse roles within the environment. Due to the elephants’ poor digestive system, they are believed to be responsible for the propagation of minimum of 30 tree species throughout southern African (Alexander, 2000, p. 48). Conversely, the large daily intake of sustenance takes a negative toll on regional vegetation resources. Growth in elephant populations demands government decisions regarding effective management of regional herds in order to maintain the environmental balance.
7. Economic:
Forty percent of the Namibia’s land is considered ‘communal land’ and much of it suitable only for extensive livestock production and/or wildlife (Ashley, 1998, Background section, para. 1). Elephants are, by their very nature, migratory, continually seeking sources of water and nourishment. They have been known to travel over 100 miles in a day in search of water. As such, they are not bound by the location of national parks and more often than not are found foraging and grazing on communal lands. Unfortunately, this is often to the detriment of the communal farmer. The CBNRM program provides the opportunity for diversification and the ability to benefit from the natural resources (like elephants) available on communal lands.
8. Other: N/A
9. Suggested Interventions:
A focused elephant policy addressing not only the conservation and management policy of local elephant herds but also identifying/acknowledging the direct link of this natural resource to the national tourism policy is recommended.
Given the migratory nature of elephants, any elephant policy should be a coordinated, possibly even a collaborative effort, with neighboring countries.
10. Discourse and Status/Policy Issue:
The legislation governing the CBNRM program and creating conservancies enables conservancies to:
o Use, manage and benefit from wildlife on communal land;
o Propose recommendations for quotas for wildlife utilization and decide on the form of utilization; and
o Enter into agreements with private companies and establish tourism facilities within the conservancy boundaries. (DEA, A Simple guide to Namibia’s Communal Area Conservancies, 2005)While the community has the responsibility and rights over wildlife whose habitat is within the designated area of the conservancy, legal responsibility for the nation’s wildlife falls to MET, which ensures that it is managed and used in a sustainable manner (DEA, A Simple guide to Namibia’s Communal Area Conservancies, 2005; Jones & Murphree, 2001, p. 53). In other words, MET has oversight responsibility over all registered conservancies.
11. Forum and Scope/Existing Policy Framework:
o International:
The CITES treaty was signed in 1973 in response to concerns that many species were becoming endangered because of trade. In the case of the elephant, the issue was (and is) ivory. The CITES Secretariat is administered by United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and is located in Geneva, Switzerland (CITES, 2005).
o National:
CBNRM is a joint venture between Namibia’s government and non-government institutions, communities, community-based organizations and development partners (DEA, 2005). This strategy provides the opportunity to for local populations to economically benefit through effective management and preservation of the natural wildlife. CBNRM is enforced by the MET.o Regional
Wildlife Councils were established in an amendment to the Nature Conservation Act of 1996. Comprised of central government staff and local representatives, the Wildlife Councils are advised on how to spend its revenues by the MET. The intent of these regional councils is to enable those people not incorporated within a conservancy to still gain benefits (Jones & Murphree, 2001, p. 55). Arguably, spreading the economic benefits beyond the local population of the conservancy diminishes the incentive for a community to invest in the conservation of wild life. The establishment of the Wildlife Council is seen as a compromise between various directorates within MET in order to get the legislation approved (Jones & Murphree, 2001, p. 55).o Local
Conservancies are a pooling of resources, consisting of a group of commercial farms or communal lands on which neighboring land owners or members have come together for the purpose of conserving and using wildlife sustainably. In an attempt to increase local responsibility and ownership over wildlife, the operation and management of conservancies is done through a Conservancy Committee, comprised of local members (DEA, A Simple Guide to Namibia’s Communal Area Conservancies, 2005).12. Decision Breadth/Stakeholders/Policy Actors:
International donors (World Bank, USAID, European Union, WWF-US)/CITES/Directorate of Environmental Affairs/Ministry of Environment and Tourism/NGOs/Local communities/Local governments/Private investors
On June 1, 2004 the World Bank announced it will manage a US$7.1 million grant from the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for the implementation of the Integrated Ecosystem Management Project in Namibia. According to the World Bank (Boh, 2004), the project offers direct funding and technical assistance to rural populations specifically to address the lack of local level capacity and financial start-up resources for ecosystem-based income-generating micro-projects, focusing on the development of community-based tourism facilities. It is expected to include joint ventures with the private sector, trophy hunting, game meat production, commercialization of indigenous plants, and craft production. The project will further assist the continued effort of the Government towards the development of a sustainable funding mechanism and an integrated policy and legal framework for community-based ecosystem management (Boh, 2004). In addition to the GEF grant, other investments (overall total US$32.43 million) include those from the Government of Namibia, French GEF (FFEM), USAID, and German KfW (Boh, 2004).
13. Legal Standing/Legal Regulatory Framework/Suggested Policy Intervention:
Namibia became a Party to CITES in 1991.
14. Type of Measure:
Tourism services, to include accommodations, vehicle transportation, camping equipment, hunting equipment, etc.
Environmental conservation and management.
15. Relation of Trade Measure to Environmental/Tourism Impact:
Hoarusib River bed area, Kunene Region, NW Namibia
(Source: Photo taken by A. Pollard, 08/22/03)o Directly Related to Product: Yes.
Restrictions on hunting – licenses, quotas, etc.; visitor management/visa restrictions; accessibility; insurance; accommodation; safari operators, travel agents, etc.
o Indirectly Related to Product: Yes.
Habitat management
o Not Related to Product: No.
o Related to Process: Yes.
Tourism and environmental policies
16. Trade Product Identification/Trade and Services:
Ivory. See CITES section.
Safaris and associated services17. Economic Data
According to DEA, since the implementation of the CBRNM program, earnings by local communities have continually increased. This has been primarily through joint ventures and trophy hunting. In 2000, N$3,411,260 was earned in total, broken down in the following categories:
o 46% from community-owned tourism enterprises
o 23% from game donations to conservancies (non-case benefit)
o 12% from trophy hunting
o 11% from joint venture tourism
o 3% from sale of crafts
o 1% each from cultural tourism, game meat distribution, thatching grass sales, and interest earned from conservancy funds in commercial banks (DEA, Enhancing Conservation, Development and Democracy in Namibia’s Rural Areas, 2005)According to the World Tourism Organization, total tourism expenditures in Namibia in 2003 were approximately US$333 million, an increase of over US$100 million from 2002 (WTO, 2005).
18. Impact of Trade Restriction:
Restrictions in ivory trade and banning of poaching have a positive effect on the overall population of elephants. Conversely, a continual increase in elephant population, gone unmanaged, can negatively impact the ecosystem.
There are arguments made that the CITES ban amounts to an antitrade policy imposed by countries with declining elephant populations on countries with sound wildlife management programs (Kaempfer & Lawrence, 1998, as cited by McPherson & Nieswieadomy, 2000, p. 15). This argument is based on the premise that with an effective wildlife management program that includes property rights over the elephants will not only manage the elephant population but bring benefit to the local population. That benefit may come in many forms, to include the sale of ivory, but in a controlled, managed plan (McPherson & Nieswieadomy, 2000, p. 14).
19. Industry Sector:
Travel & Tourism, Elephants/Wildlife/Big Five
20. Exporters and Importers:
Exporters: International hunters, eco-tourists, professional photographers, adventurers.
Importers: Domestic tourism supply chains and services, transportation.
21. Environmental Problem Type/Environmental Aspects/Resource Impact and Effect:
Resource concentration has potential negative impact on the ecosystem. Resource depletion has potential negative impact on tourism in general and economic benefits to respective conservancies more specifically.
Wildlife sustainment efforts such as the establishment of man-made watering holes have corollary impacts on the ecosystem. The migratory nature of elephants is driven by a search for food and water. Readily available water may result in the concentration of wildlife in one area, thus disturbing the natural balance within the ecosystem by depleting the vegetation at a non-recoverable rate.
22. Urgency and Lifetime/Urgency and Policy Review:
The status of elephant populations varies according to region. The potential for depletion in certain areas is serious. Species extinction is a possibility, but remote at this time; however, effective management of elephant populations and impact on the ecosystem in which elephants habitate is key, as this case demonstrates.
23. Substitutes/Alternative Policies:
Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). Broaden the base of locally owned and operated tour organizations, to include rental vehicles, accommodation sites, eating establishments, etc.
24. Culture:
Communal lands are predominantly used for raising livestock with some limited farming. Elephants can be quite destructive when in search of food and/or water. The migratory nature of elephants and the quantity of food consumption has meant somewhat regular human-elephant interaction. It is not unprecedented for a farmer, who must protect his livelihood, to kill the elephant. However, as conservancies mature the elephant will be recognized more as an economic resource to the farmer than a destructive beast.
The Bushmen rock-art found in NW Namibia dates back approximately 2,500 years. It is known as a symbolic and religious art that is primarily related to their belief in Shamanism. The photo below shows the representation of elephants, one of the large game animals the Bushmen believed provides the supernatural potency needed by the shamans to aid them in their quest to enter an “altered state,” for the Bushmen this is the Spirit World. (Bock, unk)
Rock engravings at the Peet Albert Koppie, near Kamanjab, Kunene Region, NW Namibia (Source: Photo taken by A. Pollard, 8/26/03
26. Trans-Boundary Issues:
Trans-Border Natural Resource Management (TBNRM) programs that rely heavily on Namibian contributions and its rural community include the Every River Project (Kavango and neighboring countries) and The Four Corners Project (Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, and Zambia) (DEA, Enhancing Conservation, Development and Democracy in Namibia’s Rural Areas, 2005). Given the migratory nature of elephants, all international borders/boundaries between national parks, communal lands and private lands must be considered, further justifying the need for coordination and collaboration in policy and program development and implementation.
27. Rights:
roperty rights - Communal lands and wildlife, ownership vs. management.
Conservancy rights – management policy and economic benefits for local stakeholders.
Education and Training Awareness – for the local stakeholders, in understanding wildlife and ecosystem, the significance of conservation, and the potential economic benefits; for the conservationist, eco-tourist and general visitor, in understanding and appreciating the local wildlife and conservation efforts.
28. Relevant Literature
o Referenced/Related Websites
frican Elephant Programme.
http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/where_we_work
/africa/what_we_do/elephant_programme/index.cfmCITES - Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. http://www.cites.org/Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry of
Environment and Tourism for Namibia. http://www.dea.met.gov.na/World Bank. http://www4.worldbank.org/
World Conservation Union (IUCN), African Elephant
Specialist Group (AfESG). http://www.iucn.org/afesg/o Referenced/Related Literature
lexander, S. (2000). The Astonishing Elephant. New York:
Random House, Inc.Ashley, C. (1998). Tourism, Communities and National
Policy: Namibia’s Experience. Development Policy Review. Vol. 16, No.4; pp. 323-352.Balfour, D. & Balfour, S. (1997). African Elephants, A
Celebration of Majesty. New York: Abbeville Press.Barnes, J.I., Schier, C. & van Rooy, G (1999). Tourists’
Willingness to Pay for Wildlife Viewing and Wildlife Conservation in Namibia. South African Journal of Wildlife Research. Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 101-111.Barnes, R.F.W., Blanc, J.J., Craig, C.G., Douglas-Hamilton,
I., Dublin, H.T., Hart, J.A., & Thouless, C.R. (2003). African Elephant Status Report 2002. Occasional Paper of the IUCN Species Survival Commission No. 29 [Electronic version]. Retrieved April 3, 2005 from http://www.iucn.org/afesg/aed/pdfs/
aesr2002.pdf#nameddest=snamapBinns, T. & Etienne, N. (2002). Tourism as a Local
Development Strategy. The Geographic Journal. Vol. 168, No. 3; pp. 235-247.Bock, von S.H.J. (unk). The Rock-engravings at the Peet
Alberts Koppie near Kamanjab (pamphlet). (Available on site or P.O. Box 29, Kamanjab, Namibia)Boh, H. (2004). Namibia: The World Bank Approves US$7.1
Million for Ecosystem Management and Income Generation. World Bank web site. Accessed March 27, 2005. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/
COUNTRIES/AFRICAEXT/NAMIBIAEXTN/
0,,contentMDK:20207900~menuPK:382313~pagePK:141137
~piPK:141127~theSitePK:382293,00.htmlDirectorate of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Ministry of
Environment and Tourism (MET) for Namibia. Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Program. Accessed March 26, 2005. http://www.dea.met.gov.na/programmes/cbnrm/Directorate of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Ministry of
Environment and Tourism (MET) for Namibia. Enhancing conservation,development and democracy in Namibia’s rural areas. Accessed on April 9, 2005.
http://www.dea.met.gov.na/programmes/
cbnrm/Enhancing%20conse,%20devand%20dem.htmDirectorate of Environmental Affairs (DEA), Ministry of
Environment and Tourism (MET) for Namibia. A Simple Guide to Namibia’s Communal Area Conservancies. Accessed on March 26, 2005.
http://www.dea.met.gov.na/programmes/
cbnrm/cons_guide.htmGroning, K. & Saller, M. (1999). Elephants, A Cultural and
Natural History. Cambridge, UK: First Edition Translations, Ltd. (Original work published 1998).Jenkins, Carson L. (2000) The Development of Tourism of
Namibia. In P. Dieke (Ed.), The Political Economy of Tourism Development in Africa (pp. 113-128). New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.Jones, B.T.B. (1998). Namibia’s Approach to Community-
based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM): Towards sustainable development in communal areas [Electronic version]. Scandinavian Seminar College: African Perspectives of Policies and Practices Supporting Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Windhoek, September 1998. Accessed March 6, 2005.
http://www.cdr.dk/sscafrica/jones-na.htm
Jones, B. (2001). The Evolution of a Community-based
Approach to Wildlife Management in Kunene, Namibia. In D. Hulme & M. Murphree (Eds.), African Wildlife & Livelihoods – The Promise & Performance of Community Conservation (pp. 160-176). Oxford: James Curry Ltd.Jones, B. & Murphree, M. (2001). The Evolution on Policy
Conservation in Namibia and Zimbabwe. In D. Hulme & M. Murphree (Eds.), African Wildlife & Livelihoods – The Promise & Performance of Community Conservation (pp. 38-58). Oxford: James Curry Ltd.Kerasote, T. (1999). Lessons of the Elephant. Sports
Afield. Vol. 221, No. 3, pp. 18-19.Long, S.A., Murphy, C. & Vaughan, K. (2001). The WILD
Project, An Overview of Project Approach, Concepts and Methods [Electronic version]. Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Directorate of Environmental Affairs. Windhoek. Accessed April 9, 2005http://www.dea.met.gov.na/data/publications/
reports/wilddoc1.pdfMcPherson, M.A. & Nieswiadomy, M.L. (2000). African
Elephants: The Effect of Property Rights and Political Stability. Contemporary Economic Policy. Vol. 18, No. 1; pp. 14-26.Meredith, M. (2001). Elephant Destiny, Biography of an
Endangered Species in Africa. New York: Public Affairs.Metcalfe, S. (1993). CAMPFIRE: Zimbabwe’s Communal Areas
Management Programme for Indigenous Resources. Paper prepared for the Liz Claiborne & Art Ortenberg Foundation workshop on Community-Based Conservation [Electronic version]. Retrieved March 26, 2005, from www.resourceafrica.org/documents/1993/
1993_campfire_bg.pdfMoss, C. (1988). Elephant Memories: thirteen years in the
life of an elephant family. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.Nuding, Markus (2002). Wildlife Management in Namibia: the
Conservancy Approach. In T.O’Riordan & S. Stoll-Kleeman (Eds.), Biodiversity, Sustainability and Human Communities: Protecting Beyond the Protected (pp. 189-209). Eschborn, Germany: German Technical Co-operation (GTZ)Payne, K. (1998). Silent Thunder: in the presence of
elephants. New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc.Schoemann, T. (2002). Socio-political Aspects of
Establishing Ecotourism in the Qwa-Qwa National Park, South Africa. Current Issues in Tourism. Vol. 5, Nos. 3&4; pp. 287-308.Sugal, C. (1997). The Price of Habitat. World Watch. Vol.
10, No. 3; pp. 18-27.Sullivan, S. (2003). How Sustainable is the Communalizing
Discourse of ‘New’ Conservation? [Electronic version] In Chatty, D & Colchester, M. (Eds.), Conservation and Mobile Indigenous People: Displacement, Forced Settlement and Sustainable Development (pp. 158-187). Oxford: Berghahn Press. Retrieved Feb 20, 2005, from www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/csgr/research/keytopic/resistance/Sep03.pdf.Weaver, D. & Elliott, K. (1996). Spatial Patterns and
Problems in Contemporary Namibian Tourism. The Geographical Journal. Vol. 162, part 2, pp. 205-218.World Bank. Namibia Round Table Conference (1995)
– Poverty Reduction [Electronic version]. Accessed March 26, 2005.
http://www4.worldbank.org/afr/poverty
/pdf/docnav/01617.pdf
29. Policy Implications:
Sub-Saharan Africa is still developing as a destination for international tourists in comparison with other major world regions (Weaver and Elliott, 1996). Namibia, still residing in the shadow of its former colonial ruler, the Republic of South Africa, is, arguably, one of the lesser developed tourist destination countries; rarely considered one of the tourist meccas of the region.
In general, the role of tourism in South Africa, at large, is a natural fit – natural unspoiled beauty, geographic and cultural diversity, indigenous wildlife, a pleasant climate. Yet post-Apartheid South Africa still struggles to overcome long entrenched social inequalities to fully capitalize on its natural attributes and continues to deal with regions of economic depression and unevenly distributed wealth, resulting in areas of high poverty and those still to achieve their economic potential. Namibia, only gaining independence from South Africa in 1990, suffers many the same maladies, if not more so – 40% of the land is ‘communal land’ and much of it suitable only for extensive livestock production and/or wildlife (Ashley, 1998, Background section, para. 1). Namibia’s Community-based Tourism Policy attempts to correct the previous discriminatory conservation laws with the aim of giving the inhabitants of communal areas the same legal rights to manage and benefit from wildlife and tourism as freehold landowners (Svedsen, Collinson & Long, 2000, as cited in Long, Murphy & Vaughan, 2001, p. 8; Jones & Murphree, 2001, p. 42).
Much of eastern and southern Africa recognize, and have taken advantage of, the popularity of elephants to enhance their respective tourist trade. Namibia has yet to really capitalize on their elephant population in this manner. As elephants are more destructive in terms of farmland and crops then other wildlife, economic gains received from tourism enterprises potentially provides compensation to the rural farmer. Most certainly, the economic benefit provides motivation for the local population to protect and sustain the elephants as a vital resource. CBNRM provides a framework for the management and sustainment of wildlife. It empowers the local populace with the necessary legal framework to allow for direct contribution to the operation and management of wildlife and tourism enterprises and direct receipt of associated economic benefits. The CBNRM program provides the opportunity for diversification and the ability to benefit from the natural resources (like elephants) available on communal lands.
30. Recommendations:
Elephants play diverse roles within the environment. Growth in elephant populations demands government decisions regarding effective management of regional herds in order to maintain the environmental balance. A focused elephant policy addressing not only the conservation and management policy of local elephant herds but also identifying/ acknowledging the direct link of this natural resource to the national tourism policy is recommended. Given the migratory nature of elephants, any elephant policy should be a coordinated, possibly even a collaborative effort, with neighboring countries.
Associated small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) concerns need also be incorporated into the national tourism policy. Broadening the base of locally owned and operated tour organizations, rental car companies, accommodation sites, eating establishments, and other wildlife resource associated enterprises further empowers the local population by increasing economic benefits and becoming more viable, significant contributors to the national economy.
Education and training awareness for the local stakeholders will support a better understanding of wildlife and the ecosystem, the significance of conservation, and the potential associated economic benefits. In direct association, similar awareness and education for the conservationist, eco-tourist and general visitor, will provide a better understanding and appreciation the local wildlife and conservation efforts.
Hoarusib River bed area, Kunene Region, NW Namibia
(Source: Photo taken by A. Pollard, 08/20/03)
