Benefits to local communities from community conservancies in Namibia: an assessment

Figures & data

Table 1: Key characteristics of conservancies by region

	Kunene				Caprivi
	Torra	≠Khoadi //Hoâs	Sorris-Sorris	Ehirovipuka	Salambala	Mayuni	Kwandu
Start year and month	June 1998	June 1998	October 2001	January 2001	June 1998	December 1999	December 1999
Approximate population	1200	3200	1300	2500	7700	2400	4300
Population/area	0.34	0.95	0.57	1.27	8.28	15.89	22.63
Registered members (end of 2003)	450	1600	380	500	3500	900	1800
Vegetation	Semi-desert and savanna	Dry savanna	Grass and trees	Savanna woodland	Mopane woodlands and grasslands and swamps	Grasslands and swamp	Grasslands and swamp
Climate	Arid	200–300 mm rainfall	Arid	Arid	600 mm rainfall
Some wildlife resources	Elephant, leopard, rhino, cheetah, mountain zebra, kudu, ostrich, giraffe, duiker, steenbok, warthog				Lion, leopard, hippopotamus, elephant, roan, duku, duiker, crocodile, steenbok, lechwe
Enterprises	Lodge, trophy hunting, sale of springbok, own-use hunting	Trophy hunting, campsite, own-use hunting	Sale of live game, own-use hunting	Lodge, trophy hunting, craft centre, own-use hunting, traditional homestead	Trophy hunting, campsite, craft centre, craft production	Lodge, trophy hunting, campsites, craft centre, thatching-grass sale	Trophy hunting, campsite, crafts, thatching-grass sale
Operating costs covered (%)^a	100	65	15	20	100	60	60
Conservancy financed staff (n)^a	8	7			12	7
^aData from 2004.
Sources: MET (2005, Registered Conservancies Table), Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (2005) and Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organisations (2005).

Table 2: Key characteristics of households in conservancies by region

	Kunene				Caprivi
	Torra	≠Khoadi //Hoâs	Sorris-Sorris	Ehirovipuka	Salambala	Mayuni	Kwandu	Total
Total number of households	84	210	175	150	206	183	184	1192
Number of participants	63	80	52	87	53	30	38	403
% participant	75	38	30	58	26	16	21	34
Average income	11 234	8054	8307	6090	8953	6540	8410	8046
% households with education
Grade 9 and below	52	71	70	77	34	54	51	58
Grade 10 and above	48	29	30	23	66	46	49	42
% households with electricity	6	7	5	1	9	0	1	4
% female-headed households	43	42	41	39	40	42	36	40
% households with main occupation of head
Formal employment	35	8	13	8	9	5	5	10
Informal employment	14	15	10	4	12	11	3	10
Subsistence agriculture (includes livestock)	39	65	66	72	50	63	84	64
Cash-crop farming	0	0	0	0	14	14	3	5

Table 3: Households and conservancy characteristics

	Kunene				Caprivi
	Torra	≠Khoadi //Hoâs	Sorris-Sorris	Ehirovipuka	Salambala	Mayuni	Kwandu	Total
Average income from conservancy^a	11921	5771	3214	3000	4970	5373	1978	5689
Number of households with conservancy income	26	12	24	6	37	28	14	147
Average wage income from conservancy	2615	1850		967	2541	3866	3136	2578
Number of households with conservancy wage income	15	8	0	18	26	20	17	104
% households with conservancy payment^b	27	15	0	9	14	10	8	11
% households with damage by wildlife^c	35	50	30	31	69	74	86	56
% household with conservancy interaction
Contributed to conservancy (q49)	11	20	4	30	7	4	2	11
Know about the conservancy plan (q50)	29	18	11	25	25	18	29	21
Consulted with plans (q50a)	39	18	14	27	26	19	28	23
Know the conservancy constitution (q51)	49	30	17	32	26	16	24	26
Household's benefit from conservancy (% household)
Provides jobs to the household members	6	0	0	15	13	8	11	8
Distribute meat to the households	76	62	7	26	2	0	0	21
No advantages	13	37	79	48	44	58	55	49
^aAverage household income from conservancies is derived from total income reported by household members and their corresponding occupational status related to the conservancy (Type B). Type B occupation includes both direct employment by the conservancies and wage and enterprise income indirectly arising from the conservancy. If a person reported his or her occupation to be of type B and no secondary occupation, then the total income reported by that person is assumed to be from conservancy. If the person reported primary occupation of type B and another secondary occupation not related to conservancy, then 75% of his or her income is assumed to be from conservancy. If a person reported type B to be his or her secondary occupation, then 25% of his or her income is assumed to be from conservancy. Individual conservancy income is added to obtain household conservancy income.
^bHouseholds reporting conservancy payments as top three contributions to livelihood or cash income are included.
^cHouseholds reporting damage to both crops and livestock are included.

Table 4: Household characteristics by control and treatment conservancies

	Kunene		Caprivi
	Comparator conservancies	Established conservancies	Comparator conservancies	Established conservancies
Number of households	325	294	367	206
Income	7284	8963	7477	8953
Selected monthly expenditure	715	762	570	1492
Female 16–55 years old	1.6	1.5	1.4	1.6
Male 16–55 years old	1.5	1.4	1.3	1.4
Dependency ratio	1.2	1.0	1.1	1.3
% Household education
Grade 9 and below	72.9	66.0	52.0	34.0
Grade 10 and above	27.1	34.0	48.0	66.0
% Female education
Grade 9 and below	72.6	71.8	74.1	51.0
Grade 10 and above	27.4	28.2	25.9	49.0
% households with electricity	3.1	6.5	0.3	8.7
% female-headed households	40.3	42.2	39.2	40.3
Most important source of livelihood reported by % households
Arable production (own use)	2.5	0.0	70.0	46.1
Arable production (cash cropping)	0.3	0.0	1.9	3.4
Livestock production (own use)	41.2	16.3	1.9	6.3
Livestock production (sales)	10.8	24.2	0.3	1.9
Formal employment	10.8	17.4	3.5	6.3
Informal employment	7.1	13.6	2.5	6.3
Pensions	18.8	21.4	7.6	9.7
In Kunene the comparator conservancies are Sorri-Sorris and Ehirovipuka, and the established conservancies are Torra and ≠Khoadi //Hoâs. In Caprivi the comparator conservancies are Mayuni and Kwandu, and Salambala is the established conservancy.

Table 5: Key results, impact of conservancy by region

	Kunene	Caprivi
Method 1. Simple comparison without control (mean differences)
Mean household income	1299.83∗	1702.36∗∗
(Changes in proportion)	(0.20)	(0.24)
Mean per-capita income	589.50∗∗	45.53
(Changes in proportion)	(0.44)	0.03
Mean household expenditure	−15.77	757.41∗∗
(Changes in proportion)	(-0.02)	(1.32)
Mean per-capita expenditure	17.01	143.13∗∗
(Changes in proportion)	(0.12)	(1.05)
Method 2. Multivariate analysis (changes in proportion)
Overall effects of conservancy programme
Household income	0.18	−0.12
Per-capita income	0.28∗∗	−0.18
Household expenditure	−0.05	0.63∗∗
Per-capita expenditure	0.04	0.58∗∗
Interaction effects between conservancy programme and
A. High education on
Household income	−0.41∗∗	−0.21
Per-capita income	−0.51∗∗	−0.24
Household expenditure	0.19	−0.35∗
Per-capita expenditure	0.07	−0.37∗
B. Female-headed households
Household income	−0.30	0.21
Per-capita income	−0.23	0.14
Household expenditure	−0.04	0.32∗
Per-capita expenditure	0.00	0.23
C. Asset-rich households
Household income	0.03	0.19
Per-capita income	−0.07	0.14
Household expenditure	0.13	−0.44∗
Per-capita expenditure	0.03	−0.48∗
D. Livestock-rich households
Household income	−0.03	−0.15
Per-capita income	−0.22	−0.20
Household expenditure	0.44∗∗	−0.37∗
Per-capita expenditure	0.24	−0.41
Extreme values of income and expenditure were excluded. Households with annual income above 50 000 Namibian dollars and monthly expenditure above 10 000 Namibian dollars were excluded as extreme values. Households reporting zero income or expenditure were also excluded. Statistical significance of the coefficients: ∗5% and ∗∗1%.

Table 6: Determinants of probability of participation in conservancy

	Kunene	Caprivi
Constant	–2.38∗∗ (0.36)	–2.89∗∗ (0.45)
Grade 7−9	0.56∗∗ (0.19)	0.52 (0.45)
Grade 10 and above	0.73∗∗ (0.21)	0.68 (0.37)
Formal employment	0.01 (0.33)	0.31 (0.45)
Informal employment	–0.28 (0.33)	–0.06 (0.45)
Cash crop farming		0.02 (0.37)
Retired	0.09 (0.33)	0.07 (0.42)
Self-employment		–0.33 (0.51)
Young adults: 16–35 years old	–0.07 (0.05)	0.02 (0.05)
Village participation ratio	3.40∗∗ (0.33)	3.49∗∗ (0.46)
Livestock: principal components	0.07 (0.04)	–0.06 (0.27)
Assets: principal components	0.07 (0.21)	0.29∗∗ (0.07)
Access to electricity	–0.20 (0.19)	0.00 (0.29)
Months fuelwood harvested	0.02 (0.03)	0.04 (0.03)
Crop/livestock damaged by wildlife	0.42∗ (0.19)	–0.14 (0.23)
Female-headed households	0.09 (0.16)	0.04 (0.21)
n	236	189
Log likelihood	–123.94	–77.59
Pseudo R ^2	0.24	0.29
In Kunene, some variables did not have sufficient variation between control and treatment and were dropped. Data in parentheses are standard errors. Statistical significance of the coefficients: ∗5% and ∗∗1%.

Table 7: Key results, impact of participation by region in established conservancies

	Kunene	Caprivi
Method 1. Simple comparison without control
Mean household income	1667∗	5110∗∗
(Changes in proportion)	(0.24)	(0.69)
Mean per-capita income	177	849∗∗
(Changes in proportion)	(0.10)	(0.60)
Mean household expenditure	286∗∗	218
(Changes in proportion)	(0.49)	(0.17)
Mean per-capita expenditure	54∗∗	7
(Changes in proportion)	(0.41)	(0.03)
Method 2. Multivariate analysis (changes in proportion)
Household income	0.08	0.20
Per-capita income	0.10	0.25
Household expenditure	0.11	–0.21
Per-capita expenditure	0.15	–0.13
Method 3. Instrumental variable method (changes in proportion)
Household income	–0.69	0.50
Per-capita income	–0.34	0.50
Household expenditure	0.29	–1.21∗∗
Per-capita expenditure	0.45	–1.31∗∗
Method 4. Propensity score matching
Household income	2961	1238
Per-capita income	656	16
Household expenditure	206	28
Per-capita expenditure	55	9
Extreme values of income and expenditure were excluded. Households with annual income above 50 000 Namibian dollars and monthly expenditure above 10 000 Namibian dollars were excluded as extreme values. Households reporting zero income or expenditure were also excluded. Statistical significance of the coefficients: ∗5% and ∗∗1%.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AND TOURISM . 2005 . Community based natural resource management: programme details , www.met.gov.na/programmes/cbnrm/cbnrmHome.htm Accessed 6 April 2006

 Google Scholar

INTEGRATED RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND NATURE CONSERVATION . 2005 . The Kunene Program , www.irdnc.org.na/kunene.htm Accessed 6 April 2006

 Google Scholar

NAMIBIAN ASSOCIATION OF CBNRM SUPPORT ORGANISATIONS . 2005 . Namibia's Communal Conservancies: an overview of status, progress and potential of Namibia's Communal Area Conservancies 2004 , Windhoek, , Namibia : NACSO .

 Google Scholar