Namibia has established a structured tourism concession policy for its protected areas, overseen by the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, aimed at enhancing biodiversity conservation and empowering local communities. The framework prioritizes transparency and fairness in concession awards, with an emphasis on involving formerly disadvantaged Namibians and promoting rural development. Despite the progress made, challenges remain, including political support and competition from other industries.

1. Protected Areas Network
Tourism Concessions
in Namibia’s Protected Areas ✓ Line ministry responsible for environment and
tourism (MET)
✓ Extensive network of PAs & conservancies with
considerable tourism potential
✓ 20 national parks covering 13% of country
Peter John Massyn ✓ 71 communal conservancies covering 20% of
Maputo country
19 March 2012
✓ 3 ‘state concessions’ destined to become
‘Kunene Peoples Park’ ( including 6,000km2
Palmwag Concession)
Institutional Framework
✓ Concessions policy approved by Cabinet in 2007
✓ Operates within existing & draft legal frameworks (Nature
Conservation Ordinance & Parks & Wildlife Bill)
✓ Replaces ad hoc approach of the past
✓ Establishes “standard & robust procedure” for award &
management of tourism concessions on state land
✓ Institutional structure:
− Minister is responsible authority with wide discretion
− Concessions Committee appointed by Minister provides advice &
oversight
− Concessions Unit in the Directorate of Tourism does day-to- day
implementation
✓ Integrated with national CBNRM/conservancy programme
✓ Strong donor & NGO support (EU, World Bank, UNDP, KfW,
MCA, NACSO, etc.)
Policy Objectives Award Process
Balances conservation, commerce & rural development “The process for awarding concessions will be transparent, objective and fair, but with the
empowerment of formerly disadvantaged Namibians as a priority, and preference given to
rural communities…”
✓ To enhance biodiversity conservation through
regulation of commercial operations in PAs
✓ To improve management & control of PAs
✓ To increase revenue generation from PAs
Direct award
✓ To increase economic contribution of PAs
Auction
✓ To advance the ‘economic empowerment’ of
park neighbours and all ‘formerly Tender
disadvantaged Namibians’
✓ To promote sustainable rural development,
poverty alleviation & job creation

2. Direct Award Progress to Date
✓ At the discretion of the Minister (after consultation & guided by policy) ✓ Concessions Committee and Concessions Unit established & operational
(with donor & NGO support)
✓ Preference to ‘communities’ resident in or near protected areas
✓ Standardized procedures & templates adopted & routinely used
✓ Objective is to ‘mitigate costs’, build incentives & stimulate rural development
✓ Several competitive tenders awarding concessions in parks to private firms
✓ Community concessionaires must be legally incorporated, “representative, successfully concluded
accountable and stable”
✓ Direct award of ‘head concessions’ to communities
✓ MET’s role is to: at Palmwag/Skeleton Coast, Etendeka, Hobatere/Etosha State
& Bwabwata (more to follow) ‘Head Concession Contract’
− award ‘head concessions’ to qualifying
communities (mostly conservancies) ✓ Some community concessionaires opted for competitive
tenders to select operating partners (Hobatere, Conservancy
− standardize subaward procedures & oversee
‘Concession Operator Contract’
selection of operating partners White Sands, Bwabwata)
− ensure that communities act in terms of ✓ Others used structured negotiation (RFP, evaluation,
Operator
their mandates & are ‘not exploited’ negotiations, closure) with trusted incumbents to reappoint
operating partners (Etendeka & Palmwag)
Balance Sheet
✓ Extensive & under-developed resource base
✓ Well-developed institutional environment:
− Enabling legislation & policy in place
Thank You!
− MET concessions unit operational
− Standardized procedures & documents in use
− Well-developed CBNRM programme
− Established network of support NGOs
− Fairly large domestic tourism sector
✓ Track record of success
✗ Uneven political support
✗ Competition from state resort company (NWR)
✗ Competition from mining (trumps all)
✗ Sustainability beyond donor support?
✗ Recession in tourism source markets