Community-based Tourism and Natural Resource Management in Namibia: Local and National Economic Impacts - Responsible Tourism: Critical Issues for Conservation and Development - page 328

the low initial wildlife densities and the consequent effect this had on tourism
potential.
The financial and economic values in Table 16.2 were from base-case models,
and it was important to determine the degree to which these values were robust in
the face of changes in model parameters. Sensitivity analysis was needed to
provide an indication of the validity of the conclusions drawn from the results, as
well as to provide further information on the financial and economic characteris-
tics of the investments. Barnes et al (2002) carried out extensive sensitivity
analysis on the models, assessing the effects of variation in capital expenditure,
tourism development, wildlife stock densities, stock off-take rates and the inclu-
sion, or not, of live game sales and stock purchase/acquisition. Generally the
sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the analytical results. Barnes et al
(2002) provide a more detailed interpretation of these findings.
Community tourism development through CBNRM has involved significant
donor support in southern Africa (Infield, 2001; Barnes et al, 2002).The question
arises as to whether, without this support, these initiatives might be viable finan-
cially for communities. Table 16.3 shows the effects that the removal of donor
grants would have on the community financial rates of return in the conservancies
analysed. Thus the first row of the table shows the community financial rates of
return from Table 16.2 while the next two rows show how these change if commu-
nities would have to bear all the project capital costs themselves. These effects are
shown with and without the inclusion of the residual value of wildlife stocks
which, because they cannot actually realize this value through sale, is only an
intangible benefit for communities. Only in one conservancy (Nyae Nyae) did the
community rate of return drop below the cut-off real discount rate of 8 per cent.
The findings suggest that receipt, by conservancies, of donor grants very signifi-
cantly enhances community returns. They also provide at least an indication that,
in some conservancies, communities might have incentives to invest even without

Table 16.3 The effect of donor grants (non-use values) on the financial rate of return
to communities in the five Namibian conservancies in 2000

Conservancy

Community financial Torra

Khoadi

Nyae Mayuni Salambala

rate of return (%) //Hôas Nyae

With donor grants without stock a 133 205 23 220 40

Without donor grants with stock b 44 39 18 24 17

Without donor grants without stock c 39 28 1 20 11

Notes: a Includes income to the conservancy from donor grants, but excludes residual value of wildlife stock
appreciation (an intangible value for communities) in benefits.
b Excludes income to the conservancy from donor grants, but includes residual value of wildlife stock appreci-
ation (an intangible value for communities) in benefits.
c Excludes income to the conservancy from donor grants, and excludes residual value of wildlife stock appreci-
ation (an intangible value for communities) in benefits.

Source: Barnes et al, 2002