Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
donor and government grants. In at least three of the five conservancies studied,
direct use values alone might remain sufficient to attract community investment
in CBNRM.
Inputs and returns in the national CBNRM Programme
Table 16.4 and Figure 16.1, derived from own calculations, NACSO (2004,
2006) and unpublished data (Unpublished data, 2007, Ministry of Environment
and Tourism) show the total CBNRM programme spending in the 16 years
between 1990 and 2005.This was made up predominantly of donor contributions
in the provision of technical assistance for facilitation, capital developments in
conservancies, and some conservancy operating costs such as payments for
community game guards. Approximately 25 per cent of the total spending was
made up of government matched contributions in support of the sector, and
CBNRM in particular.
Similarly, Table 16.4 and Figure 16.1 show the total economic benefits attrib-
utable to the CBNRM Programme as a whole in Namibia. These benefits include
the broader impacts of CBNRM on the economy as a whole, described above,
including the direct on-site income generation as well as the indirect income
resulting from the multiplier effect and the appreciation in the capital value of
wildlife stocks. The cost-benefit analysis weighed the CBNRM programme
expenditures made between 1990 and 2005, against the economic benefits arising
from CBNRM activities during the same period. It can be seen from Table 16.4
and Figure 16.1, that considerable programme investments made through the
period have begun to bear fruit in recent years. In 1995 there were no registered
conservancies, while in 2005 there were 44, and economic impacts have been
growing exponentially.
The programme analysis allows us to see whether the donor and government
investments in CBNRM are contributing positively to the development of
Namibia or not. The internal rate of return for the programme investment over
the 16 year period was close to 15 per cent and the net present value of the invest-
ment over the period after discounting at 8 per cent was some US$7.8 million.
The 8 per cent discount rate is considered to be the opportunity cost for public
and donor funding, which means that if invested elsewhere these funds could be
expected to provide an 8 per cent rate of return. The fact that investment in the
CBNRM programme generated a higher return (15 per cent) and a positive net
present value, means that it was economically efficient and contributed positively
to development. After a long period, during which the economic returns to invest-
ment in the CBNRM programme were negative, the benefits generated began to
rise steeply. The early significant investments appear to have borne fruit in later
years.
As pointed out by Emerton (2001), Adams and Infield (2001) and Hulme
and Infield (2001), costs associated with wildlife include investments in protec-
tion, costs of damage caused by wildlife and land use opportunity costs. Wildlife
damage costs were considered in the conservancy models above, since they
Search WWH ::
Custom Search