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$ Annual Value US$ Annual Value N$ Job Creation Job Value N$ Training Value N$ Benefits in Kind Value N$ A 150, ,000 98, , , ,000 1,018,600 Allen Cilliers Hunting Safaris 106, , , , ,200 24,000 69, ,890 C 93, ,600 88, , ,300 60, ,900 D 99, ,000 70, , ,700 8, ,700 E 92, ,260 91, , ,440 16, ,700 F 67, ,880 61, , , ,380 G 70, ,270 71, , , ,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

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