Community-based Tourism and Natural Resource Management in Namibia: Local and National Economic Impacts - Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development - page 325

Table 16.1 Comparative physical characteristics of five
Namibian conservancies in 2000

Conservancy

Characteristic Torra Khoadi Nyae Mayuni Salambala

//Hôas Nyae

Land area (ha) 352,200 386,000 900,095 28,400 93,000

Core a wildlife area (ha) 108,586 177,650 900,095 13,300 11,000

Households (no.) 120 700 700 450 1200

Mean annual rainfall (mm) 90 150 450 600 650

Rangeland carrying capacity
(ha per LSU equivalent) 30 25 15 12 12

Starting wildlife density b
(ha per LSU equivalent) 427 160 464 43 3875

Expected wildlife density b in
year 10 (ha per LSU equivalent) 257 119 251 29 85

Non-consumptive tourism
potential High Mod High Mod low High Mod low

Safari hunting tourism potential Mod high Mod Mod high Low Mod

Consumptive wildlife use
potential Low Low Low Low Low

Other natural resource use
potential Low Low Mod low Mod Mod

Livestock keeping potential Very low Very low Mod Mod Mod

Notes: a Core areas, allocated primarily to wildlife (rest of land shared between wildlife and livestock).
b Density calculated for the total land area, measured in terms of land occupied per unit of stock.

Source: Barnes et al, 2002

and Masubia communities) was agro-pastoralism. Mayuni was unusual among
the five in that it embraces part of a protected area.

Khoadi //Hôas was unusual
in being permitted, by the veterinary authorities, to capture and sell live game
animals without quarantine. The numbers of households associated with conser-
vancies varied from 120 in Torra to 1200 in Salambala.
The results of the conservancy-level valuation are summarized in Table 16.2.
These values provided a wealth of indicative comparative information regarding
the project investment, project income, community income and the economic
value for conservancies in the various settings. The project financial values
reflected the returns to the project investor, that is, the donors, government and
community, viewed as one entity. They provided an indication of the broader
financial viability of the initiative. Here, all donor contributions were treated as
costs, and so were dividend payments earmarked for conservancy members, but
increase in the value of wildlife stocks was treated as a benefit. Project investors do
not, themselves, require large positive returns but seek only to ensure that they do
not incur losses, which would require subsidization. As seen in Table 16.2, the