Namibia is a strikingly beautiful country of desert dunes, woodland savannah, open plains, and river valleys. Its small but growing population of 1.8 million people is highly dependent on natural resources for food and livelihoods. Large areas, primarily in the wildlife-rich plains of the north, are communally managed by more than a dozen different ethnic tribes.
In the apartheid era, when Namibia was governed by South Africa, game animals were declared protected, stateowned assets—a policy that discouraged those who inhabited communal areas from joining in conservation efforts (WWF and Rossing Foundation 2004:29). By the early 1980s ecosystems were rapidly deteriorating in the north, with rampant poaching of elephant ivory and rhino horn and severe over-use of drought-prone land. Populations of Namibia’s world-renowned wildlife, including the desert elephant, endangered black rhino, zebra, lion, impala, and oryx, plummeted.
In the mid-1980s an innovative anti-poaching program developed by Namibian conservationist Garth Owen-Smith provided an early template for community-based conservation. He won the trust of traditional leaders in the Kunene region, who agreed to appoint local people as community game guards and work with local NGOs to promote an increased sense of stewardship over wildlife (Long 2001:6). Meanwhile, Namibia’s Nature Conservation Department (now the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, or MET) had devolved wildlife user rights to white-owned freehold farms. Private farm owners were allowed to sustainably utilize animals for game meat, trophy hunting, and tourism (Weaver 2004).
Following independence, these two models formed the basis of government action to extend the same kinds of use rights that farm owners had enjoyed to those who lived on communal lands. The Nature Conservation Act of 1996 enabled the establishment of conservancies—legally gazetted areas within the state’s communal lands—through Namibia’s Community Based Natural Resource Management Programme. Within the communal areas the state devolved limited wildlife rights to conservancy committees. These included rights to the hunting, capture, culling, and sale of “huntable game” (oryx, springbok, kudu, warthog, buffalo, and bushpig) and the right to apply to MET for permits to use quotas of protected game for trophy hunting (Long 2004:33).
To qualify, communities applying had to define the conservancy’s boundary, elect a representative conservancy committee, negotiate a legal constitution, prove the committee’s ability to manage funds, and produce an acceptable plan for equitable distribution of wildlife-related benefits (Long 2004:33).
Once approved, registered conservancies acquire the rights to a sustainable wildlife quota set by the ministry. The animals can either be sold to trophy hunting companies or hunted and consumed by the community. As legal entities, conservancies can also enter into contracts with private-sector tourism operators.
The first four conservancies were legally recognized in 1998. By October 2004, there were 31, with 31,000 registered members spread across six geographic regions. Conservancy committees had also set up 18 joint-venture agreements with private safari hunting and tour operators (WWF and Rossing Foundation 2004:iv)
This rapid expansion can be traced to a combination of factors. Government leadership and community enthusiasm were the prime ingredients. But an equally crucial factor was a strong commitment from support organizations. Collectively known as NACSO—the National Association of CBNRM Support Organisations—these included the University of Namibia and 12 national NGOs. The biggest support NGO, Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC), works with 40 conservancies in the wildlife-rich northern regions of Kunene and Caprivi, and is codirected by Garth Owen-Smith and Dr. Margaret Jacobsohn.
“Local people decide themselves if they want to form a conservancy. No pressure is put on anyone,” says Dr. Jacobsohn. “Our experience is that a small group of people hear about the opportunities conservancies offer—on the radio, from MET, from neighboring conservancies and so on—and become a ‘task force,’ driving their community towards conservancy formation” (Jacobsohn 2004).
Some communities go it alone, while others seek help from ministry officials or a NACSO organization to hold public meetings, write a constitution, elect management committees, and consult households living within proposed conservancy borders. Not all resident adults need to sign up for a conservancy to be approved, but many community meetings are held in an effort to draw in all stakeholders. “At some point,” says Dr Jacobsohn, “MET officials or the support NGO, if there is one, try to verify on the ground that there is majority support for the conservancy” (Jacobsohn 2004). The entire process takes two to three years (WWF and Rossing Foundation 2004:30).
While the success of Namibia’s conservancies is dependent on local peoples’ enthusiasm and commitment, the movement has also been significantly bankrolled by international donors. By late 2004, the development agencies of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the Netherlands, as well as the World Bank and the European Union, had spent N$464 million on the effort to build a national community-based natural resource management program (WWF and Rossing Foundation 2004:17).
By 2004 this investment had begun to show strong economic results. Five of the longest-running conservancies— Torra, Uibasen, Nyae Nyae, Marienfluss, and Salambala—were financially self-sufficient, and four more are on track to become so in 2005 (WWF and Rossing Foundation 2004:v).
