The document discusses Namibia's concession model for tourism on state land. There are two main models - BOT (Build Operate Transfer) and MOT (Manage Operate Transfer). Under BOT, a private operator builds and runs the tourism facilities then transfers it back. MOT is similar but the community conservancy owns the project company and appoints a private manager to operate it. The models allocate risks differently, with BOT having little community empowerment but also little risk, while MOT provides more community returns but requires capital from the conservancy.

1. NAMIBIA CONCESSION MODEL

2. INTRODUCTION
•CONCESSION MEANS THE RIGHTS, WHETHER FULL OR RESTRICTED, SHARED OR EXCLUSIVE TO CONDUCT TOURISM ACTIVITIES.
•CONCESSION ON STATE LAND HAVE SIGNIFICANT ROLE TO PLAY IN NAMIBIA AND COMPLEMENT OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO THE ECONOMY OF THE COUNTRY.
•CONCESSION ALSO CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND THE ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT OF FORMERLY DISADVANTAGES NAMIBIA THROUGH ACCESS TO TOURISM, HUNTING AND INDUSTRIES BASED ON WILDLIFE PLANT AND ANIMAL RESOURCES.

3. BOT (BUILD OPERATE TRANSFER) VS MOT (MANAGE OPERATE TRANSFER)
STATE LESSOR/CONCESSOR(MET)
CONSERVANCYCONCESSIONAIRE
(COMMUNITY)
OPERATOR
OPERATING COMPANY
STATE LESSOR/CONCESSOR(MET)
CONSERVANCYCONCESSIONAIRE
(COMMUNITY)
PROJECT COMPANY (COMMUNITY)
MANAGEMENT COMPANY (C0NTRACT)

4. THE STATE
•THE STATE AWARDS THE HEAD CONCESSION CONTRACT TO THE CONSERVANCY.
•THE STATE GIVES TOURISM RIGHTS TO BUILD A LODGE OR A TRAVERSING RIGHT TO DO GAME DRIVES TO THE CONSERVANCY INSIDE PROTECTED AREAS.
•THE STATE USES TEMPLATE CONTRACTS AND STANDARDIZED PROCEDURE TO ABIDE THE CONSERVANCY TO THE TERMS AND CONDITION AS REQUIRED BY THE CONCESSOR (MET).
•AFTER THE SIGNING OF THE CONTRACT, THE CONSERVANCY/THE HEAD CONCESSION CONTRACT HOLDER THAN ASSUME THE RIGHTS AND DUTIES.
•MET HELPS THE CONSERVANCY IN SEEKING FOR A JOINT VENTURE PARTNER (OPERATOR).
•ONCE THE OPERATOR IS APPOINTED, HE TAKES OVER THE ONGOING OVERSIGHT AND REGULATORY FUNCTIONS.
•THE OPERATOR TAKES FULL RESPONSIBILITY AFTER THE SIGNING OF THE OPERATORS CONCESSION CONTACT.

5. CONSERVANCY
•(CONSERVANCY OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE LEGAL BODY): RECEIVES HEAD‐CONCESSION- CONTRACT FROM STATE.
•ASSUMES RIGHTS & DUTIES OF HEAD-CONCESSION-CONTRACT
•THE CONSERVANCY SUBLEASES THEIR RIGHTS IN THE HEAD-CONCESSIONS-CONTRACT TO PROJECT/OPERATING COMPANY USING STANDARDIZED DOCUMENTS & PROCEDURES
•THE OPERATING COMPANY ASSUMES RIGHTS & DUTIES OF SUBLEASE/--‐CONCESSION
•RECEIVES INCOME BASED ON FIXED AND VARIABLE FEES
•PAYS A FEE OR % OF INCOME TO STATE AND USES OR DISTRIBUTES BALANCE

6. PROJECT COMPANY (INVESTOR)
•RECEIVES OPERATORS CONCESSION CONTRACT FROM THE CONSERVANCY
•ASSUMES RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF THE OPERATOR.
•CARRIES CAPITAL AND OPERATING RISK
•PAYS ‘RESOURCE FEE’ WITH FIXED AND VARIABLE ELEMENTS
•ALSO FINANCES, DESIGNS, BUILDS, OPERATES, MAINTAINS REFURBISHES, MARKETS, TRANSFERS BACK…
•…AND ENSURES BROAD--‐BASED COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT
•VARIATION IN COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION AT PROJECT COMPANY LEVELS

7. THE TWO MODELS USED IN NAMIBIA
(BOT)-BUILD-OPERATE- TRANSFER
BASIC STRUCTURE WITH NO CONSERVANCY SHARE IN THE PROJECT COMPONY
THIS IS A CONTRACT WITH FULL MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION
THE PROJECT COMPANY OWN BY PRIVATE PARTNER WITH PDN- (PRIVIOUSLY DISADVANTAGE NAMIBIAN) SHAREHOLDING….
PROCURED THROUGH TENDER PROCESS.
SUBJECTED TO EMPOWERMENT OBLIGATIONS AND INCLUDING, PREFERENTIAL EMPLOYMENT, TRAINING, LOCAL CONTRACTING AND SOCIAL INVESTMENT
THE COMPANY CARRIES ALL RISK IN MAKING THINGS WORK….
FULL OWNERSHIP WITH 3RD PARTY MANAGEMENT
BASIC STRUCTURE PLUS CONSERVANCY OWNERSHIP OF PROJECT COMPANY.
PROJECT COMPANY FINANCE AND RETAINS BOT RESPONSIBILITY….BUT APPOINTS EXTERNAL MANAGER ON MANAGEMENT CONTRACT.
PROJECT COMPANY OWNED BY THE COMMUNITY/CONSERVANCY….THEY BUILD OPERATE AND TRANSFER TO THE MANAGEMENT CONTRACT.
MANAGEMENT COMPANY WILL DO THE OPERATIONS & MARKETING
THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IN THIS MODEL IS THE CONSERVANCY CARRIES THE WHOLE RISK

8. ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
BOT
Advantages
Disadvantages
□ Clear definition of roles
□ Perceived low levels of empowerment
□ Simple structure
□ Perceived 'passive role' for conservancy
□ Conservancy 'head rights' secure
□ Capital returns accrue to private investor
□ 'Resource-use' fee secure
□ Operating returns accrue to private partner
□ Distributes risks/roles to appropriate parties?
□ Overall, low-risk but low-return model
Some Implications
MOT
Advantages
Disadvantages
□ Clear definition of roles
□ Levels of empowerment still perceived to be low
□ Simple structure
□ Perceived 'passive role' for conservancy
□ Conservancy 'head rights' secure
□ Operating returns accrue to private partner
□ 'Resource-use' fee secure
□ Capital risk with conservancy (or shared with private partner according to % inputs)
□ Capital returns accrue to community (or shared with private partner according to % inputs)
□ Conservancy requires access to large capital sum
Some Implications

9. SOME IMPLICATIONS ON THE BOT (BUILD OPERATE TRANSFER) MODEL
Project financing - Requires no community capital because project is entirely financed by private
partner
Conflict resolution - Contractually governed (Joint Management Committee followed by mediation
and arbitration)
Exit strategies - Contractually governed (termination after exhaustion of required procedures)
Support requirements- Low compared to other options; but still requires support (compliance and
enforcement)

10. SOME IMPLICATIONS ON THE MOT MODEL
Project financing - Requires community capital; fixed assets (or portion of) financed by conservancy;
moveable assets & operating capital by private partner
Conflict resolution - Contractually governed (Joint Management Committee followed by mediation and
arbitration)
Exit strategies - Contractually governed (termination after exhaustion of required procedures)

11. THE END
THANK YOU AND ENJOY THE REST OF THE WORKSHOP