The Unsustainability of Community Tourism Donor Projects: Lessons from Zambia - Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development - page 309

Table 15.1 Income generation of community tourism enterprises in 2004

Enterprise Estimated donor Estimated Estimated Estimated

investment in total visitor gross revenue net income

infrastructure numbers 2004 2004

to date (US$) 2004 (US$) (US$)

Mukuni Development Trust 0 Unknown 15,120 Unknown

Nsongwe Village Visit Fund 0 351 1053 828

Simonga Village Visit Fund 0 769 175 175

Kawaza Village Tourism Project 250 453 8927 2250

Chiawa Community Campsite 2950 781 4200 Unknown

Natwange Community Campsite 5000 68 340 118

Muwele Cultural Village 18,200 13 260 0

Lochinvar Community Campsite 20,000 133 540 0

Dudumwenzwe Campsite 28,400 0 0 0

Source: Dixey, 2005

society. Interestingly only two were trusts that could legally hold land title deeds
and thereby own property. Just one enterprise had a certificate of incorporation
and none had a tax clearance certificate or liability insurance. Only two enter-
prises held tourism licences as these were prohibitively expensive (minimum cost
US$450 per annum). Many enterprises were not aware of the legal requirements
for tourism operations or ownership of assets but expressed a strong desire to
become legalized to form business partnerships and prevent interference from
local elites.
The available data were insufficient to compare the income-generation of all
the enterprises in 2004, mainly because almost a third had not commenced opera-
tions in that year. However, the data provided for nine enterprises by community
representatives, donors and tourism companies were insightful (Table 15.1).
The Mukuni Development Trust received most gross revenue from village
tours, curio markets and payments from a revenue-sharing agreement with a
tourism company, Ecolift Ltd. The net income accruing to the Trust is likely to be
high as overheads are low. The Kawaza Village Tourism Project that was devel-
oped with technical advice from Robin Pope Safaris Ltd. was the most successful
in known net income-generation. Nsongwe and Simonga Villages also received
tourists through tour operators. It was notable that Nsongwe received less than
half the number of tourists as Simonga, although its net income was almost five
times higher, attributable to the difference in tour fees. Furthermore, although six
enterprises were based on accommodation, most income was generated through
revenue sharing in the case of the trust or from day visits. Moreover, the data
strongly suggested that relatively high external donor funding in infrastructure
development did not necessarily result in net income generation.
Only three enterprises were generating sufficient net income for wider collective
benefits in the community - Mukuni, Kawaza and Nsongwe - all of which were