Do Households Gain from Community-based Natural Resource Management? An Evaluation of Community Conservancies in Namibia

Abstract

Community-based natural resource management is an important strategy to conserve and sustainably use biodiversity and wildlife in Namibia. This paper examines the extent to which conservancies have been successful in meeting their primary goal of improving the lives of rural households. It evaluates the benefits of community conservancies in Namibia by asking three questions: (a) Do conservancies increase household welfare? (b) Are conservancies propoor? (c) And, do participants in conservancies gain more relative to those who choose not to participate? The analysis is based on a 2002 survey covering seven conservancies and 1,192 households. The results suggest that community conservancies have a positive impact on household welfare. This impact is poverty-neutral in some regions and pro-poor in others. Further, welfare benefits from conservancies appear to be some what evenly distributed between participant and non-participant households. at the Ministry of Environment of Namibia, and other World Bank colleagues who have commented on this paper. We would like to thank Kirk Hamilton, team leader, Policy and Economics Team, World Bank, who provided valuable guidance and support. We sincerely thank our donors from the Trust Fund for Environmental and Socially Sustainable Development. Funding for the survey was contributed by the Swedish government through Sida, and the UK government through DFID as well as the Namibian government. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3337, June 2004The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished.

Citizen engagement in public services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) initiatives

“…Figure 4 shows the geographical spread of the included studies. , Malawi (Gullo et al, 2017), Namibia (Bandyopadhyay, Humavindu, Shyamsundar, & Wang, 2004) and a study that took place in both Kenya and Guinea (Bradley & Igras, 2005).…”

“…Community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) interventions aim to improve communities' sustainable access to resources through increasing their control over resource management and maintenance. The complexities and tensions involved in marrying the dual goals of resource use and preservation are evident throughout the interventions, which cover wildlife conservancy (Bandyopadhyay et al 2004); participatory forestry management Rasolofoson et al 2015;and Tachibana & Adhikari 2009); and irrigation or water use (Bandyopadhyay et al 2010;Barde 2017;and Huang 2014). Each of these studies evaluates the implementation of a national-level policy, which tend to have smaller results than pilots or experiments wherein the quality and uniformity of implementation is more easily managed.…”

“…The remaining seven used panel data on the same individuals, households or communities(Diaz-Cayeroset al, 2014; Gonclaves, 2013;Barde, 2017;Bradley & Igras, 2005;Huang, 2014;Tachibana & Adhikari, 2009, ).Six of these studies combined statistical matching with DID analysis, typically through covariate adjusted regression. The remaining studies only used covariate matching followed by a comparison of means or only covariate adjusted regression.Finally, four of the included studies used a comparison group but only had one data point after the intervention had started.Three of these studies used statistical matching methods(Bandyopadhyay et al 2010;Molina, 2014;Rasolofoson et al 2015) combined with another analysis method such as covariate adjusted regression or simple comparison of means, whileBandyopadhyay et al (2004) used instrumental variables regression only without statistical matching.…”

Governance Structures and the Distribution of Tourism Income in Namibian Communal Lands: A New Institutional Framework

“…Overall, this changing balance of power in favour of ‘previously disadvantaged Namibians’ (rural communities), has enabled Namibian rural communities to generate new revenues from hunting and tourism activities operated on their lands (Barnes et al . 2002; Bandyopadhyay et al . 2004; NACSO 2007).…”

“…Although it has been argued elsewhere that the legal capacity of communities to control tourism resources is still limited (Massyn 2007), communities were granted some rights of claimant (use, benefit from and manage), as well as proprietor (exclude out-siders), over tourism resources. Overall, this changing balance of power in favour of 'previously disadvantaged Namibians' (rural communities), has enabled Namibian rural communities to generate new revenues from hunting and tourism activities operated on their lands (Barnes et al 2002;Bandyopadhyay et al 2004;NACSO 2007).…”