1. BWABWATA KWANDU HUNTING CONCESSION: A Case Study on Contract Governance

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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?

5. 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

6. 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

7. Reviewing The Offers:

8. 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

9. Practicing for The Interviews

10. Interview Process:
Interviewed the top three offers

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

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