The Tsiseb Conservancy: How Communities, the State and the Market Struggle for Its Success

Ecologically, the conservancy falls within an arid ecological zone, receiving an average rainfall ranging between 9 and 150 mm. annually. Two ephemeral rivers form part of the conservancy boundaries, the Ugab river on the northern boundary and the Omaruru river flowing along the south-eastern boundary (Fig. 3.1). These two rivers form very important wetlands systems with endemic and endangered flora and fauna, including the desert dwelling elephant and the black rhino (RISE 2004). In addition, the area encompasses the Brandberg Mountain, the highest peak in Namibia (2,573 m), with a number of world renowned Bushmen paintings as well as archaeological remains.

Until independence in 1990, the area was almost fully supported by a tin and tantalite mine operated by a South African company in Uis town. The latter provided essential jobs and infrastructure and many families moved to Uis to sustain their livelihoods. The mine however closed in 1990, leaving the community residing in the township with no alternative economic activity. As a result, unemployment, particularly among the youth, and poverty sharply rose and access to basic infrastructure remained very limited. From the last available census data, 46 % of the labor force is now unemployed, 22 % of people of 15 years and above have never attended school, while 57 % of households have no toilet facility (NPC 2003). Apart from few local government positions, economic opportunities have become rare; households have had to resort, as a source of income, to small scale farming, illegal mining and informal small businesses, but also importantly to pensions and cash remittances (Mosimane 2000).

With limited farming opportunities and the existence of unique cultural and natural resources that attracted a growing number of domestic and South African tourists since the beginning of the years 2000, tourism was increasingly seen as an opportunity to generate alternative critical income. Young people started selling semi-precious stones to tourists along the road and looked for any other income-generating activity based on local resources available.

In this context, building on the conservancy movement momentum evident in the Nature Conservation Ordinance Amendment Act no. 5 of 1996 (see Chap. 2), the local community was willing to benefit from its local natural assets. After introductory meetings in 1998, the idea of establishing a conservancy progressively developed over a period of 3 years (Newsham 2007). Support was mostly provided by the Rural Institute for Social Development and Empowerment (RISE), an NGO working in the area, and the Namibian Community-Based Tourism Association (NACOBTA), an umbrella body advocating for community tourism projects across the country since 1995 (see Box 3.1).

The instatement of the conservancy proceeded in several stages (Table 3.1). First, population in the Tsiseb area agreed on GPS boundaries through consultation and mediation done by the local traditional chief. Further, a members list was finalized and a constitution was voted in August 1999 in order to set-up structures and rules which govern decision-making processes in the conservancy (see below). Simultaneously, consultation was organized through a collaborative process (workshops) so that Tsiseb conservancy members and all other stakeholders (Department of Wildlife Management and Ministry of Environment and Tourism officials, agricultural extension office, the Daureb Farmers Union, small miners, traditional authorities (TA), the conservancy committee, NGOs) ultimately designed and endorsed a zonation plan as well as a management and utilization plan. The zonation plan, officialised in 2004, consists of the mapping of the conservancy, dividing it into different land-use options areas, geographically separated: the wildlife and tourism zone, the farming and wildlife zone, the wildlife, mining and tourism zone, the sensitive area, the tourism zone, the wildlife zone, and finally the wildlife breeding zone (Fig. 3.2). For each of these different zones, the management and utilization plan defines strict regulations, rules and priorities.

In February 2001, after the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) was satisfied with all requirements for registration of a conservancy being locally fulfilled, the area was finally gazetted as the Tsiseb (Hada-Huigu) Conservancy (see Table 3.1).

In order to allow for representative and inclusive decision making, the conservancy first put in place a management committee comprised of 40 members (Newsham 2007: 161). Nevertheless, for time reasons it quickly reduced the committee to nine elected members from which a chairman was selected. From 2003, the board was again reduced to six elected members, plus one non-voting traditional authority representative, so as to further faster decisions and allow for efficient day-to-day conservancy management. This executive committee was to meet every month while the conservancy created a salaried position of a conservancy manager.

In October 2004, this first constitution was however amended. According to the manager of the conservancy, “[the members] amended [the constitution] because [they] were looking at how effective and participatory the process was. The first constitution was a format from the government, (from) the policy. Participation was not there. We want people to participate”. A broader conservancy management committee of 24 people was then set up, including 16 people nominated from the four different rural areas in the conservancy (in order to represent all geographical interests) and two members of the traditional authority, sitting but not voting (Fig. 3.3). The remaining six people on the board were transferred from the former executive committee which retained its rights and duties. The new conservancy committee now holds quarterly meetings whereas day-to-day decisions are still taken by the executive committee and the conservancy manager. The latter are to manage conservancy staff (office clerk, security guards, cleaners, community game guards), organize activities in the conservancy (e.g. hunting for households’ own use), and coordinate relationships with all other stakeholders, including private investors (see below). In 2004 there were 504 members registered in the Tsiseb conservancy (RISE 2004).

Supervising the management committee’s work, an annual general meeting (AGM) is organized for all members to be involved in conservancy related decisions. During this AGM, the previous year financial report is presented, as well as a progress report about on-going activities in the conservancy (natural resources use, hunting, tourism and conflicts). Thereafter, the members discuss, approve and vote for the next annual budget and future distribution of conservancy income. Members at the AGM also grant permission for commercial operations within the conservancy area and endorse changes made to the conservancy constitution and governance structure.

In order to implement both the management and utilization, as well as zonation plan, seven community game guards (CGCs) are appointed and paid by the conservancy. They patrol, control animal movements and reproduction, deal with animal problems and report poaching in the area. If the latter occurs, they call for support from MET officers posted in Uis. Before 2004, game guards lacked capacity and operated from their farms on foot or donkey cart. However, from 2005 on, thanks to a 2-year program funded through the UNDP-GEF Small Grants Programme, game guards have conducted anti-poaching patrols from a newly erected base camp. They are also equipped with radios and moveable tents.

All income retained from different economic activities operated is deposited on the conservancy fund (bank account). This money is first spent to cover conservancy operational costs (fuel, car maintenance, organizing transport and food for the AGM, salaries for conservancy staff); when money remains, it is either saved, spent for infrastructure development (e.g. an ambulance was proposed) or distributed to members as cash dividend, according to decisions taken by members at the previous AGM.

At a broader level, the conservancy is embedded in a national and regional, legal and institutional network of diverse actors, either public, private or hybrid. Arguably, the Tsiseb conservancy, as any other conservancy in Namibia, is not an isolated organization and rather has to deal with a multiplicity of actors in a highly strategic and politicized game (see Sullivan 2003; Hoole 2010; Pellis 2011 for a similar analysis of Sesfontein, Ehi-rovipuka and Anabeb conservancies respectively). Among others, at the donor level, the conservancy is supported by the USAID and WWF, NACSO (Namibian Association for CBNRM Support Organizations), the European Union and the Swedish Agency for International Development (SIDA). At the NGO level, Save the Rhino Trust, NACOBTA and RISE support natural resource management and use in Tsiseb. At the governmental level, the conservancy interacts regularly with the Ministry of Mines and Energy, the MET, the Ministry of Lands and the National Monuments Council of Namibia. Finally, at the local level the conservancy closely deals with private and community projects, namely the Daureb Farmers Union, the Brandberg White Lady Lodge, the Daureb Mountain Guides Association, and some other commercial operations under its control.

Building on this new institutional architecture, the conservancy was granted new ownership and use rights over wildlife and tourism. Consequently, several income generating activities and businesses have emerged. Beside hunting operations undertaken within the area, non-consumptive tourism activities generate significant financial revenues accruing to the conservancy fund. In order to regulate such activities, the Communal Land Reform Act no. 5 of 2002 reinforces the conservancy’s decision power at the local level (see Chap. 2). As a new member of the Erongo regional communal land board, the Tsiseb conservancy is indeed now able to approve (or not) any tourism development within its jurisdiction through the granting of rights of leasehold.

Practically, tourism operations in Tsiseb conservancy include: (a) the Daureb crafts, a women group selling crafts in Uis; (b) the Daureb mountain guides (DMG), a group of young people guiding tourists to the Brandberg mountain, especially to the White Lady paintings; (c) the Ugab Wilderness Community Campsite (UWCC), a local campsite in the Ugab riverbed, which later became a community-private sector partnership lodge, the Brandberg White Lady Lodge and campsite (BWL); and finally (d) an indigenous restaurant situated within the newly erected information centre in Uis.

Overall, tourism activities allow the Tsiseb conservancy to fully cover its operational costs for nature conservation since 2005 (NACSO 2006) and in addition distribute some marginal remaining funds to its members and traditional authorities. In 2011, tourism benefits (cash to the conservancy and wages) accounted for USD 73,207 (35 %) while hunting benefits amounted USD 112,561 (54 %) and other benefits (interests) reached USD 23,237 (11 %). While social benefits and cash payments were limited, cash income paid to the conservancy (USD 150,172) was mainly used to cover operating costs of maintenance and invest in capital development while the rest were wages paid to staff by the private sector (41 staff in total) and the conservancy (the manager, community game guards clerks, etc.) (NACSO 2012).

Concerning biodiversity, although figures have to be taken with caution and challenges regularly appear (see below), wildlife numbers have dramatically recovered in the area. Populations of springboks, gemsboks and mountain zebra are stable or increasing since 2003, while populations of ostriches have significantly improved and black rhinos have been reintroduced. Importantly, numbers of predators (hyenas, cheetahs, leopards and lions) have also steadily increased since 2003 (NACSO 2012). Table 3.2 summarizes the Tsiseb conservancy arrangement.