Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
supported by private sector tourism companies. Three new community campsites
in Liuwa Plain National Park supported by African Parks Conservation also
demonstrated relatively high income-generating potential and a fourth was planned.
African Parks is the first private sector park management institution in Africa
managing eight national parks in six countries (AP, 2006). It was notable, however,
that the highest estimated gross revenue of the community tourism enterprises
(US$15,000) was significantly less than the funds paid to local people by individual
tourism companies surveyed in terms of annual salaries, philanthropic donations
and/or purchases of goods and services. For example, Jungle Junction on Bovu
Island which is a small budget camp for independent travellers pay approximately
US$20,000 in wages and US$5000 for building material to the local community per
annum. Robin Pope Safaris Ltd. spent US$65,000 rehabilitating Kawaza Village
School in 2004 and additionally sponsors teachers and students. Sun International
in Livingstone had the largest corporate social responsibility budget for local devel-
opment projects that was approximately US$250,000 per year.
Furthermore, several challenges in collective income distribution from
community tourism enterprises were identified. It was widely perceived that
community benefits from a few enterprises were not being realized due to poor
management and governance. A problem relating to CRBs was that income went
into the general 'pot' rather than a separate fund allocated to a specific project,
and therefore any benefits of tourism were not obvious to the community.
Moreover, if several CRBs were responsible for an enterprise then any net gain for
each community became negligible due to the large population. For example, the
gross revenue of Lochinvar Community Campsite in 2004 was estimated as
US$540 and there was no net income shared between five CRBs covering a large
area.
Various business constraints were identified by the community enterprises.
The main constraint was poor marketing due to a lack of resources and skills
emphasizing the importance of linkages to tourism companies that can market
their products. Communication for bookings was also a key constraint as many
enterprises were remotely located, could not manage unexpected arrivals or deal
with tourist health and safety issues adequately. A lack of skills was also highly
problematic, particularly in tourism awareness, visitor handling, guiding and
business development as many employees had no formal training. Finance was
also perceived as a constraint, especially for upgrading accommodation. High
seasonality significantly limited income as the majority of enterprises only had a
six-month season as many areas are not accessible in the rainy season. Enterprises
also faced other accessibility challenges as several were far from main tourism
routes and/or located in areas with poor road infrastructure.
Ownership and governance issues also fettered development. Donor invest-
ment had on several occasions created assets such as lodges and campsites for
CRBs that were not legally owned by the community institutions and were operat-
ing illegally. Other important issues included unaccountability for income
collected and interference from the elite such as closing the enterprise or demand-
ing tribute, for example, a form of tax for the chief to endorse the enterprise.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search