BWABWATA KWANDU HUNTING CONCESSION: A Case Study on Contract Governance

Bwabwata Kwandu Hunting Concession Case Study By: Chris Weaver, Richard Diggle, & Theunis Petersen Organizations: WWF and IRDNC, NNF and MET Region: Caprivi Date: June, 2006

Introduction & Background Community: Kyramacan Association, represents close to 7,000 residents of Bwabwata NP; Members Association registered to serve as co-manager Bwabwata NP; struggled to acquire recognition since independence; In 2006, finally recognized and granted the rights to benefit from Park resources; Context: new community body tasked with effectively tendering and negotiating the two hunting concessions in transparent and optimal manner

Problem Identification Tendering and contracting a new experience for the Association; Some safari companies were attempting to influence key committee members by offering special “deals”; Would the concessions be transparently awarded to the benefit of the broader membership or to the gain of individuals?

Importance of Case Study To Good Governance: The transparent tendering and negotiation of hunting (or lodge) contracts is critical to the credibility of the CBNRM Programme – Ensures integrity to the process; Optimizes returns to communities; and Leads to true community empowerment

The Tender Process Quota approved by MET; Association advertised concessions through NAPHA via letter; Tender document sent to interested big game hunters; 8 Tenders received; Tenders reviewed and top offers chosen for interviews

Reviewing The Offers:

Tender Results: Operator Guaranteed Quota Optional Quota Jobs Training Others Total Values of Offers in N$ (not including Optional Value) Annual Value US$ Annual Value N$ Job Creation Job Value N$ Training Value N$ Benefits in Kind Value N$   A 150,000 930,000 98,000 607,600 10 48,600 - 40,000 1,018,600 Allen Cilliers Hunting Safaris 106,200 658,440 112,200 695,640 12 91,200 24,000 69,250 842,890 C 93,000 576,600 88,300 547,460 16 33,300 60,000 669,900 D 99,750 620,000 70,800 438,960 7 26,700 8,000 654,700 E 92,300 572,260 91,250 565,750 18,440 16,000 606,700 F 67,400 417,880 61,650 382,230 13 52,500 470,380 G 70,850 439,270 71,600 443,920 15,827 455,097

Practicing for The Interviews

Interview Process: Interviewed the top three offers

Final Results of Tender Process Highest offer was turned down, even though it was much more than second-next offer; Community experience with Safari Company offering the highest amount had been very bad in the past; Committee opted for second highest offer, as the operator was deemed to be the best combination of partner and income; and The interests of individual committee members were overcome by the wishes of the broader committee

Intervention Description: Offers were publicly opened in a transparent manner; Offers were compared by the entire committee; Trade-offs (pros and cons) were openly discussed by the entire committee; Tender process was guided by a diverse mix of unbiased stakeholders (i.e., committee, MET, NGO, and private sector); Strong facilitation was required to ensure all committee members had a say in the selection process

Final Results: Community was empowered with not only right to benefit, but also with right of choice; Some safari operators have continued to attempt to influence the committee and individuals on the committee, but failed; Excellent results have been achieved, but it has not been without challenges

Lessons Learned: The greater the transparency in a tender process, the better the process is; Involving the entire committee increases the chances that decisions with integrity will be made; A good tender process requires considerable knowledge and skills transfer, and confidence building; Knowledgeable facilitators are a essential to creating a level playing field for communities to negotiate with private sector

Conclusion True empowerment is not only about the rights to benefits, but about the right of knowledgeable choice The Beginning …