Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
{	
!
Benefit  sharing  from  
natural  heritage:  
Examples  and  challenges  from  Africa	
Dr  Anna  Spenceley,    Cape  T...
Protected  area	
Models  of  benefit  sharing	
Tourism  
enterprise
Protected  area	
Models  of  benefit  sharing	
Tourism  
enterprise
Protected  
area	
Local  revenue  
sharing	
Local  
employment	
Local  
procurement	
Models  of  benefit  sharing	
!
Revenue  sharing	
Protected  areaLa	
 %  tourism  revenue  to  
communities	
Financial  benefits	
Virunga  Volcanoes,  Rwan...
Case  study:  Virunga  Volcanoes  	
u  Mountain  Gorillas:  Rwanda,  
Uganda,  DRC	
u  32  groups:  359-­‐‑395  gorillas...
Sharing  5%  of  tourism  revenues	
Figure 3: Funds allocated to projects around Parc National des Volcans between
2005 an...
Sharing  5%  of  tourism  revenues	
10  community  associations  supported,  
beekeeping  and  basket  weaving  	
Tree  pl...
1.  The  value  of  money  per  person  is  very  licle	
  if  divided  among  a  large  number  of  people.	
6  Key  Chal...
2.  Benefits  of  social  infrastructure  (e.g.  schools,  water,  clinics)  are  not  
always  associated  with  conservat...
4.  The  poorest  do  not  always  benefit  (e.g.  Rwanda,  CBO  members;  
Tanzania,  30%  community  contribution)	
5.   ...
6.  Legislation  may  constrain  the  process:  e.g.  Certain  PAs  send  all  tourism  
revenue  to  central  government,...
u Long-­‐‑term  institutional  support	
u Appropriate  identification  of  target  
communities  &  project  types	
u Tr...
Protected  area	
Models  of  benefit  sharing	
Tourism  
enterprise
Tourism  
enterprise	
Local  equity  /  
ownership	
Local  
employment	
Local  
procurement	
Local  revenue  
sharing	
Joi...
Revenue  sharing	
Tourism  enterprise	
 Equity	
 Financial  benefits	
Damaraland  Camp,  
Namibia	
60%  Wilderness  Safaris...
Case  study:    
Damaraland,  Namibia	
Namibia
TorraTorra Conservancy &Conservancy &
DamaralandDamaraland CampCamp
Author:...
Joint  Venture	
Planning & development issues:Planning & development issues:
DamaralandDamaraland Institutional Arrangemen...
$0
$200,000
$400,000
$600,000
$800,000
$1,000,000
$1,200,000
$1,400,000
$1,600,000
$1,800,000
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 200...
Rocktail  Bay  Beach  Camp,  South  Africa	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
	
1.  Governance  of  community  trusts:  weak  communicatio...
Tourism  
enterprise	
Local  equity  /  
ownership	
Local  
employment	
Local  
procurement	
Local  revenue  
sharing	
Joi...
Revenue  sharing	
Tourism  enterprise	
 Equity	
 Tangible  benefits	
Thakadu,  South  Africa	
 100%  Community	
 $87.5  k  ...
Case  study:    
Thakadu  River  Camp,    
Madikwe,  South  Africa	
            CBTE	
u  24  Bed  luxury  tented  camp	
u...
           CBTE	
u  Provincial  conservation  agency  (NWPTB)  manages  protected  area;  
supplies  bulk  infrastructure...
           CBTE	
Economic impacts:Economic impacts:
Local economic benefit
• During 2008, Thakadu will generate:
– R550k i...
u  Supportive  state  agencies/  institutional  environment	
u  Clear  rights  framework	
u  Well  structured  contract...
Other  benefits  too  .  .  .  	
Access  to  finance  (loans,  profit,  
donations),  45%	
Employment,  39%	
Community  infra...
u  Revenue  sharing  is  one  type  of  benefit  from  tourism  based  on  
natural  heritage	
u  Other  benefits  are  en...
What  works:  Benefit  sharing	
u  Clear  agreement/policy  of  the  %  revenue  to  a  community	
u  Implementation  of ...
What  should  be  done  differently?	
1.  Capacity  building  of  community  entities  vs  
good  financial  management  /  ...
Thank  you!	
Dr  Anna  Spenceley      www.anna.spenceley.co.uk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Benefit sharing from tourism in protected areas

1,051 views

Published on

A presentation given at the Inksasa Symposium in Cape Town, South Africa in May 2012. This Keynote presentation introduced a session on the theme of benefit sharing from tourism in protected areas, and provided illustrations and case studies from southern Africa. The examples included gorilla tourism in Rwanda; Damaraland in Namibia, and Thakadu lodge in South Africa. Suggestions for future approaches are provided.
Please note that references and citations for data are not included in the presentation, and can be provided on request

Published in: Travel
  • Be the first to comment

Benefit sharing from tourism in protected areas

  1. 1. { ! Benefit  sharing  from   natural  heritage:   Examples  and  challenges  from  Africa Dr  Anna  Spenceley,    Cape  Town,  April  2014
  2. 2. Protected  area Models  of  benefit  sharing Tourism   enterprise
  3. 3. Protected  area Models  of  benefit  sharing Tourism   enterprise
  4. 4. Protected   area Local  revenue   sharing Local   employment Local   procurement Models  of  benefit  sharing !
  5. 5. Revenue  sharing Protected  areaLa %  tourism  revenue  to   communities Financial  benefits Virunga  Volcanoes,  Rwanda 5% USD428,000  (2005-­‐‑2008) Spent  on  social  projects Lake  Manyara  National   Park,  Tanzania 7.5%  budget USD30,000  (2006-­‐‑7).   Spent  on  teachers  house,   classrooms Kibale,  Bwindi,  Mgahinga   National  Parks,  Uganda 12%  (1994  policy) USD83,000  (1995-­‐‑98). Spent  on  21  schools,  4  clinics,  1   bridge,  1  road Maputo  Special  Reserve,   Mozambique 16% USD66,400  (2009-­‐‑2013) Lake  Mburu  National  Park,   Uganda   20% USD30,000  (2006-­‐‑7). Spent  on  teachers  house,   classrooms NB  All  state  protected  areas
  6. 6. Case  study:  Virunga  Volcanoes   u  Mountain  Gorillas:  Rwanda,   Uganda,  DRC u  32  groups:  359-­‐‑395  gorillas   (approx  700  globally) u  Price  to  visit  gorillas:  $750   (Foreign  non-­‐‑residents) u  1  hour  visit u  Number  international  leisure   arrivals  to  Rwanda  similar  to   number  of  permits  available   (20,000)
  7. 7. Sharing  5%  of  tourism  revenues Figure 3: Funds allocated to projects around Parc National des Volcans between 2005 and 2008 from the 5 per cent revenue sharing process Source: Tusabe & Habyalimana (2009). 656 A Spenceley et al. Rwanda  Development  Board  issues  calls  for  proposals:   selection  process  at  district  levels $428,242  on  community  projects  (2005-­‐‑8) •  $3.4  p/p  over  4  years  (approx.  126,000  people) •  $0.85  p/p/a
  8. 8. Sharing  5%  of  tourism  revenues 10  community  associations  supported,   beekeeping  and  basket  weaving   Tree  planting,   soil  erosion   control,  and   fencing  in   protected  areas   10  schools  constructed,  with  56   classrooms  32  x  25  000  litre   water  tanks,  each   providing   20  litres  p/p/d,  to   1250  people   (40,000  beneficiaries) Education Water Environment Livelihoods
  9. 9. 1.  The  value  of  money  per  person  is  very  licle  if  divided  among  a  large  number  of  people. 6  Key  Challenges
  10. 10. 2.  Benefits  of  social  infrastructure  (e.g.  schools,  water,  clinics)  are  not   always  associated  with  conservation  /  are  not  linked  to  conservation   responsibilities  (i.e.  reduced  poaching). 3.  Those  that  benefit  are  not  necessarily  the  same  as  those  who  face   costs  of  the  protected  area  (e.g.  HWC;  Rwanda,  Mozambique). 6  Key  Challenges
  11. 11. 4.  The  poorest  do  not  always  benefit  (e.g.  Rwanda,  CBO  members;   Tanzania,  30%  community  contribution) 5.    Community  entities  may  not  have  the  capacity  /  systems  to  agree   on  how  to  spend  revenues  (e.g.  Sodwana  Bay,  South  Africa). 6  Key  Challenges
  12. 12. 6.  Legislation  may  constrain  the  process:  e.g.  Certain  PAs  send  all  tourism   revenue  to  central  government,  then  claim  it  back  (not  always  successfully:   e.g.  Mozambique). 6  Key  Challenges
  13. 13. u Long-­‐‑term  institutional  support u Appropriate  identification  of  target   communities  &  project  types u Transparency  and  accountability u Adequate  funding u Realistic  expectations Components  of     successful  revenue  sharing
  14. 14. Protected  area Models  of  benefit  sharing Tourism   enterprise
  15. 15. Tourism   enterprise Local  equity  /   ownership Local   employment Local   procurement Local  revenue   sharing Joint   Venture Community Based Tourism Enterprise
  16. 16. Revenue  sharing Tourism  enterprise Equity Financial  benefits Damaraland  Camp,   Namibia 60%  Wilderness  Safaris 40%  Torra  Conservancy $300  p/a  rent  +  10%  revenue $74  p/p  in  2004  (enough  for   basic  groceries  for  3  months) Sabyinyo  Silverback   Lodge,  Rwanda Kinigi  &  Nyange  community IGCP  (NGO) Government $50  per  night  bed  fee 7.5%  net  sales $8  bed  night  re-­‐‑payment  loan Ndzou  Lodge,   Mozambique 60%  Mpunga  community 40%  Eco-­‐‑MICAIA Not  yet  profitable Rocktail  Beach  Camp,   South  Africa 75%  Wilderness  Safaris 25%  SBDC TBA Bulungula   Backpackers,  South   Africa No  formal  agreement 60%  ownership  D.  Martin 40%  ownership    NCT $8,300  (2005-­‐‑8) Joint  Venture
  17. 17. Case  study:     Damaraland,  Namibia Namibia TorraTorra Conservancy &Conservancy & DamaralandDamaraland CampCamp Author: Anna Spenceley. Photographs: Dana Alan, Wilderne Joint  Venture u  Torra  Conservancy u  Namibian   conservancy  policy   gives  community   rights  to  use   natural  resources   &  rights  to  occupy
  18. 18. Joint  Venture Planning & development issues:Planning & development issues: DamaralandDamaraland Institutional ArrangementsInstitutional Arrangements Torra Conservancy Lessor / partner 10% revenue. £300 p/a rent 15-yr BOT arrangement Damaraland Camp Wilderness Safaris Lessee, Developer and Operator • Damaraland is a Build Operate Transfer partnership with the community (with Wilderness Safaris) (a hybrid rental agreement) • WS and INDRC organised community into Trust and organised rental/transfer agreement • 15 year agreement between WS and the Torra conservancy for ~10 hectares (separate from hunting concession area) • 10% of the net accommodation fees from each guest's stay are allocated directly to the community • For the last 5 years of the agreement would have transferred 20% ownership of assets to the conservancy and decrease payments of % turnover by 20% each year. • By year 15 conservancy would have owned and manage the lodge, and WS would continue to market it. • Books presented to Trust 4x p/a • Joint management committee of WS and community to discuss lodge development and wider area State Land owner Permission to Occupy Brian Jones, Jones and Ashley (2001), Bruce Simpson, Chris Roche u  2  year  negotiation u  IRDNC  facilitated   agreement  (NGO) u  BOT  over  15  years u  10%  net  accommodation   fees  to  community u  Last  5  years  of  agreement   transferred  20%  p/a  to   community u   Subsequently  WS  bought   60%  equity
  19. 19. $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 $1,600,000 $1,800,000 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Year N$value Non-tourism income Trophy hunting Joint ventures Income and disbursements in the Torra Conservancy 1999-2004: Income to Conservancy and Households Source: Data from WWF- LIFE on behalf of the CBNRM programme (2005) N$ to US$ exchange rates 1 June (Spenceley and Barnes, 2005) Non-tourism includes training, laundry, firewood etc Income  to  conservancy  and   households   100%  revenue  shared  locally
  20. 20. Rocktail  Bay  Beach  Camp,  South  Africa 1.  Governance  of  community  trusts:  weak  communication  with   wider  community;  conflicts  of  interest  (e.g.  preferential   employment/training  etc);  elites  arise  (e.g.  Ndzou  camp) 2.  Capacity  to  manage  funds:  weak  accounting/record  keeping;   abuse  of  fund  (e.g.  Rocktail  Bay  Lodge;  CBOs  Okavango) 3.  Transaction  costs  are  high:  Long  time  /  costly  to  set  up   institutional  arrangements,  ongoing  support  (e.g.  Damaraland,   Chemucane) 3  Key  Challenges Joint  Venture ! Double  Joint-­‐‑ venture
  21. 21. Tourism   enterprise Local  equity  /   ownership Local   employment Local   procurement Local  revenue   sharing Joint   Venture Community Based Tourism Enterprise
  22. 22. Revenue  sharing Tourism  enterprise Equity Tangible  benefits Thakadu,  South  Africa 100%  Community $87.5  k  lease  fees  to  Trust   (2008) Buffalo  Ridge,  South   Africa 100%  Community $59.5  k  lease  fees  to  Trust (2008) Kuru  Dkar  Trust   Hostel,  Botswana 100%  Community $5,000  (2005) Tsara  Loky,   Madagascar 100%  Community $600  (2005) Tchuma  Tchato,   Mozambique 100%  Community $50,000  (2005) Tengeru  campsite,   Tanzania 100%  Community $2,000  (2005) Gairezi  fly  fishing,   Zimbabwe 100%  Community $2,000  (2005)            CBTE
  23. 23. Case  study:     Thakadu  River  Camp,     Madikwe,  South  Africa            CBTE u  24  Bed  luxury  tented  camp u  Owned  by  the  Batlokwa   community u  Operated  by  The  Madikwe   Collection u  Opened  2006 u  Average  55%  bed   occupancy u  Achieved  rate  $118  p/b/n
  24. 24.            CBTE u  Provincial  conservation  agency  (NWPTB)  manages  protected  area;   supplies  bulk  infrastructure u  Community  Development  Trust:  45  year  BOT  lease;  sub-­‐‑lease  to  private   operator;  participate  Joint  Liaison  Commicee u  Private  operator:  10  year  management  sub-­‐‑lease  with  strong   empowerment  clauses Institutional Arrangements Operating fee (rental +10% of t/o) Fair rental (6% of t/o) ! Provincial conservat (NWPTB): – Focuses on core e (biodiversity conse – Manages protected – Supplies bulk infra – Optimises income from private comm Community Trust Lessee & Developer NWPTB Lessor Private Operator Sublessee 45-yr BOT lease 10-yr MOT sublease JLC
  25. 25.            CBTE Economic impacts:Economic impacts: Local economic benefit • During 2008, Thakadu will generate: – R550k in lease fees to the NWPTB – R875k in sublease fees to the Sebolao Trust – R1.54m in wage payments (excluding gratuities) – R155k in local business contracts* – Total benefit of R2.57-m (excluding lease fees)* • Buffalo Ridge will generate: – R380k in lease fees to the NWPTB – R595k in sublease fees to the Sebolao Trust – R950k in wage payments (excluding gratuities) – R145k in local business contracts* – Total benefit of R1.69-m (excluding lease fees)* • Operator planning philanthropic foundation u  Trust  rental  to  NWPTB:  Fixed  fee  $2.8  k;  variable  fee  6%  turnover u  Private  partner:  $500  per  commercial  bed;  variable  fee  10%  turnover
  26. 26. u  Supportive  state  agencies/  institutional  environment u  Clear  rights  framework u  Well  structured  contracts u  Legitimate  CBOs  with  capacity u  Careful  institution  building u  Ongoing  capacity  building  /  administrative  support u  Skills  development u  Succession  model  /  planning Components  of     successful  benefit  sharing            CBTE
  27. 27. Other  benefits  too  .  .  .   Access  to  finance  (loans,  profit,   donations),  45% Employment,  39% Community  infrastructure   development,  39% Education/training  (and   support  of  education   institutions)  ,  29% Craft/product   development  and   purchasing  ,  28% Service  provision,  22% Access  to  resources,  18% Health   facilities      ,   12% Conservation/sustainable   resource  use,  11% No  benefit,  8% Cultural  conservation/ celebration,  8%            CBTE 218  CBTEs   in  southern   Africa
  28. 28. u  Revenue  sharing  is  one  type  of  benefit  from  tourism  based  on   natural  heritage u  Other  benefits  are  environmental,  social  and  other  forms  of  economic  benefit   (e.g.  employment,  procurement) u  Protected  Areas  may  have  a  %  tourism  revenue  shared  with   local  people: u  State  protected  areas    -­‐‑  national  policy/legislation  framework u  Tendency  to  allocate  to  social  projects  (e.g.  education,  health,  water) u  Usually  spent  on  projects,  rather  than  shared  as  cash u  Tourism  enterprises  may  have  a  %  tourism  revenue  shared   with  local  people,  particularly  if  they  are:   u  Joint-­‐‑venture  companies:  where  a  community  entity  has  equity u  Community-­‐‑based  tourism  enterprises:  100%  community  equity Conclusions
  29. 29. What  works:  Benefit  sharing u  Clear  agreement/policy  of  the  %  revenue  to  a  community u  Implementation  of  agreement  with  transparency u  A  community  entity  that  has: u  Capacity u  Understanding  of  the  agreement,  tourism  and  conservation u  Accounting/business  skills u  Good  communication  with  partners  and  wider  community u  Good  governance u  Institution  support  /  hand  holding  /  technical  advice  in  the  long   term u  Realistic  expectations  of  the  benefits  (when  and  how  much)
  30. 30. What  should  be  done  differently? 1.  Capacity  building  of  community  entities  vs   good  financial  management  /  governance  of   accountants?  (CBO  vs  audit  firm) 2.  Enterprises:  Joint  ventures  or  CBTEs  lease   management  to  private  sector  (>$$$) 3.  Protected  areas  retain  revenue  and  distribute   directly  to  communities  (e.g.  Mozambique) 4.  Benefits  from  natural  heritage  linked  to   improved  conservation?  (e.g.  gorillas/rhino)
  31. 31. Thank  you! Dr  Anna  Spenceley      www.anna.spenceley.co.uk

×