Title: Investigation into the effectiveness of communal conservancies in Namibia
Communal conservancies are programs set up by the local community who have the rights and power to manage and distribute natural resources with their generated benefits.
While focusing on the effects that communal conservancies has had on Namibia’s economy and livelihood, this essay holds the view that activities stimulated by these programs has played an important role in determining whether they should be abolished or not.
An argument of trophy hunting being promoted by communal conservancies, has brought both social and environmental concerns. Dimin et al (2016) emphasizes that trophy hunting leads to a focus on conservation of large wildlife populations. As a consequence, this results in overgrazing, persecution of predators and the distortion of ecosystem function and structure. Correspondingly, Kahler and Gore (2015) points out that conservancies are struggling to promote conservation and sustainable development as there are continuous human-wildlife conflicts. For example, conservancy members are experiencing damaged crops, livestock loss and fatal attacks. In addition, Hoole (2008) conducted a study using semi-structured interviews to investigate how conservancy communities are dealing with the increase of animals being sustained for trophy hunting. It was found that around 75% of herders had to remain in fields to keep watch on their livestock while one third have already killed predators in order to protect their own lives and assets. The arguments above have provided a perspective from members of conservancies, and has raised issues concerning personal safety and financial loss.
A main reason that highlights the ineffectiveness of conservancies is the distribution of cash income. Sushenjit and Michael (2004) analysed a survey by Barnes and MacGregor (2002) which consists of 1,192 households and found that only 12% of households have obtained cash income. Although the outcome might have occurred from the underreporting of income, it is certain that conservancies have not been a source of revenue for most households. Furthermore, Boudreaux (2010) points out that cash is held in an account until there is an entire agreement within the community on how to spend it. As a result, this may lead to delayed payments for operating costs such as vehicle maintenance and relocation of wildlife. These arguments appear to be reasonable, as data by Barnes and MacGregor (2002) revealed that most households lack knowledge about the role of conservancies and their potential benefits. However, it is important to note that data from non-conservancy households were excluded which makes it rather difficult to analyse the impacts that conservancies have. Overall, it appears that unfair allocation of cash income is easily detected and methods of distributing it requires effort and long discussions. The arguments also question as to whether or not conservancies are able to provide its member with financial benefits.
The argument that focuses on the effectiveness of communal conservancies is based on how it has contributed to improving the member’s lifestyle. Naidoo et al (2016) conducted a study on 77 communal conservancies in 2012 and pointed out the many benefits that members have. For instance, there is employment, meat distribution, training, human-wildlife conflict compensations and tourism revenue gained from establishing lodges. Moreover, Riehl, Zerriffi and Naidoo (2015) collected data from the Namibia Demographic and Health Surveys (2000 and 2007), to assess any changes to health of those living within conservancies (members) and those who do not. Findings revealed that conservancy members had higher incomes which led to increased bednet ownership. It can be suggested that members are less likely to contract malaria than people who do not live in conservancies. Moreover, Riehl et al. (2015) pointed out, “Namibia’s conservancies have generated more than US$6.8 million in 2013 and there is an increase in wildlife numbers.” Based on the above, it can be argued that conservancies appear to be effective when it comes to improving the livelihoods of members and maintaining wildlife populations.