Communal wildlife conservancies in Namibia
[1] In 1993, the newly formed government of Namibia received funding from the United States Agency of International Development (USAID) through its Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE) Project.
[4] As of 2006, there are 44 communal conservancies in operation,[5] in which the members are responsible for protecting their own resources sustainably, particularly the wildlife populations for game hunting and ecotourism revenues.
[6] Requirements for the conservancy application include a list of local area people who are community members, a declaration of their goals and objectives, and a map of their geographic boundaries.
[16] There are 3 major biotic zones in Namibia, each being host to many endemic species: the Namib Desert, the Southwest Arid, and the Southern Savanna Woodland.
As of 2004, no quantitative studies had been done to determine if the conservancies have actually helped in protecting biodiversity, (but see the surveys reported above) or in increasing wildlife populations of all threatened species.
[22] However, ecotourism likewise could lead to favouring of those species that tourists like to see, and can have major impacts in terms of infrastructure development, pollution, and other pressures of increased numbers of visitations.
There is also some concern that the protected area networks (PANs) established by the Namibian government are heavily skewed towards the Namib Desert biome,[23] and do not fully represent all of Namibia's terrestrial ecosystems.
[23] In an analysis of endemism patterns in Namibia, Simmons et al. (1998)[25] also found the Succulent Karoo and the Kaoko Escarpment to be needing protection.
The conservancies in Namibia allow the local people significant discretion in how they allocate the land to cattle ranching, farming, or protecting wildlife with a view toward economic and environmental sustainability.
Instead of largely unsustainable and economically tenuous agricultural activities, the conservancies harvest income for the local population from the tourists and trophy hunters.
[26] In addition to lower start-up and maintenance costs, the profitability per unit of biomass was also higher, especially on larger land areas where resident herds of wild animals remained for long periods of time.
[27] Others, particularly cattle ranchers, viewed the conservancies with dissatisfaction as they tended to reduce range grazing opportunities in favor of reserved – or in some cases restored – land for wildlife.
[28] The central government of Tanzania has set aside a large portion of land for the conservation and controlled hunting of game in the Kilombero river valley.
Poaching mostly occurred to supply meat to supplement local people's diets, but a significant number of rhinoceros and elephant were taken by trophy hunters.
The Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) in Zimbabwe is an example of a successful transfer of power from the well-intentioned, but poorly effective and overly standardized national government to the local people.
[28] CAMPFIRE allowed the establishment of community control over game and land resources, and also the collection and retention of fees for wildlife hunting and sightseeing.
The local communities manage the wildlife and wildland of their conservancies as resources that, if sustained, have the potential to provide continuous sources of both meat and income.
[28] To illustrate this success, it was noted that many locals viewed the benefits of the CAMPFIRE conservancy so highly that they would tolerate some level of crop destruction by wildlife, rather than kill a valuable resource.
In addition to a better understanding of the stakeholders' needs, the decrease in cost of some GIS software and other easy-to-use systems of information organization dramatically increased the effectiveness of community control of conservancies.
[29] Both national and provincial governments can obtain a relatively affordable amount of equipment and trained staff to construct databases with information collected from the locals and from other sources.
Maps produced by this method highlight information of local concern and allow leaders to build consensus and to resolve community resource use issues, as well as giving everyone involved a "big-picture" view of their conservancy.
Bringing even modest amounts of technology to underdeveloped portions of the country allowed significant progress toward the management and sustainability of communities and their resources.
