State of Conservancy book 2005

Namibia's communal conservancies: a review of progress and challenges in 2005

Chapter 3: Governance and ownership

Conservancies represent a response to the challenge to establish community-level institutions that practice good governance over common property resources. Prior to the formation of conservancies, wildlife was declining in most communal lands because there were no appropriate local mechanisms and regulatory structures to manage wildlife. Game belonged to the state, but the state did not have the means to prevent the illegal use of wildlife. In essence, wildlife had become an open access resource and people took from the system whatever they could, and as quickly as they could before other people did the same. Simply stated, wildlife declined because there were insufficient controls over its use and no incentives for local residents to conserve it for future use. The conservancy approach was developed to address this problem so that local communities could establish local control and management.

The conservancy approach is built on established economic and management principles of (a) devolution of rights and responsibilities to the lowest appropriate level, (b) proprietorship and tenure over the resources in defined geographic areas so that local management can be effected, and (c) the creation of appropriate incentives, through empowerment, economic opportunities and reinstatement of traditional, cultural and heritage values. At the heart of the approach is the realisation that if people are provided with sufficient authority over wildlife to make their own management decisions, and (b) concomitantly enabled to derive long-term benefits from the wildlife resource, that (c) wildlife will be sustainably managed and uncontrolled and unsustainable exploitation will stop.

The conservancy legislation requires the formation of local management institutions that are composed of local memberships, a committee that represents this membership, and a constitution that sets out the means by which the institution will be governed. This chapter looks specifically at the issue of 'governance' in conservancies, i.e. how decisions are taken, who takes them and who is accountable to whom. This is a critical issue, because if committees are not properly accountable to conservancy members the possibility of mismanagement, elitist capture, or corruption increases. If there is not sufficient participation in decision-making by members, the chances of committees not acting in the best interests of members increases.

Governance in communal area conservancies

The first national report on Namibia's communal conservancies, published in 2004, illustrated how conservancies had applied different approaches to develop their own institutional arrangements and governance systems. For example, in some areas conservancies were created as entirely new institutions, while in other places, conservancies grew out of local farmers' unions or evolved from organisations such as trusts and veld committees. In some regions, particularly in the north and north-east of the country, conservancy formation has been mainly driven by traditional authorities. The 2004 book also showed considerable variety in the way in which conservancies are structured. Large conservancies with many members living in clearly defined villages tend to have large management committees composed of representatives of the villages. Small executives are then often appointed to handle conservancy operations. By contrast, some conservancies in more arid areas, where settlements are smaller and more scattered, have opted for area-based representation. Yet other conservancies simply elect committees from the general membership, regardless of the origin of the members.

The report demonstrated that authority and leadership also varies between conservancies. Committee office bearers (Chairpersons, Treasurers and Secretaries) are salaried employees of some conservancies, whilst others employ designated staff such as Managers, Field Officers and Administrators. Most conservancies (23 of the 44 registered conservancies) in areas of high economic potential have now employed their own staff, with some being assigned to natural resources management tasks (Community Game Guards and Community Resources Monitors) and others to administrative functions. By the end of 2005, 14 conservancies were covering staff costs from conservancy-generated funds to employ 141 fulltime and 26 part-time staff.

Namibia's colonial history produced a situation in which communal area residents were disempowered from decisionmaking processes that defined their collective future. It therefore will take time to establish representative institutions through participatory and democratic processes. Residents of conservancies are going through a learning process and a period of experimentation as they try to determine which institutional and governance arrangements best suit their needs. This process of learning has resulted in successes, and in failures. For the most part, conservancies are applying collective decision-making processes and managing their finances to the best of their current abilities. However, there are instances where funds have gone missing or where committees made poor decisions about using conservancy income. An investigation in 2005 by organisations supporting conservancies found that most problems related to missing money were due to poor accounting systems rather than theft or fraud. The problems were also due to a lack of accountability within conservancies where, for example, members did not know how much money the conservancy had earned, how much had been spent, and what it had been spent on. Governance problems of this nature point to the need to ensure financial accountability within conservancy governance mechanisms and structures, as well as the need for members to be better informed about conservancy finances.

Another important matter regarding governance is that democracy often needs to be striven for, rather than simply being acquired or imposed. This means that sometimes there is bound to be a degree of internal conflict within conservancies when residents start to call their representatives to account for such key issues as financial management and the use of conservancy income. Such calls are now being heard in many conservancies. These positive developments show that residents are starting to assert their rights under the conservancy constitution, and to implement democratic practices and procedures that committees have sometimes ignored.

The following accounts provide indications of how conservancies are gradually improving their governance:

Representation and decision-making

Conservancies have begun to change the way that representation and decision-making takes place. Initially it was quite common for conservancies to elect a committee of individuals from anywhere within the conservancy, sometimes resulting in one part of the conservancy having greater representation on the committee than other areas. As a solution, conservancies are increasingly starting to divide themselves up into smaller sub-units which then elect representatives to the conservancy committee. For example, Ehirovipuka Conservancy had a 25-member committee of elected individuals, but is switching to a system where the conservancy is divided into five subunits, each of which will be represented on the conservancy committee. This will allow for better communication to members since area representatives can give feedback to local residents and represent the interests of the area in committee discussions.

Conservancies are learning as they go and adapting their approaches. This is an important aspect of building strong local institutions that are supported by residents. For example, Sesfontein Conservancy wanted to distribute the meat from its own use hunting. It split the conservancy into six units based on the areas represented by traditional leaders. Each unit was to receive a sixth of the meat. It was then realised that this would be unfair to areas that had more residents than others, so they adjusted the allocation of meat based on the number of people in each of the six units. Residents later signed up to receive meat and the more equitable distribution was overseen by the traditional leaders. This is a good example of a conservancy adapting and working in close cooperation with another local institution, in this case the traditional authority.

Annual General Meetings

Annual General Meetings (AGMs) are important events where members are able to participate in decision-making, re-elect or remove committee members, receive financial reports, approve budgets and the use of conservancy income, etc. In 2005, 35 of the 44 registered conservancies held AGMs. At a growing number of these AGMs conservancy members were asked to approve the conservancy budget and make decisions on how conservancy income would be used.In three cases, committees did not submit audited financial statements to members for approval. Ultimately, the AGM participants and conservancy members insisted this should be done. This provided for increased accountability of the committee to members.

Constitutions

Constitutions are important because they set the framework for decision-making in a conservancy and provide for the election and removal of committee members. They also state the rights and obligations of committee members and conservancy members. All registered conservancies now have constitutions. Several conservancies identified the need to amend their constitutions during 2005, based on the need to improve their governance procedures. The necessary steps to make these amendments have been instituted.

Participation of members in decision-making

Most conservancies use a mix of representative democracy (where the committee is mandated to take decisions on behalf of members) and participatory democracy (where members are involved in all major decisions) to manage themselves. Committees will take most of the day-to-day decisions on behalf of members, but will involve members in decisions on important issues, such as how to use surplus income and the zoning of the conservancy for different types of land use. For example, when Salambala Conservancy distributes income to the villages in the conservancy, the villagers meet to decide on how to use the revenue. Some Caprivi villages hold secret ballots to decide on how to use their wildlife and tourism income.

Involvement of women

Women have traditionally been excluded from formal decision-making in most rural areas, but conservancies are proving important vehicles for promoting a greater role for women in local democratic processes. While women chair very few of the 44 registered conservancies, they now make up approximately 37% of all committee members, providing women with a legitimate voice in conservancy decisionmaking matters. This compares to 30% in 2003.

Financial management

Proper financial management is crucial to the functioning of conservancies. Examples of mismanagement in the past have prompted conservancies and support agencies to develop improved systems and increasing openness about how money is spent. As more and more conservancies earn their own income through joint ventures, there is a greater need to manage this income transparently and accountably. This shift from managing donor seed grants to conservancies administering their own funds is being met by most conservancies in a responsible manner. Many conservancies are also requesting help in the development of financial systems and provision of bookkeeping and audits. More importantly, members are keeping a watchful eye on their income.

In 2005, most conservancies earning their own income received financial management training. A total of eight conservancies began preparations for audits. An external audit by an international auditing company of one conservancy was conducted (?Khoadi-//Hôas). It received a clean report indicating that all funds were used according to the budget and no irregularities were found. Other conservancies are following this example. Some conservancies have restructured their banking system to enhance greater accountability. A conservancy Trust Account is opened, managed by a set of Trustees that are not on the conservancy committee, into which all conservancy income is paid. A second Operational Account is managed by the committee, to fund the implementation of the conservancy's annual work plan. The budget for the work plan is approved by the members. Funds are transferred from the Trust Account to the Operational Account on a monthly or quarterly basis, and only when the past batch of funds have been properly accounted for with the appropriate financial documentation.

Communications

Good communication between committees and members is an important aspect of sound governance and accountability. Members need to know about decisions made on their behalf, and require information about income and expenditure to judge whether the committee is being effective or not. Conservancy committees are therefore increasingly recognising the need to communicate more regularly about financial and other conservancy matters. After the conservancies in the Kunene Region meet for quarterly planning sessions, conservancy staff provide feedback to residents on an area by area basis. Some quarterly planning meetings are held jointly by clusters of conservancies and are arranged in one conservancy instead of at a central meeting place so that members of the local conservancy can be present. Where area or sub-unit representation works well in conservancies, the area representatives provide regular feedback to residents after committee meetings and other important events.

Management Plan Frameworks

Part of good governance involves the development of plans for managing natural resources, for creating and running enterprises, and for systems to manage the conservancy as an organisation (staff employment, administering the use of vehicles and equipment, etc.) A total of 31 Conservancies have developed and implement comprehensive management plan frameworks, compared to only seven conservancies in 2003. The frameworks include an institutional structure (organogram), zonation plan for different resource management zones, and the planning tools and policies that will enable the conservancy to achieve its set purpose. This framework has been adapted by conservancies in different parts of the country to suit local needs.

Managing new rights and responsibilities

Conservancy status brings a number of new rights and responsibilities. The non-prescriptive nature of the legislation allows communities to make a number of critical decisions that shape the nature of the institution. Conservancies can decide:

How to use wildlife resources

Twenty one conservancies chose to use huntable game quotas in 2005 (compared to 12 in 2003). Torra Conservancy, which has relatively abundant wildlife, decided to use its game in a variety of ways: for trophy hunting, shoot and sell, live sale to game dealers, and to distribute meat from hunted animals to members and for special events and ceremonies.

Who to contractually engage as investors and partners

For the greater part, conservancies can choose their own contractual partners (with the exception of already existing tourism concessions granted independently by government). Ten lodges and 12 trophy hunting contracts (benefiting 16 conservancies) are in place. In 2003 there were 16 joint venture agreements for tourism and trophy hunting. Tender and other selection processes have been used to choose partners. Conservancies have received training on partner selection and set their own criteria for the benefits they want to receive from the contracts. Conservancy committees then decide which company can provide the best mix of different benefits (such as training) for the conservancy rather than simply accepting the highest financial offer. This is an extremely empowering process and has produced situations in which the highest tender offers have been declined because the conservancy did not believe the individual would be a suitable community partner.

How to use conservancy-generated benefits

Legislation requires that conservancies adopt procedures to manage and distribute conservancy benefits in a democratic and equitable manner. The procedures are established by the conservancies themselves and should be endorsed by their membership. Although the practical implementation of these procedures is often challenging, a range of different approaches and priorities have been identified and used to manage benefits. A number of conservancies have decided to use income to support households in a combination of different ways. Four different approaches seem to have emerged:

• Individual, equal cash payouts to registered members (Nyae Nyae Conservancy paid N$300 to each of 770 members in 2005) where the number of members is relatively small and the revenue considerable.
• A conservancy 'social fund' from which members can request financial help when necessary (Marienfluss and Puros Conservancies)
• Pay outs on a village basis (Salambala and Mayuni Conservancies and the Kyaramacan Trust in West Caprivi), where the number of members is large and revenues are modest in relation to the number of members. In these cases, decisions about how to use funds are taken by village consensus as opposed to individual member or household level.
• Expenditure on social services to support schools, local farmers, traditional authorities and old age pensioners, orphans for example. Full details of such benefits in 2005 are given in Chapter 4.

How to manage different resources in the conservancy

With the rights that conservancies bring, communities are required to assume management of a variety of activities and resources. This includes the identification of what the most productive resources are that the conservancy should focus on, at what scale they should be managed, the establishment of appropriate management systems, the best economic opportunities arising from these resources and requisite skills for management. These are all challenging steps which communities are tackling. Kwandu Conservancy has taken advantage of community forestry legislation and has been gazetted as a Community Forest, while conservancies in Kavango are also pursuing the idea of being registered as Community Forests. This will enable communities to integrate their management of natural resources and give them rights over a greater rangeland of resources. A number of Kavango conservancies are exploring such activities as fish farming and crocodile farming, while several conservancies in Kunene are developing their own rangeland management systems. Conservancies in Kavango and Caprivi are also exploring minimum tillage conservation farming to improve grain yields. What is emerging from the conservancy programme as it matures is that diversified and integrated approaches to natural resources management offers the best results. This is true at the institutional level, where a wide range of people with different livelihood interests are involved, as well as from an economic perspective, where greater productivity and household food security is achieved.

Lessons and challenges

Scale and conservancy management

While conservancies have been designed primarily for the management of wildlife - which needs to be managed over relatively large areas - experience has shown that smaller, local management units (or a cluster of units) are often more appropriate for particular resources such as village forests and palm resources for craft production. Village forests and such craft resources as palms must be managed at a much smaller scale. Thus, some conservancies have been sub-divided to allow for decision-making and consultation that is both logistically and socially more appropriate. One example is the original Sesfontein conservancy that split into the Sesfontein, Anabeb and Puros conservancies. There are also management issues that are larger than single conservancies, the management of elephant populations which move across many conservancies being one example. In these cases, there is potential for several conservancies to work closely together to manage the resources. This is already happening in several places. Illustrative examples include: joint anti-poaching efforts along the Kwando River, the sharing of quotas for elephant trophy hunting between conservancies (e.g. between Kwandu, Mayuni, Mashi and Wuparo conservancies in Caprivi, and between Sesfontein and Anabeb conservancies in Kunene Region) and the north-west annual game count. Along the Kwandu River, cooperation between conservancies is now being extended to work closely with the MET staff in the Mudumu and Bwabwata National Parks and to explore joint activities for forestry management.

Devolution and representation

Conservancies have learned that effective decision-making involves true participation and allows for devolution to the lowest level possible. This has been achieved in different ways. The development and use of representative, self-defined units such as clusters of households or farms (i.e., in Tsiseb, Sesfontein and Ehirovipuka) or villages (i.e. Salambala) is proving an appropriate means for representation and decision-making.

Interestingly, the way in which conservancies are starting to devolve decision-making to lower levels mirrors the way in which the Namibian Government has devolved rights and decision-making authority to conservancies. The Government is now exploring how it can further devolve rights to local communities through new policies and legislation. The draft Parks & Wildlife Management Act is investigating ways to give stronger use rights over wildlife to conservancies, whilst the draft Human Wildlife Conflict Policy is looking at ways of devolving decision making authority to lower levels, including conservancies.

The challenge of management and leadership

Running a successful conservancy requires a range of skills and expertise, much of which may not be readily available now. Accordingly, great emphasis has been placed on providing training and support to conservancy members, their committees and staff. Training programmes provided by MET and NGO staff cover a variety of activities, including natural resource management, tourism and enterprise development (with emphasis on working with the private sector), and organizational management (dealing with staff, assets, finances and communications). Conservancies with a variety of enterprises and management activities have recognized that some key functions need to be carried out by full-time staff members rather than part-time elected committee members. As a result, some conservancies now employ managers to carry out day-to-day administrative and liaison tasks, and some are starting to employ bookkeepers rather than relying on elected treasurers. Having permanent staff in such key positions means there is continuity when committees change. More importantly, the skills developed by a trained treasurer are not lost when he or she leaves the committee.

Accountability and transparency

Accountability from conservancy committees to the MET and support NGOs has often been far greater than downward accountability to conservancy members. Building awareness among members that they are the people who should hold committees and conservancy staff accountable remains an important challenge, although progress is being made, as described earlier. As the ministry responsible for awarding communities the status of conservancies, MET must ensure that conservancies are run according to the regulations laid down in the legislation.

Communicating with stakeholders - internal and external

Conservancies deal with a wide range of stakeholder groups. Communication mechanisms are being revised at several levels: between members and committees, with local traditional leaders, and with support agencies such as the MET and NGOs. An example is the MET/Chairmen's Forum, which was initiated in 2003. Three regional conservancy forums function effectively: the Caprivi, Kunene and the Southern CBNRM forums. These forums enable better communication and cooperation between conservancies and facilitate joint decision-making on important issues. In Kunene, the regional conservancy association made proposals on how best to share a small elephant hunting quota allocated for the whole region. Other important stakeholders include the growing range of regional partners, such as Regional Councils, Regional Constituency and Village Development Committees and Regional Land Boards. Each region with registered conservancies has one conservancy representative on the Regional Land Board. These representatives play an important role in representing the interests of conservancies on the Land Boards and ensuring that Land Boards take conservancy management plans into account when allocating leases over land.

Development of local governance

Local community-based institutions are important mechanisms to promote rural development, improve the livelihoods of rural poor, and ensure that natural resources are managed sustainably. They have the potential to become institutions that promote and support all relevant aspects of local, sustainable development. However, to function optimally it is important that the institutions have rights over all natural resources, that further levels of devolution of wildlife and tourism rights are achieved, and that bureaucratic obstacles do not hold back the economic and conservation achievements that are possible.

- Go to top -