Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Capacity development for local participation in community based natural resource management of Namibia… Taye, Meseret 2008

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2008_spring_taye_meseret.pdf [ 1.54MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0066319.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0066319-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0066319-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0066319-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0066319-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0066319-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0066319-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

      CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT FOR LOCAL PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNITY BASED NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OF NAMIBIA: THE #KHOADI //HÔAS CONSERVANCY EXPERIENCE  by  MESERET TAYE       A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  MASTER OF SCIENCE  in   THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES    (Community and Regional Planning)     THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (VANCOUVER)   March 2008  © Meseret Taye, 2008    ii ABSTRACT  Namibia’s community based natural resource management program (CBNRM) integrates local participation in rural development and biodiversity conservation. This effort was launched through key legislation that devolved the right to manage wildlife and other renewable resources on communal lands from the state to community level conservancies. Local participation is dependent upon the capacity of the locals to self mobilize and establish conservancies, plan and implement their programs, and monitor and evaluate their progresses and impacts. Accordingly, this study examines the role of capacity development (CD) in CBNRM, particularly its processes, products, performance, and permanence at the individual, organizational (conservancy), and community levels. The research was carried out using interviews and participatory self-assessment exercises with various conservancy stakeholders.  This study uncovers why and how capacity development has to be based on local realities and aspirations where capacity users need to have ownership of the process through partnerships with service providers in order to enhance endogenous capacity. However, such notion of “partnership” between CD stakeholders is challenging to translate into reality in the face of power imbalances, where government and NGOs are continuously influenced and coerced by donor interests, where NGOs are considered stronger than the government because they control more financial and human resources, and where conservancies tend to report upwards to NGOs and government instead of their constituents. Moreover, this research reiterates that CD has to be holistic enough to incorporate individual, organizational, and community level changes in order to create sustainable capacities and prevent problems of elitism, manipulation, and dependency on few individuals.  With respect to CBNRM, the research argues that its basic premise of diversifying rural livelihoods using incentive to bring about sustainable resource management can only be achieved when conservancies have the capacity to create representative and participatory democratic processes, and when they are able to generate equitable and reliable tangible benefits with manageable costs to their constituents. As seen in this study, when such governance and benefit sharing structures are in place, they enhance local participation by promoting political empowerment, trust, ownership, and positive attitude towards living with wildlife. However, if such conditions are not met, local participation is reduced, while intra-community conflicts from marginalization to nepotism and members’ dissatisfaction and disinterest are inevitable.   iii Table of Contents  ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................................ ii TABLE OF CONTENTS.......................................................................................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................... vi LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................................................. vii LIST OF BOXES..................................................................................................................................... viii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................................................... ix DEDICATION.............................................................................................................................................x  1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 1.1. Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) as Inspiration..............................1 1.2. Finding My Voice: Traversing through Cross Cultures and Diverse Expectations ......................3 1.3. The Relevance and Rational of the Research................................................................................5 1.4. The Evolution of Natural Resource Management.........................................................................7 1.5. The Analytical Framework of the Research................................................................................13 1.6. Local Participation in CBNRM...................................................................................................18 1.6.1. Empowerment.......................................................................................................................23 1.6.2. Equity ...................................................................................................................................25 1.7. Capacity Development for Local Participation...........................................................................27 1.8. Structure of the Thesis ................................................................................................................31  2. THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF CBNRM AND  ASSOCIATED CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN NAMIBIA ...............................................33 2.1. Community Based Natural Resource Management in Namibia .................................................33 2.2. Influential Actors and Factors for Conservancies of Namibia ....................................................33 2.2.1. Land Tenure, Land Use Practices, and their Institutions in Namibia ...................................34 2.2.2. From National Parks to Conservancies: History of Conservation ........................................40 2.2.3. Tourism as Development Enterprise in Namibian Communal Conservancies.....................46 2.3. Capacity Development for Local Participation in Namibian Conservancies..............................50 2.3.1. Pre-Conservancy Formation Capacity Needs:......................................................................50 2.3.2. Post-Conservancy Formation Capacities ..............................................................................51 2.4. The Namibian CBNRM Capacity Development Institutional Framework .................................51 2.4.1. Donors ..................................................................................................................................53 2.4.2. State ......................................................................................................................................53 2.4.3. NGOs....................................................................................................................................54 2.4.4. Private Enterprises................................................................................................................56 2.5. The #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy ..............................................................................................57 2.5.1. Biophysical Features of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy ........................................................59 2.5.2. Socio-Economic Features of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy.................................................59 2.6. The Capacity Development Institutional Arrangements for #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy .......62 2.6.1. CD through the FIRM Approach..........................................................................................62 2.6.2. CD through NACSO.............................................................................................................64 2.6.3. CD through the Private Sector (The Lodge Management) ...................................................64  3. USING THE PAST AND THE PRESENT AS TOMORROW’S  GUIDE: EVALUATING  CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN  #KHOADI //HÔAS CONSERVANCY ..........................66 3.1. Case Study Methodology in an Evaluation Research .................................................................66 3.2. Designing the Evaluation Research Framework .........................................................................67 3.3. Criteria for Evaluation of Capacity Development.......................................................................68 3.3.1. Criteria for CD Process: .......................................................................................................68 3.3.2. Criteria for CD Tools:...........................................................................................................69 3.3.3. Criteria for CD Performance or Outcomes:..........................................................................69   iv 3.3.4. Permanence or Sustainability of New Capacities or Products..............................................70 3.4. The Research Methods and Data Sources ...................................................................................70 3.4.1. Group 1: In-depth Interviews with Individual Beneficiaries of CD .....................................71 3.4.2. Group 2: Participatory Self-Assessment Exercise in Focus Group Settings ........................71 3.4.3. Group 3: In Depth Interviews with Registered Conservancy Members ...............................72 3.4.4. Group 4: Key informant Interviews with CD Experts and Trainers.....................................72 3.4.5. Group 5: Reviewing Relevant Documents ...........................................................................73 3.5. Data Sampling Techniques .........................................................................................................73 3.6. Participatory Self Assessment of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy’s Capacity...............................74 3.7. Limitations and Challenges of the Research ...............................................................................78  4. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN CBNRM OF NAMIBIA: HOW GOVERNMENT,  NGOS, AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES DEVELOP THE CAPACITY OF COMMUNAL  CONSERVANCIES TO ENHANCE LOCAL PARTICIPATION .........................................82 4.1. Understanding of Capacity Development in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy .................................83 4.2. The CD Program Framework in Khaodi Hôas Conservancy ......................................................84 4.2.1. Initial Contact .......................................................................................................................84 4.2.2. Preliminary Consultation/ Needs Assessment ......................................................................85 4.2.3. Preparation of Training Materials.........................................................................................86 4.2.4. Training Proper.....................................................................................................................86 4.2.5. Monitoring............................................................................................................................86 4.2.6. Evaluation.............................................................................................................................87 4.3. Scales of Intervention in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy CD Process ............................................89 4.4. Stakeholders Relationship in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy CD Process .....................................92 4.5. Time and Commitment in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy CD Process..........................................95 4.6. The Capacity Development Tools: Integration of Theory and Practice......................................97 4.7. Ease of Comprehension, Use of Local Knowledge, and Accessibility .......................................99 4.8. Summary of Findings of CD Tools and Processes of ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy ...............104  5. THE CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PRODUCTS AT INDIVIDUAL, CONSERVANCY,  AND COMMUNITY LEVELS AND THEIR PERFORMANCE AND PERMANENCE IN  #KHOADI //HÔAS CONSERVANCY.....................................................................................107 5.1. New Capacities and Their Outcomes at the Individual Level...................................................107 5.1.1.Social Empowerment..............................................................................................................108 5.1.2.Psychological Empowerment .................................................................................................109 5.1.3.Manipulation Using Newly Gained Knowledge and Influence..............................................110 5.2. New Capacities and Their Outcomes at Organizational or Conservancy Level ......................111 5.2.1. Democratic Decision Making Processes: Inequitable Democracy .....................................112 5.2.2. Organizational Structure: Voluntary Participation and Lack of Incentives........................116 5.2.3. Communication Strategies: Gap of Information and Lack of Interest................................117 5.2.4. Benefit Sharing Plan: Inequitable Distribution Benefits ....................................................119 5.3. New Capacities and Their Outcomes at Community Level ......................................................120 5.3.1. Political Empowerment ......................................................................................................121 5.3.2. Change of Attitude towards Wildlife..................................................................................122 5.3.3. Strong Group Identity and Collective Ownership of the Conservancy ..............................123 5.3.4. Marginalization and Lack of Interest amongst Members ...................................................125 5.3.5. Nepotism.............................................................................................................................127 5.4. Summary of New Capacities and their Outcomes on Local Participation ...............................129 5.5. Permanence of New Capacities.................................................................................................130 5.5.1. Conducive Internal Environment........................................................................................130 5.5.2. Incentives............................................................................................................................131 5.5.3. Capacities Utilization and Ecological and Financial Sustainability ...................................132 5.5.4. The External Policy Environment ......................................................................................133 5.5.5. The Ideologies behind the CD Objectives ..........................................................................134   v 5.6. Summary of Findings of CD Products, Performance and Permanence ...................................134  6. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT FOR  LOCAL PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................................137 6.1. Where Do We Go From Here: Recommendations for Improvement .......................................147  7. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................................................155 7.1. Future Research Topics.............................................................................................................158  BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................................................................................................160  APPENDICES .........................................................................................................................................181 Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................177 Appendix B ............................................................................................................................................180 Appendix C ............................................................................................................................................186 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................................188 Appendix E................................................................................................................................................191 Appendix F ................................................................................................................................................202      vi LIST OF TABLES  Table 2.1 List of Organizations Under NACSO and Their CD Focus ........................................................55 Table 5.1 Summary of the CD Products and Outcomes on Local Participation .......................................129   vii LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1.1 Analytical Framework of the Research......................................................................................15 Figure 2.1 Map of Registered and Emerging Communal Conservancies of Namibia (2004).....................44 Figure 2.2 Funding Relationships and Institutional Arrangements of CD in CBNRM...............................52 Figure 2.3 Pictures of Hoada Campsite and Grootberg Lodge....................................................................58 Figure 2.4 Map of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy ........................................................................................60 Figure 2.5 The Eight Farmers Associations in #Khoadi ||Hôas Conservancy.............................................61 Figure 2.6 FIRM Stakeholders Structure.....................................................................................................63 Figure 4.1 Capacity Development Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation ..........................................88 Figure 4.2 The CD Scales of #Khoadi //Hoas Conservancy .......................................................................90 Figure 4.3 Sample Check Used for Financial Training ...............................................................................99 Figure 5.1 Location of the Conservancy Office in Relation to the Farmers Associations ........................114 Figure 6.1 Groups within Farmers’ Associations of #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy....................................150    viii LIST OF BOXES  Box 1.1 Objectives of Communal Conservancies of Namibia ....................................................................12 Box 1.2 Various Levels of Capacity Development .....................................................................................16 Box 1.3 Types of Capacities Needed by Local Administrative/Organizations Units .................................17 Box 2.1 Ministry of Environment and Tourism Requirements to Establish Conservancies .......................50 Box 4.1 Interactive Learning of Conservancy Financial Management .....................................................101 Box 5.1 Article 12 of the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy Constitution ..................................................... 113   ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS  This research was possible because of the following institutions and individuals who provided me their support. I am grateful to my colleague Dr. Taye Teferi, the Conservation Programme Director of World Wildlife Fund in Eastern Africa, for encouraging me to do my research in Namibia.  I would like to acknowledge the International Development Research Center (IDRC) in Canada, specifically the Evaluation Unit, for granting me the financial support that made this research possible.  I thank my advisors Dr. Leonora Angeles, Dr. Michael Leaf, and Dr. Melody Hessing for their insightful guidance and valuable advice.  I thank the staff members of University of Namibia-Multidisciplinary Research Center (UNAM/MRC) for approving my research affiliation and for offering me office space, collegial atmosphere, and appropriate guidance throughout my research. I especially thank Alfons Mosimane, Johanna Mbandi, and Selma Lendelvo from the CBNRM Unit for their support and friendship.  I am indebted to Sherline Francis from WWF-LIFE Namibia for her diligent support, kindness, and friendship throughout my six months stay in Namibia. I especially appreciate her help in translating various documents from English to Afrikaans.  I am grateful to the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy management committee members and conservancy registered farmers for providing their valuable time for interviews and focus group discussions. I want to particularly thank the conservancy office staff Bernadus “Bob” Guibeb and Helga Howases for their well-organized and superb guidance and assistance throughout my field stay. I am especially indebted to Helga Howases for graciously welcoming me into her home during my field visits, and for her willingness to share her vast knowledge and information about the conservancy. I thank Eben Hoeb for his patience and courtesy during the countless hours we spent together translating interviews to research participants.  I want to express my gratitude to the staff members of Ministry of Environment and Tourism, Desert Research Foundation of Namibia, Namibia Nature Foundation, the Grootberg Lodge, and the couple from the US who lived in Namibia during the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy initiation for providing their valuable time for my long interviews.  I am thankful to my friends at the School of Community and Regional Planning (SCARP) for their friendship and lasting memories.  Last but not least, I am fortunate enough to be surrounded and guided with loving, supportive, and encouraging parents, sisters, extended family members, and life-time friends. I would like to particularly thank my aunt and uncle Drs. Maigenet Shifferraw and Getachew Metaferia to whom I am dedicating this work, for being my inspirations, and for providing me their unwavering support, love, and care throughout my many life endeavors.    x DEDICATION              To my beloved aunt and uncle       Dr. Maigenet Shifferraw and Dr. Getachew Metaferia  1 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) as Inspiration    The idea for this research came from an “inspirational” story that I learned about during my professional endeavor with a conservation organization prior to joining graduate school. The story was about an eco-development initiative in Nepal where local people who live adjacent to the Royal Chitwan National Park in Baghmara Region created an impressive model of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM). As many of the CBNRM projects throughout the world, this program was financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), other bi and multi-lateral development agencies, and international non- government conservation organizations (NGOs), and is praised for successfully integrating ecological conservation with socio-economic needs of the local people through reforestation and ecotourism enterprises (Dinerstein 2002). My understanding of the Nepal project and subsequent readings on similar projects revealed that many CBNRM models around the world are based on “western” ideologies with already predetermined objectives and outcomes, and they may even qualify as impositions of the developed world on those considered as undeveloped countries as another trial and error experiment of development.   Most CBNRM programs tend to have westernized organizational structure and bureaucracy and exist either as community-led and administered initiatives, or as co- management schemes with government or NGOs, and they generate funding through joint- ventures with private tourism enterprises. They are mostly managed with committee structures using representative governance rules.  Recognizing that CBNRM models and principles are not locally-induced and may even be imposed as “interventions” by outsiders such as donors, NGOs, and governments, my particular interest is if and how local people were able to participate in them successfully to bring about endogenous empowerment, equity, and thus self-reliance using the capacity development opportunities provided as components of the package. Accordingly, my first inquiry was how local people from rural areas where westernized skills or material and financial resources are meager if not non-existent were able to fulfill the overwhelming and sophisticated responsibilities of creating a western-style organization such as CBNRM and its institutions.   2  Some of the issues that intrigued me were: How local people in rural settings knew how to • register members and mobilize their community around the idea of CBNRM • assess the needs, visions, and aspirations of their members • create a new organizational structure and appropriate rules for resource use • develop administrative, financial, benefit sharing, and resource management plans • develop proposals and ideas for fundraising • Get into legal contractual joint-venture agreements with private enterprises • conduct or facilitate meetings, or negotiate and resolve conflicts • establish equitable decision making mechanisms such as elections • create forums for those marginalized people in their communities • develop ecotourism enterprises, business plans or marketing strategies • enhance transparency and financial accountability • incorporate traditional knowledge and values in their management plans • develop communication strategies to reach their constituents • create linkages with other conservancies and relevant stakeholders • monitor and evaluate their own activities and performance   The above questions led me to believe that capacity development is essential and critical component of effective local participation when the responsibility of natural resource management is transferred from government to newly organized organizations and institutions1 that are made up of “community members”. Community is defined here as a group of people who share resources (human, financial, material, and natural) in their areas for their livelihoods through formal or informal institutions and networks. Hence, I focused my study on capacity development and how it is used to enhance local participation in CBNRM initiatives. Once I knew the topic and focus of my research, I needed to make a decision of where in Africa I was going to do my research. This is because as an African woman who has spent half my life in the western world, I thought this would give me an opportunity to learn from other Africans as I get grounded through enriching field research experience. So I began exploring for an appropriate  1 The terms organizations and institutions are used interchangeably in much of the literature so it is important to understand that institutions are “the existing and traditional codes of conduct” and locally accepted “dos and don’ts, regulations, and policies” (Fabricius 2004, p. 38).  These codes of conduct are also the framework for creating the structures for organizations.   3 study site and corresponded with a colleague. My colleague suggested Namibia as a possible study site and described the CBNRM program in Namibia in the following manner:  In Namibia ownership of natural resources by local communities is enshrined in the constitution. This means that local communities are able to enter into meaningful arrangements with outside investors to set up eco-tourism enterprises in their areas  and in some cases even develop their own eco-tourism facilities and reap better income based on the principle of sustained use of natural resources. They operate through the setting up of local 'conservancies' and imparting management and business skills to the people over time. The WWF Project LIFE (Living In Finite Environment) is considered the leading authority/proponent and facilitator. (E-mail Correspondence with a colleague from Eastern Africa)  I was sold to the idea of doing my study in Namibia and began to explore for funding assistance and secured the necessary funds from the International Development Research Center (IDRC).  1.2. Finding My Voice: Traversing through Cross Cultures and Diverse Expectations  One of the predicaments that I have grappled with when writing the findings of this research comes from wanting to find a balanced voice to fulfill conflicting expectations emanating from the academic world, my own interest, and those who work on the specific research matter on the ground.  I needed to produce a thesis that can clearly problematize and critically view issues based on theoretical foundations as required by the academic world whilst expected to produce “constructive” and “practical” empirical work that can give clear direction for how to go forward with the already existing experiences of CBNRM without losing objectivity in the process. This topped with my own internal passion to make this research a tangible contribution and a way of “giving back” to a continent that I left many years ago. As if these complexities are not enough, I am also supposed to do this research within an evaluation framework since it is the basic requirement of the funding agency that supported my research.    I considered practicality as one of my research standards since I wanted to make sure that the research findings mattered to those on the ground. Many indigenous communities across the world and countries from the “global south” including Namibia are increasingly recognizing the importance of having the right and ownership of outsiders’ researches and they are formulating criteria for ethical considerations on how researchers should conduct themselves and, even going further to demand for researches that pay specific attention to their own local needs (González and Lincoln 2006). Accordingly, Namibia has a formal procedure and defined criteria that all  4 researchers have to fulfill before they begin their research. These procedures are expected to help the country benefit from the findings of outsiders’ researches effectively while opening an avenue to develop endogenous research capacity through north-south partnerships as highlighted on the agreement I signed with University of Namibia/Multi-disciplinary Research Center (UNAM/MRC)2. So the question of making my research “practical” was no more just my interest or even an option, but it became an official prerequisite that I had to fulfill in order to get the necessary permission, affiliation, and even visa to enter the country to do the research.  The following particular clause from the agreement and the subsequent e-mail correspondence I had with UNAM/MRC staff shows the importance of practicality clearly.  A. General: 1. The MRCC will give priority in its affiliation to researchers / students who pursue issues within the focal areas of the Centre (Agreement between UNAM/MRC and   Students Pgs. 1).  In addition, as part of the procedure, I have been asked to respond to two critical questions as stated below:  Can you also send us a statement (short letter) indicating: What is the benefit of the research to Namibia in general and the CBNRM Programme in particular? And How will University of Namibia benefit from your association with us?” (E-mail correspondence with UNAM/MRC staff)    My second encounter about making my research “practically relevant” to those on the ground is associated with a discussion I had with an official from southern Africa who came to Canada for a meeting a few months prior to my trip to Namibia. The official’s immediate responsibilities were to oversee the management of the country’s different scale tourism enterprises. During our conversation, I candidly mentioned some of the critical stances and problems encountered with the implementation of CBNRM and associated ecotourism initiatives in the official’s own country based on what I learned from my readings. The official disagreed and stated that researchers especially those who come from the west are creating many problems for them and hindering their good work. The person referred to many researches that are based on critical observations, and give high emphasis to “finding faults” but are short from providing  2 This agreement has been presented to UBC’s Behavioral Ethics Review Board as a support document of the Ethics Review Application and has been reviewed and approved.   5 practical and straight forward solutions and recommendations for improving their programs. The person also stated   “We want you to be objective as a researcher and we are open to criticisms, but you should also understand the complexities and limited capacities that we are struggling with and make your research constructively critical and practically relevant so we can use your findings to improve our programs on the ground!!” (Comment from a high official working on CBNRM related tourism initiatives)  I also learned that due to problems associated with outside researchers, the specific country in discussion had to reassess its policy and formulate “tough” measures to scrutinize outsiders and their research works. The person attested that considering the strict policy the country has on outside researchers, there was a high probability that I may not have been allowed to do my research if it was in that specific country given I am taking a critical stance.    Hence, I needed to find a voice that can put together these different perspectives and expectations as one. However, as I was struggling through this process, I discovered that speaking with just one voice is going to be challenging without undermining one perspective over the other. So I decided to use one of the important recommendations put forward by González and Lincoln (2006) for how to meander through multiple perspectives in non- traditional cross-cultural research.  I recognized that instead of trying to create a balanced one voice in writing this thesis, I needed to use multiple voices to respond to my needs and aspirations as a researcher, the expectations of my academic institution, and those who work or have a say in the specific research matter back in Africa. These voices that are caught in different cultures, ideologies, and perspectives are expected to have various points of conflicts. I evidenced these voices and conflicts through the various iterations and revisions of the thesis and, I am hoping they are also clearly obvious to readers in this last version as well.  1.3. The Relevance and Rational of the Research     This case study is important at this current time for two reasons. Firstly, it is carried out at a time when the popularity of local participation is increasingly influencing development assistance policies and resource allocations. As part of its poverty alleviation strategy in Africa, the World Bank increased its loans for Community-Based Development (CBD) and Community Driven Development (CDD) initiatives from $325 Million in 1996 to $2 Billion in 2003  6 (Mansuri and Rao 2003). In addition, in spite of its many critics, CBNRM still holds popularity within development organizations (Blaikie 2005).  Hence this research illustrates that the success of community based initiatives are dependent upon the capacity of the locals to self mobilize and establish their own organizations and institutions, plan and implement their actions, as well as monitor and evaluate their impacts and progresses. This means capacity development is essential and critical component of effective local participation in community based development initiatives.    Similarly, the Principles of Agenda 21 for Sustainable Development that came out of the United Nations’ Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) at Rio de Jeniero’s Earth Summit in 1992 illustrate the importance of integrating local participation with capacity development for sustainable development (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 1999). The Earth Summit strongly advocated for combination of measures involving government decentralization, devolution of natural resource management on communal lands to local communities, and community participation for sustainable resource management (Leach 1990). These principles also highlighted the importance of citizen’s participation particularly women, youth, and indigenous communities in resource management and environmental issues, and the states’ responsibilities to encourage public awareness through information dissemination. They also identify the need for endogenous capacity development in the forms of financial and technological resource support, education, technical assistance, and training for effective citizen participation and to bring about ecologically sustainable development (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 1999).   The second importance is at the country level because the research took place 10 years after the 1996 historic legislation of “The Nature Conservation Act” of Namibia that gave proprietorship of wildlife to communal residents who can organize themselves in conservancies, and are able to sustain ably utilize and benefit from the resources in their surroundings. Recognizing that many types of  researches and monitoring and evaluation exercises have been carried out on conservancies of Namibia previously, I believe this thesis will also be valuable in highlighting the opportunities and challenges encountered thus far so conservancy stakeholders gain better understanding of the issues. My pre-research inquiry with the experts on the ground showed that many of the studies concentrated on evaluating conservancies to determine if they have met policy objectives, or to understand their impacts on biodiversity conservation and  7 economic development. However, there was no study done on the types of capacity development provided to conservancies or the performance of the new capacities on the ground (Personal Communication with A. Mosimane). Accordingly, this research is influential to provide an overall assessment of the capacity development processes employed by the Namibian government, NGOs, and private enterprises, and it can also reveal any gaps in the CD processes, and the consequences and deficiencies in conservancy performance. It also examines if and how conservancy members translated and utilized their new skills, enhanced knowledge, and attitudinal changes to participate and benefit from their conservancies effectively and efficiently, while utilizing their natural resources wisely. Moreover, this research provides insights if the new capacities were successful in creating strong organizations and institutions that can foster social capital, trust, confidence, democratization, and effective economic benefits at the community levels. Furthermore, the results of this research complement the existing knowledge of indicators or criteria for evaluating capacity development.  1.4. The Evolution of Natural Resource Management     Resource management is a human enterprise with various goals, interpretations, and approaches. Deep ecologists who give maximum importance to species’ rights hold a firm belief that full preservation of all species and habitats should be the goal so they believe in conserving some of the unspoiled remaining wilderness and wildlife (Singer 1993). This is what (Blaikie and Jeanrenaud as quoted by Alcorn 2005) call as the “classic” historically dominant, bullets- and-barbed-wire protected-areas approach that is usually implemented by excluding or forcefully removing people. Such idea of “protecting wilderness” was also used as a tool to “divide and conquer” most of Africa including Namibia during the colonial era (Barnard et al. 1998; Nelson 2003; Neuman 1998).  Others acknowledge the goal of maintaining adequate diversity of species and habitats to ensure biodiversity for future generations through wise use of resources (Alcorn 2005; Janzen 2001b). This approach is popularly used to reverse discriminatory practices of the colonial era (Neumann 1998b) as it integrates participatory and people-centered strategies with liberalized market based approaches to create economic incentives for sustainable natural resource management (Alcorn 2005). Such integration of participatory and liberal-market based approaches of natural resource management  led to the emergence of a new concept called “eco- development” (Bookbinder 1998).  Such “eco-development” interventions were implemented in  8 the form of CBNRM with various tourism components to generate financial support for managing both the natural as well as human capital (Dinerstein 2002).  Before CBNRM surfaced in formal nature conservation discussions, the concept and its practices existed in Africa informally through various traditional systems (Fabricius 2004). Traditionally, people relied heavily on natural resources. As a result, they established their own customary governance and regulatory systems based on their traditional knowledge and belief systems. These customary regulations were integrated with various coping strategies such as the ones below to prevent over-usage of resources associated with population density (Bernard and Kumalo 2004; Fabricius 2004; Kepe and Scoones 1999; Sibanda 2004). Some of these practices include: • Pastoral livelihoods and people’s seasonal movements facilitating sustainable resource use; • Forests and wildlife species considered as sacred and prohibited from use; • Controlled patch burning as a way of enriching grazing for wildlife; • Controlled hunting where animals are hunted for certain months and left alone for the rest of the year; • Informal institutions led by traditional leaders playing a role in land distributions and land and resource use designations and enforcements  The arrival of colonial powers in much of Africa brought uncontrolled hunting through commodification of wildlife for hunting and safari, introduction of sedentary lifestyle through livestock farming and agriculture, and the introduction of invasive alien plant and animal species (Fabricius 2004).  Locally derived institutions and regulations no longer became relevant as the new way of extracting resources became economically lucrative.  Soon after their arrival, the Portuguese, British, and particularly the Dutch colonists started hunting large quantities of game, especially elephant. They would disappear into the interior for months and return with wagonloads of ivory (Fabricius 2004, p. 5).  Starting from the early 1920s, many of the policy makers of the colonial administration began to realize that natural resources are being exploited at an alarming rate. So a new strategy of setting aside vast tract of land for protection as parks or game reserves was introduced with dual purposes of preserving wild places and animals and controlling the movements of people  9 (Neumann 1998a; Schroeder 1999). In 1900, ministers representing the African colonial powers signed the first international conservation treaty: the Convention for the Preservation of Animals (Fabricius 2004). This classical fortress conservation caused the forceful removal and displacement of indigenous communities from lands earmarked for conservation, forestry, and agriculture (Fabricius 2004). Hardin’s “Tragedy of the commons” ideology of 1968 also strengthened the argument for strict preservation of resources. Hardin argued that common property resources would be over-exploited because of the inherent human nature to maximize individual benefits, causing overuse of the resources unless these resources were enclosed and protected with strong state regulations (Hardin 1968). Most of the park systems in Africa that exist by the early 2000s are designated through such coercive and non-participatory park policies. Though many of these policies are imposed by the then colonial rulers, the national governments that took over after independence continued the status quo (Neumann 1998b). Much of the local communities’ participation in response to this approach is characterized with resistance through actions of organized protests, violence, or day to day poaching and resource theft causing frequent and chronic decline in state managed resources (Neumann 2005).  The concept of CBNRM began proliferating in the 1990s as a way of reversing such top- down approaches with participatory and market based theories and practices.  New ideas are needed in biodiversity conservation because local people all too often see parks as government-imposed restrictions on their traditional rights (Oldfield quoted by Neumann 2005, P. 184).   The Theory of Common Property (CPT) which is the foundation for most of the CBNRM programs across the world refuted Hardin’s theory on the premise that local people will have greater interest in using their resources sustain ably if given the opportunities to participate and benefit from these resources (Baland and Platteau 1996; Murphree 1997; Ostrom 1990; Wade 1987). Provided that the benefits outweigh the costs, and communities gain satisfactory ownership, CBNRM has the ability to raise awareness and change people’s attitudes towards resource conservation and sustainable use (Steiner and Rehoy 1995). In short, (Dietz et. al. 2003) suggest access restrictions and incentives as the two basic components for successful common pool resource management. In addition, CBNRM is purported to facilitate the opportunity for local people to use their traditional knowledge of ecological processes and practices to manage  10 their resources through effective local forms of access and governing structures (Borrini- Feyerabend and Tarnowski 2005; Tsing 2005).  These common property theories emerged with pre-determined principles or criteria on how to successfully design CBNRM as shown below (Agarawal 2003; Dietz et. al. 2003; Shackleton 2000). • There should be small group of users in well defined area with diverse and flexible range of livelihood  options; • the production potential of the resource must be maintained with high levels  of dependency on the resource by the users, and there should also be an easier  way to monitor resource use; • appropriate leadership and organizations for local governance and  resource  management should be in place through partnerships with traditional leaders; • high social capital, frequent face to face communications, and shared   norms should exist between resource users; • economic and other benefits need to be in place to provide incentives to resource   users in order to enhance wise use of resources; • easy and understandable state policies, community derived natural   resource rules, and accountability and willingness by the users in enforcing   the policies and rules are important; and • state that divides power and doesn’t undermine local authority is mandatory.    Although the concept of CBNRM is hailed and promoted as an effective option for rural development and sustainable natural resource management, it is also criticized as an over- simplified concept that has not defined complexities adequately. Critics laid out many reasons for its failure to meet the theoretically predicted sustainable resource management and benefits on the ground (Blaikie 2005, Leach 1999). One of the arguments is the concept of “community” which is considered as a homogenous unit in which people share common interest and needs (Agarwal and Gibson 1999). Many studies revealed that it is important to consider community differences in terms of gender, class, ethnicity, age, religion, even education level, and how these differences determine resource entitlement (Agarwal and Gibson 1999; Agarwal 2001; Cornwall 1998; Leach 1999). Others argue that local elites with higher status or education may attempt to take advantage of the opportunity of CBNRM by taking unfair share of benefits from meat  11 distribution, donor funds, or through their dominant influence in the political processes at the expense of the poorest and marginalized members (Fabricius 2004). Poor local administrative capacity in CBNRM in terms of organizational and institutional structure can lead to corruption and manipulation (Boggs 2004; Chau 2005). Another shortcoming comes from conflicts of ideologies between scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge (Blaikie 2005). Much of the CBNRM concepts and principles are grounded with modern science with little room to integrate local knowledge. Even if there is an integration of local knowledge, the tendency is to conform such knowledge to the goals and principles of the scientific knowledge (Blaikie 2005). Informal institutions such as traditional authorities have insignificant or an ambiguous role in many CBNRM programs, although they have a key and supportive role in natural resource management. This has created conflicts between the formal (CBNRM) and informal institutions (Headmen) in many African countries including Namibia (Nott and Jacobsohn 2004). Some argue that the perceived community development and associated benefits have not been realized in many cases largely because more emphasis was given to the conservation objectives (Blaikie 2005). This is because much of the financial and material benefits are overestimated rising unnecessary and false expectations within the membership (Blaikie 2005; Fabricius 2004). Hence, some called the CBNRM approach a continuation of traditional conservation but with more attractive features attached to it:  …land acquisition for conservation in the non-formal sense with a focus on effective protection and policing of an internationally-valued wildlife… (Sullivan 2002, p. 165)   Such criticisms are getting recognized and donors who supported CBNRM in the past in southern Africa, such as the UK Department of International Development (DfID), are questioning its role in poverty alleviation and community economic development, and withdrew their support in recent years (Jones 2004). Yet others argue that with the interjection of the neo- liberal approaches of tying in economic development and thus accumulation of material wealth, the objective of conservation is undermined or  is last (Bar-On 2006).  However, in spite of its wide criticisms and skepticisms mostly from academic and project related evaluations for the past 15 years, CBNRM is still widely practiced across the globe, and is popular with development assistance programs of many bi and multi-lateral organizations such as the World Bank, United States Agency for International Development  12 (USAID) and United Nations Development Program (UNDP), as well as conservation organizations such as World Wildlife Fund. Blaikie (2005, p. 1954) articulates this appeal to CBNRM as the following:  CBNRM is porous, can absorb all manner of different agendas, and is rich in the variety of benefits it promises, and there appears to be ‘‘something in it for everybody’’   Following this global phenomena, Namibia, a country in southwest of Africa, devolved its natural resource management on communal lands from the central government to the communities that live on them organized within local administrative units called conservancies through The Nature Conservation Amendment Act of 1996 (NACSO 2004).The main aim of the legislation is to ‘establish an economically-based system for the management and utilization of wildlife and other renewable living resources on communal land’ (MET 1995a, p. 2). Conservancies are legally defined areas in which rural communities have the rights to use, manage, and benefit from wildlife (NACSO 2004). Policies are also in place to facilitate local empowerment and economic opportunities through consumptive and non consumptive resource uses without compromising local and traditional values (NACSO 2004). Consumptive uses are activities related to direct extraction and utilization of resources such as trophy hunting and wildlife game meat distribution, while non consumptive uses involve non-direct use of resources such as ecotourism and craft sales. Hence, the Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) program in Namibia is a multidisciplinary approach that integrates conservation with the socio-economic needs of the local people (NACSO 2004). Objectives A and D of the historic 1996 Nature Conservation Amendment Act, as seen on Box 1.1 below identify local participation, which is also the unit of analysis for this research, as the key strategy by which conservancies operate.   13  Box 1.1 Objectives of Communal Conservancies of Namibia    Local participation within Namibian conservancies is expected to empower communities to participate in democratic decision-making processes, enhance equitability to those who are marginalized in rural areas, improve livelihood sustainability through diverse financial means, and create a framework to protect biodiversity (NACSO 2004; Ashley 1998; and Jones 1999a). This model of CBNRM is claimed to be Southern Africa’s most advanced, progressive, and people-oriented initiative to date (Jones 1998). In the next section, I will show the analytical focus of this research, and attempt to address the concepts of local participation and capacity development in general, and within the Namibian context in particular. As the purported outcomes of local participation and capacity development, I will also attempt to describe the concepts of empowerment and equity in detail.  1.5. The Analytical Framework of the Research    The challenges of translating CBNRM policies to practice in most southern African countries including Namibia are often associated with local people’s limited knowledge and capacity to create proficient mechanism for effective participation (Chau 2005; Fabricius 2004). This in turn hinders the ability of the locals to respond to various planning, managing, and monitoring issues of CBNRM programs. For instance, one of the requirements of the Namibian A. To establish management of renewable living resources on communal lands so that rural communities • can participate on partnership basis with Ministry of Environment and other ministries in the management of and benefit from natural resources; • benefit from rural development based on wildlife, tourism and other natural resource management; • improve conservation of natural resources by use of sustainable resource management and protection of biodiversity.  B. To redress the past discriminatory policies and practices which gave substantial rights over wildlife to commercial farmers but which ignored communal farmers  C. To Amend the Conservation Ordinance of 1975 so that the same principles that govern rights to wildlife utilization of commercial land are extended to communal lands  D. To allow rural communities on state land to undertake tourism revenues and to enter into co- op agreements with commercial tourism organization to develop tourism activities on state land  Source: Ministry of Environment and Tourism (1995a)  14 Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) is for communities to define their geographical boundaries in order to get legally-recognized conservancy status. Defining boundaries can make the process rather complex by initiating old land boundary feuds with neighboring communities as seen in some of the conservancies in the NW regions of Namibia (Jones 2001; NACSO 2004). If conservancy leaders do not possess the know how of facilitation, consensus building, and conflict resolution skills to bring together the ideas and interests of their constituents, and resolve their issues with neighboring communities, the process of conservancy building can be long,  can exacerbate internal conflicts, and  the concept might also lose its buy in. This proves that the sustainability of conservancies is contingent upon the capacity of local people. Thus, the basic argument of this research is that local participation can only be effective when complemented by building the capacity of local people to self mobilize and run their own organizations and institutions effectively. This argument rests on the basic premise that top-down approach of devolving rights has to be integrated with developing the capacities of those who will lead the bottom-up approach (Ribot and Larson 2005).    Namibian conservancies are new layers of bureaucracy and institutional arrangements in natural resource management. Hence, the analytical focus of this particular research begins with the assumption that successful local participation is possible, and can bring its desired outcomes specifically empowerment and equity at the local level, when the appropriate knowledge transfer and skill building enhances the capacity of those who would participate in conservancies (Figure 1.1 shows the analytical focus of the research).   15          Figure 1.1 Analytical Framework of the Research           Thus conservancies need to have a capacity development intervention in order to involve resource users effectively, fulfill their complex responsibilities efficiently, and develop sustainable local level organizations and institutions successfully. Local participation in this arrangement involves three complex capacities of institutional and governance system development, equitable benefit sharing and enterprise development, and sustainable natural resource management. Institutional development capacities involve the ability of conservancies to fulfill the government’s requirements so they can have legally recognized status. It is also the ability to develop viable organizational structure with skilled staff, financial and material Local Participation (CBNRM) Institutional Development Benefit Sharing & Enterprise Development Natural Resource Management Capacity Development Individual Organizational Community-level Outcomes • Empowerment • Equity • Livelihood Sustainability • Biodiversity Protection  16 resources, transparent democratic processes, and financial transparency and accountability. Benefit sharing capacities are associated with the skills and knowledge needed to establish community wide benefits and income generating mechanisms via the development of community based tourism enterprises or joint ventures with tour operators, lodge owners, and safari trophy hunters. Natural resource management capacities are the skills and knowledge needed for natural resource monitoring, sustainable resource use, law enforcement, and the development of land use zoning and wildlife management plans.   In this research, I use UNDP’s definition for the word capacity as stated below  because of its comprehensive nature:  Capacity is the ability, skills and understanding of individuals, organizations, institutions, and societies to perform functions effectively and efficiently, solve problems, and set and achieve objectives in a sustainable manner (UNDP 1997).  I also used Peter Morgan’s definition of Capacity Development for this research as below because it identifies the processes, tools, and participants clearly:  The process [approaches, strategies, methodologies] by which individuals, groups, organizations, and institutions strengthen their ability to carry out their functions and achieve desired results over time (Morgan 1998).   There are three levels of capacity development explored in this research: the individual, organizational (i.e., conservancy) and systemic (i.e., community-wide) as described in detail in Box 1.2 below.  Box 1.2: Various Levels of Capacity Development          Individual level/Micro scale capacity development: is a process of gaining new skills and knowledge resulting to attitudinal and behavioral changes enabling individuals to perform their duties successfully. Organizational level/Meso scale capacity development: is a process to develop an organization with adequate hard and soft capacities, which in this case is the conservancy’s ability to meet its goals and to fulfill the needs of its constituents (See Box 2 below for differences of hard and soft capacities). Community/Macro scale capacity development: is a process of developing capacity at the systemic level i.e. (state, civic society, or informal institutions).  Sources: Horton et. al. 2003; Morgan 1998; Smillie 2001  17 Individual level capacity in this research focuses on the conservancy staff and conservancy management Committee (CMC) members and their ability to perform their duties successfully. The organizational level concentrates on the conservancy’s hard and soft or operational and adaptive capacities to meet its own goals and the needs of its constituents. (See Box 1.3 below for differences of hard and soft or operational and adaptive capacities).  Box 1.3 Types of Capacities Needed by Local Administrative/Organizational Units               The third level of capacity development explored in this research is the awareness and knowledge level of community members about the conservancy. This level of capacity should enable members to use their rights, responsibilities, and power effectively in order to influence, control, and benefit from their local organizations and institutions.   Based on this framework, the purpose of this particular research is to investigate the role of capacity development (CD) to enhance local participation in communal conservancies of Namibia. My particular inquiry is on the process, product, performance, and permanence of capacity development. The CD process deals with how government, NGOs, and private enterprises develop the capacity of local people enabling them to participate in CBNRM. The process includes the tools used to facilitate CD to conservancies. The products are the new capacities developed at individual, organizational or conservancy, and community levels. The Hard Capacities:  are the resources and assets that are necessary for local administrative units to function properly. For instance, availability of skillful human resource, finances, infrastructure, and technology are considered as key hard capacities.  Soft capacities: are the management processes that support the local administrative body to achieve its mission. These would be the abilities of the local administrative body • to set its objectives and plans and execute and evaluate them according to the needs and aspirations of its constituents; • create the appropriate organizational and institutional structures with strategic leadership as well as skillful and motivated personnel that can manage and perform day to day activities which are also called as operating capacities, and respond to changes or problems that arise from internal or external factors also known as adaptive capacities; and • establish and maintain the appropriate network and linkages with external entities.  Source: Adapted from Horton et. al. 2003, (P. 19-34)  18 CD performance determines if the new capacities were utilized appropriately to create active participation through enhanced empowerment and equity. The permanence explores if and how the new capacities are sustained within the conservancy environment.  The three questions below are used to guide the research: 1. How do the Namibian government, NGOs, and private enterprises develop the capacity of  communal conservancies to enhance local participation in CBNRM?  2. What are the products (new capacities) developed at individual, conservancy, and community  levels as a result of the CD efforts and how are these new capacities affecting local  participation?  3. What are the overall lessons derived from this particular case study about capacity              development for local participation in CBNRM projects?  The research uses mixed methods of evaluation with various groups of research participants. In-depth interviews were carried out with conservancy staff, conservancy management committee members, conservancy registered members, and capacity development service providers from government, NGO, and private enterprise sectors.  Participatory self- assessment exercise was also carried out with various stakeholders of the case study conservancy to evaluate the governance and service delivery capacities of the conservancy. Several primary and secondary documents were also consulted for this research.  1.6. Local Participation in CBNRM   Local participation is the process that enables people to mobilize, influence, and control to establish local organizations and institutions in order to plan, implement, and evaluate their own development initiatives. Development practitioners point out that local participation is instrumental and developmental respectively (Conyers 1986 as quoted by Larsen 2003; Goulet 1989 as quoted by Abers 2000; Midgley 1986). It is instrumental in bringing local knowledge into planning and decision-making processes, and promotes social development by strengthening community bondage by means of enhanced empowerment and equity (Abers 2000; Friedmann 1992; Mansuri and Rao 2003; Midgley 1986; Narayan 2002). Aside from facilitating equity and  19 empowerment, local participation in community based projects are assumed to be instrumental in reducing the risk of corruption and ineptitude on the side of government, and parochialism and nepotism on the side of communities (Dalal-Clayton et. al. 2000). This process of transparency is argued to increase productivity, accountability, good governance, and equitable benefit sharing in CBNRM initiatives (Borrini-Feyerabend and Tarnowski 2005; Dalal-Clayton et. al. 2000). Several research projects also demonstrated that community development programs that are based on incentive structures depend on the mode of participation to maximize local development potentials and reduce income leakages (Fabricius 2004; Wunder 2000).   People participate in community based initiatives because of various reasons. Some participate because they perceive it as their social responsibility as citizens (Bachrach and Botwinick 1992; Nylen 2003; Pennock 1979). Others participate based on their rational individualistic interests to gain from expected or assured benefits (McEwan 2005; Pennock 1979). Socio-economic status, gender, previous experiences of participation, education level, bonds of friendship, distance between home and meeting place, and time lived in a place create favorable conditions for some groups to get “satisfactory” benefits immediately, thus they tend to participate more (Mansbridge 1980). Pimbert and Pretty (1997) divide local participation typologies into seven. Manipulative, passive, consultative, incentive-driven, and functional participation types are used as instruments to achieve external agent’s predetermined project goals, and they are considered as unsustainable. While, interactive participation and self- mobilization are participation types categorized as effective and sustainable because in theses processes, participation is considered as a right and not a means to meet predetermined goals.   Similarly, the ideal forms of local participation prescribed for CBNRM programs are self-mobilized, self-defined, and interactive (Fabricius 2004; Murphree 1997; Neumann 2005; Pimbert and Pretty 1997). For instance some of the principles for self-governing common property institutions that are also used to design the conservancies of Namibia as put forward by (Ostrom 1990, p. 91-101) recommend:  1. participation and accountability, so those affected by rules and regulations can help shape them, and those monitoring user behavior are accountable to the users;  2. a system of graduated sanctions through which members of the system punish each other  for infringements of the specified use regulations – for example fishing with the wrong kind of  nets or hunting or irrigating at the wrong place or time;  20  3. low cost, local dispute resolution structures in which system members participate;  4. a supportive external environment, in which government and the legal system underpin, rather than challenge, the rights of members of Common Property Resource Management (CPRM) systems to devise their own institutions  While Wade (1987, P. 219-234) on the basis of his experience from South India suggests 1. resource users should be bound by mutual obligations, and should have well developed arrangements for discussing common problems;  2. collective action will be more successful when cheating on agreements is clearly   noticeable;  3. CPRM is more likely to succeed when the state is unable or unwilling to undermine locally based authorities, or to enforce private property rights effectively.   Interactive and self-mobilized participation typologies are favored for CBNRM where people have the “autonomous power” to participate on the basis of their own will, but where government and NGOs provide the enabling framework for resource and technical support when needed (Pimbert and Pretty 1997). Such types of participation are considered as sustainable because they are meaningful and legitimate. The definition of “meaningful participation” according to (Kanter 2005, p. 57), which I am also using for this research, is    When a person has a sense of his involvement in a total enterprise, a sense of where his effort fits  into an overall plan, when he identifies with the collective goals, has a feeling of efficacy with  respect to the accomplishment of the goals, and has a stake in the result of the total enterprise.  While the term “legitimate” in this case means without any conditions or pre-determined goals by those who have power such as government, NGOs, and donors.    Critics of local participation focused not only on its technical limitations of the methodological tools, but also on the theoretical, political, and conceptual shortcomings (Cooke and Kothari 2001). One of the challenges of local participation is associated with lack of the political commitment or willingness to devolve sufficient power from the state to lower level administrative units (Larsen 2003; Ndgewa 2002; Ribot and Larson 2005). This is particularly exhibited with the way financial and administrative decentralization have taken place in Namibia and other African countries as well (Ribot and Larson 2005; Ndgewa 2002). For instance, a recent World Bank study that has compared 30 African countries in their decentralization efforts has shown that fiscal decentralization measured in terms of the proportion of the national  21 expenditure that local governments control are done poorly across the continent and Namibia was no exception(Ndgewa 2002). Namibia ranked 21st out of 30 countries with less than 3% of its public expenditures allocated to local governments (Ndgewa 2002). Such low financial commitments are usually associated with central governments’ limited financial resources that came as a result of the pre-conditions set by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP)s of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF). This is because the SAPs have put reduction of state expenditure and privatization of state enterprises as pre-conditions for development related assistance and loans (Brown 1995; Cheru 2002; Neumann 2005; Parpart and Veltemeyer 2004; Mkandawire 2002). Aside from governments’ lack of resources and commitment to devolve more power, few case studies indicated that locals especially in developing countries where top-down governance is the norm perceive that decision-making is the responsibility of the government who then inform its decisions to the public (Nouvelli et. al. 2007). Others demonstrated that when participation is used as a way of integrating local knowledge by development agencies, it may get manipulated by local people as they present their needs based on what the development agency is expected to deliver (Mosse 2001). Some also argue that participation, especially in rural development initiatives, is often driven by incentives or donor influenced participatory agenda and coercion (Harrison 2002). This approach distorts the concept and goals of participatory ideology and creates dependency on aid threatening program sustainability once the subsidies or donor-funding stop.  Local participation within the Namibian conservancy movement needs to looked at with two analytical lenses – the internal and the external. When we use our internal lens and look at how communities participate within conservancies, we see that semi-autonomous participation was possible to a certain degree. For instance, the government legislation on conservancy formation provided communal residents an opportunity to mobilize and create the appropriate conservancy organizational structure comprised of elected management committee members. Although, the degree of autonomy may get questioned here3, conservancy members are able to merge their own interests with government requirements to establish legal constitutions that enable them to manage their conservancy and natural resources. Even though not satisfactory in terms of amount, sustainability, or equitability, communal land residents earned individual  3 For instance, the constitution templates that were prepared by the government to spell out the mandatory components are helpful to guide the process, but they are also yet another constraints on the autonomy of conservancies.   22 benefits in the forms of various resource related goods and services including wages from formal employment, and collective benefits including the development of infrastructures such as water pipes, electricity, schools, and water wells (Jones 2004; NACSO 2004).   Nevertheless when we use our external lens to look outside the immediate community of resource users, we begin to unravel that local participation in Namibian conservancies is not as meaningful, autonomous, and genuinely legitimate at it seems.  This is because the conservancy movement is shaped by various external actors such as government, donors, and local and international NGOs with their own pre-determined interests, agendas, and policies that may not necessarily coincide with the interests of the internal actors such as resource users and the traditional authority. For instance a close analysis of the CBNRM legislation and policy implementation indicates that  Government is still arguably the unit of proprietorship as it retains most authority over wildlife. Furthermore, most conservancies are enforcing state rules about wildlife use and have little legal space in which to devise and enforce their own rules (Jones 2003a, P.2).   Hence, even if CBNRM is viewed in Namibia as a panacea to bureaucratic inertia, and is claimed to enhance local empowerment and equity, it may also be considered as the continuation of the old traditional top-down approache largely driven by external agencies, such as donors and governments, who push local participation to serve their own pre-determined agendas, and tie in “ecotourism” initiatives in the framework which clearly meant to serve profit-seeking enterprises and domestic and foreign tourists with insignificant amount of benefits to the community residents who participate in them. Using Sullivan’s description,  CBNRM in practice maintains the interest of conservationists, tour operators, hunters, and tourists; i.e. those conventionally associated with “touristic” enjoyment of, and financial benefits from, wildlife and wilderness (Sullivan, 2002, P. 165).  Accordingly, this research as clearly described on Chapter 2 is also concerned with the internal and external forces that shape, nay dictate, the very implementation of CBNRM in general, and the imperative of promoting local or community participation in the context of overall capacity development.   23 Many community development theories in general, and the Namibian conservancy policy in particular consider empowerment and equity as the ideal outcomes of local participation (Abers 2000; Friedmann 1992; Mansuri and Rao 2003; Midgley 1986; Narayan 2002). This in turn is expected to accelerate economic and social progress at the local level, and minimize dependency on the state as ordinary people rediscover their potential for cooperation and mutual endeavor (Midgley 1986). Since empowerment and equity are also the outcomes that this research is tasked to explore, I would try to decipher these two concepts in the next two sections based on literature review. 1.6.1. Empowerment  Empowerment is a fuzzy term, given its diverse meanings based on varying socio- cultural and political contexts. Batliwala shows this dilemma in the following manner:  I like the term empowerment because no one has defined it clearly yet; so it gives us a breathing space to work it out in action terms before we have to pin ourselves down to what it means” (Batliwala 1993,  48 as quoted by Kabeer 1999, p. 436).  When we try to look at some of its definitions, Dagnino (1994) defines it as a process of activism to secure equity:  The construction of active social subjects defining themselves [and] what they consider as their rights and fighting for recognition of those rights (Dagnino as quoted by Nylen 2003, p. 27).   Development practitioners such as Amartya Sen (1985a; 1999) argue that development has to go beyond material well being to enhance capabilities which are “what people can do or be with their entitlements or [assets]” (Leach 1999, p.233). Following this concept, the 2002 World Bank Hand Book on Empowerment defines the term as a process to secure assets and capabilities as described below, which I am also using as my definition for this research.  The expansion of individual and collective assets and capabilities of poor people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control and hold accountable institutions that affect their lives (Narayan 2002, p. 5).  Assets are defined as the physical and financial materials that allow people to negotiate their fare share, and the absence of assets creates vulnerability and marginalization (Narayan 2002).  Capabilities are factors such as good health, education, skills, social network, reciprocal  24 obligation,s and others that enable people to use their assets for their well being (Narayan 2005). The poverty reduction strategy of the World Bank in Africa identifies empowerment as one strategy for poverty alleviation (World Bank 2001). This strategy suggests strengthening accountability of community organizations, broad-based participation by poor people to take part in decisions that affect them, facilitating information and linkages to markets, and increasing governance accountability and transparency at national government, NGO, and private enterprise levels as ways to enhance empowerment (World Bank 2001).  The empowerment discourse embraces both individual and group actions to enhance local democracy and decision making (Cleaver 2001). This means with the help of local participation as an instrument, individuals gain the knowledge and understanding to seek self empowerment and hence development (Abers 2000; Bachrach and Botwinick 1992). Eventually, such awareness at the individual level evolves into the larger community to create strong social/political consciousness (Abers 2000; Bachrach and Botwinick 1992; Narayan 2003). This in turn is expected to develop the concern for social responsibility and protection of public goods persuading people to act collectively with various modes of participation and become active in political processes (Abers 2000; Bachrach and Botwinick 1992; Cleaver 2001; Pateman 1970).  As one of the desired outcomes of the southern African CBNRM program, empowerment is defined by Jones (2003b) as “the extent to which local communities themselves are able to take decisions about CBNRM activities”. However the theory of empowerment and its impacts on poverty alleviation and democratic decision making face many challenges during implementation. One of these challenges as clearly shown in CBNRM programs across Southern Africa comes from government restrictions and pre-conditions imposed on communities (Jones 2003b). Another challenge is associated with the community organizations that carry out the CBNRM program that tend to cater to the needs and interests of NGOs and donors by regularly reporting to them and failing to report back to their own constituents (Childs 2001; Jones 2003b). Such problem arises from community organizations’ continual reliance on donor and NGO for financial and material support. Empowerment is also limited in its scope in many southern African CBNRM programs because it mostly concentrated with those who have employment or management responsibilities within the community based organizations such as staff and management committee members who are benefiting from the various training and skill building opportunities (Jones 2003b).  25 1.6.2. Equity   The word equity can have different definitions in natural resource management depending on the context it is used (Mahanty et. al. 2006; Poteete 2004). Economic equity entails distribution of benefits amongst resource users, and its meaning is mostly associated with “fair share” which is not necessarily an equal share. Fair share of benefits is achieved using various criteria including but not limited to the socio-economic status of resource users or the degree of cost that members endure from wildlife damage (Fisher as quoted by Mahanty et. al. 2006). Political equity on the other hand is defined by Mahanty et. al. (2006, p.3) as a   “process by which various stakeholders make their voices heard which will have  implications  for decision-making”.  Such political equity can be used interchangeably with equality or sameness in this context. I looked at both dimensions of economic and political equity in this research. In terms of economic equity, I explored the conservancy’s capacity to provide equitable benefits to its members, while in political equity I analyzed if the conservancy has the ability to facilitate equitable decision-making and representation to all its registered members particularly to those who are traditionally marginalized groups such as the poor, young, elder, women, and ethnic- minorities.  Marginalized people in society have limited assets such as land, livestock, or savings (Narayan 2002). Their marginalization is also entrenched in different social barriers of cast, ethnicity, and gender. Local participation mechanisms are assumed to organize and mobilize these marginalized groups and their assets to create collective capabilities or group rights (Narayan 2005). This mobilization enhances their voice and power in the political arena. The assumption here is that people from lower socio-economic classes or those who are “oppressed” (Freire 2000) don’t have the voices or political proficiency in comparison to those who are affluent or the “oppressors” (Bachrach and Botwinick 1992; Freire 2000). However, their involvement in the political process expected to provide them the opportunity to communicate, reflect, and engage in dialogues and expand their views and perceptions so they can form their own opinions, which Paulo Freire calls “Humanization through Conscientization” (Freire 2000). According to Freire, development is a result of raised consciousness of those who are oppressed or disempowered as they gain their ability to explore and recognize their situation, and have the  26 desire for transformation (Freire 2000). As these groups communicate within the democratic processes, it is assumed they would have access and significant voice to influence decisions (Abers 2000; Freire 2000). These groups are also expected to transform themselves from “dependency on higher ups” to a new sense of personal responsibility to struggle against exclusion and domination (Freire 2000; Nylen 2003).   Critics point out that political equity is not feasible without economic equality and redistribution of wealth. Studies of resource user groups in Asia illustrated that those from the higher socio-economic status tend to participate in CBNRM groups easily and gain more benefits because they can bear the costs i.e. (time, finances, transportation) of participation,  while those from lower income and socio-economic status are further marginalized because they can’t afford to participate, hence showing interrelations between economic and political equity (Agarawl 2001; Agrawal and Gupta 2005; Poteete 2004 ). In addition, not all theoreticians think that having equitable right by itself engages people in a democratic process (Poteete 2004). One’s trust and confidence to take part in community initiatives might need a tradition of participation that begins from childhood involvements or one’s participation in family decisions (Calhoun 2005). These historical involvements can also determine the individual’s “cooperative”, “disruptive”, or “passive” personalities (Calhoun 2005). For instance, many studies demonstrated that in many CBNRM projects, even though women are present in meetings, they usually don’t speak up or don’t have the opportunity to make tangible contributions in decision-making because of culturally entrenched differences and barriers (Poteete 2004).   With the above differing arguments in mind, this particular research explores if and how the new capacities within Namibian conservancies facilitated empowerment and equity at individual, organizational or conservancy, and community levels, and their performance in terms of local participation as detailed in the findings in Chapter 5. In the next section, I will provide an overview of the various contemporary debates on Capacity development planning processes and tools of implementation.  27 1.7. Capacity Development for Local Participation   The concept of capacity development (CD) emphasizes self-reliance and “teaching a man to fish”, while its approaches and strategies are still developing (Lusthaus et. al. 1999; Smillie 2001). As a result, there is neither a common definition nor a specific purpose to capacity development4 (Morgan 1998). Some describe it as a means to an end of achieving goals such as poverty reduction, while others see it as an end product where the development of individuals or organizations to run on their own, and be self-sufficient is what is essentially required (Bolger 2000; Smillie 2001). Critics of the terminology indicate that CD has become an “umbrella concept”encompassing various development initiatives with no specific meaning of its own (Lusthaus et. al. 1999; Schacter 2000). This created difficulty in differentiating CD from the common understanding of development as a whole. Lusthaus describes this as:   The lack of clarity about capacity development encourages people to use the term as a slogan  rather than as a meaningful concept (Lusthaus et. al. 1999, p. 9).    Although there is a growing body of literature on best practices and numerous techniques of CD, there is still a lack of consensus on what a sustainable CD process should look like, and the appropriate tools to go with it. CD process in this case is the mechanism by which the CD program is planned and implemented. The tools are the methodologies and techniques such as training, technical assistance, research, Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA), and others by which capacity development is facilitated.   The current consensus on CD scale of intervention is about integrating the individual, organizational, and the systemic level—inclusive of civil society, informal institutions, and government for sustainable results (Bolger 2000; Horton et. al. 2003; Lopez and Theisohn 2003; Lusthaus et. al. 1999; Morgan 1999a and b). However some experts oppose the appropriateness of some of the levels for CD intervention. For instance, (Lusthaus et. al. 1999) refutes the idea of developing individual capacity as a capacity development approach. This is because developing individuals’ capacity especially in organizations and institutions threatens sustainability once the individuals leave (Horton et. al. 2003; Lusthaus et. al. 1999). As Lusthaus indicates,  4 The term capacity building was replaced by capacity development because capacity building connotes that capacity is being built from scratch while capacity development acknowledges the knowledge and capacity that already exists.  28  There is a danger that interventions with a narrow development outcome (i.e. individual  training) could be labeled CD, in as much as they were carried out in a participative  way, and at the same time not contribute to the building of capacity (Lusthaus et. al. 1999, p. 14).    On the other hand, proponents of the systemic level development indicate that it is an important intervention that should include both formal and informal institutions and civil society. Experts such as (Fukuda-Parr et. al. 2004; Putnam 1993; Uphoff 2000; Harvey 1998 as quoted by Smillie 2001) advocated for civic society capacity development to bring about systemic change. The experts attempted to show the relationship between the absences of active civic society with weak democracy, human rights abuse, and bad governance (Putnam 1993; Uphoff 2000; Harvey 1998 as quoted by Smillie 2001). However, others indicated examples of where active civic society by itself might not bring as much change in society as expected (Saravanamuttu 1998; Uvin as quoted by Smillie 2001). Countries such as Sri Lanka or Rwanda with robust civic societies were not able to prevent a dictatorial regime or one of the worst genocides in history (Saravanamuttu 1998; Uvin as quoted by Smillie 2001) respectively. In many other African countries, the historical and political dynamics of the colonial and post colonial era deterred the development of civic society (Larsen 2003). For instance in Namibia, the nation-building process of post-apartheid era is struggling to replace the ethnic and racial based identities that were once set by the racial resettlement programs of the apartheid regime (Tötemeyer 2000 as quoted by Larsen 2003) with a new national identity that is based on unity and solidarity in the midst of ethnic and racial identity preferences (Fosse 1997). This struggle between the strong loyalty to ethnic and racial identity versus a weak notion of citizenship hindered the development of Namibian civil society (Larsen 2003; Fosse 1997; KjÆret and Stokke 2003).    The recent thinking on CD planning emphasizes quality rather than quantity of the process. Much of the CD planning, as it is currently practiced, prejudges what people know, and what they are required to know (Smillie 2001). This is because CD is mostly planned and implemented by outsiders who are professional experts (Fukuda-Parr et. al. 2004; Horton et al. 2000; Morgan 1998; Smillie 2001). Oxenham and Chambers illustrate this fact:   CD is telling people what they need, essentially so they could conform with the management  standards and programming requirements of outsiders (Oxenham and Chambers 1986 as cited  by Smillie 2001, p. 18).   29 Thus experts recommend that the CD process is able to meet its objectives, when it is owned by the beneficiaries, and where there is high degree of local commitment (Lopez and Theisohn 2003; Schacter 2000). Genuine partnership between CD practitioners and beneficiaries is also recommended as an important component (Abugre 1999; Fowler 2002; Fukuda-Parr et. al. 2004; Horton et. al. 2003). Abugre (1999, p. 2) defined partnership as  …. [a mechanism] to address inclusiveness, complementarities, dialogue, and shared responsibility as the basis of managing the multiple relationships among stakeholders.  This partnership is expected to enable the beneficiaries to analyze their own development Problems, and design their own interventions to address them (Horton et. al. 2003; Lopez and Theisohn; 2003; Schacter 2000).  Schacter articulates this as the following:   CD needs to be upside down. A “donor-driven” must become “client-driven”. A  process  obsessed with “inputs” must obsess, instead, about “results on the ground” (Schacter  2000, p. 3).    Similarly, the results and speed of CD planning should be in terms of the beneficiaries’ capacity to plan, implement, and evaluate their own development process based on their own needs indicating that CD can not be determined by outsider’s project expectations or project cycles. So the process relies on continual learning and adapting requiring openness to lessons of experience and flexibility (Bolger 2000; Lopez and Theisohn 2003; Schacter 2000; Smillie 2001).   Various tools or techniques are used for implementing CD. The scale of intervention determines the types of CD tools to be used. Education and skill building training are mostly used for individual level CD; process consultations, organizational system development, or technical assistance are used for organizational and institutional development or reform; while workshops, seminars, public consultations, public outreach, and dialogue might help to enhance capacities of community stakeholders and thus civic society (Lopez and Thiesohn 2003; Morgan 1999a and b). The emerging consensus on CD tools highlights the importance of using diverse tools for broadening the depth of CD at various scales (Morgan 1999b). However, CD as it is currently practiced gives higher emphasis on training and information dissemination (Smillie 2001). The use of training might or might not be suitable based on the purpose, and the context of CD, but it is overly used because it is more efficient and effective in terms of time, resources,  30 and, the limited capacity of the CD practitioners themselves (Smillie 2001). Using the words of Smillie,   Training is not a panacea; while it has a role to play; it is not synonymous to capacity  building (Smillie 2001, p. 18).  Much of the current CD efforts emphasize “change” as products of knowledge following Freire’s philosophy of critical learning for transformation.  However, many opponents point out that the knowledge induced might bring a “modernized” change that may defy sustainable way of life (Bowers 2005). For instance, many indigenous cultures are about creating self-reliance for the common good with group ownership, which is critical especially in natural resource management. However, the emphasis on transformation might induce the feelings of liberating oneself from the assumed “backward” situations creating a need for unsustainable, “modernized”, and individualistic life style (Bowers 2005). CD experts indicate that little efforts are exerted at the current time in understanding the present and past local dynamics, history, knowledge, structure, and functions of the CD beneficiaries (Lopez and Theisohn 2003; Morgan 1999b; Smillie 2001). Thus experts recommend that CD tool developments should integrate local knowledge such as intergenerational traditions and various ways of knowing including oral traditions. When CD tools are grounded by local realities, it helps the beneficiaries to understand which of their traditions to conserve, revise, or abandon entirely (Bowers 2005).    Multi-dimensional and trans-disciplinary CD tools are increasingly popular as they encompass theory with practice (Gibbons 1994; Hall 2006). The production of knowledge and skills should also be complemented with competencies to put the knowledge produced to good use in local contexts in terms of organizational development, economic development, or societal benefits (Hall 2006). Stiglitz calls this the ability to “scan globally and reinvent locally” (Stiglitz 1999 as cited by Lopez and Theisohn 2003, p. 3). In other words, innovation and problem solving have to be equally developed in order to apply the skills and knowledge acquired in specific ordered structures or procedural formats into daily practices.  Knowing how to build, modify, adapt, and, control the knowledge and skills in specific conditions, functions, or purposes enhances the ability to manage diverse issues with flexibility and creativity (Gibbons 1994; Horton et. al. 2003).   31  I have used the above emerging debates on the scales of CD intervention, the relationship between CD stakeholders, the time and resource commitment needs, diversity of CD tools, integration of local knowledge, and accessibility of the tools to diverse stakeholders as my criteria to evaluate the capacity development in my case study as described in detail on the methodology section of Chapter 3. I also used the criteria of applicability and adaptability as the criteria to evaluate sustainability or permanence of capacities.  1.8. Structure of the Thesis  The thesis is organized into seven chapters. The first chapter begins with background information of how I came to study community based natural resource management. It goes to highlight the dilemmas I faced in finding the right voice when writing this thesis. I chose to use multiple voices as I try to meet various cultures, perspectives, and expectations. The third section highlights the rational and relevance of the research based on the popularity of participatory community based development, principles of Agenda 21, and the 10th year anniversary of the Namibian Nature Conservation Act of 1996. The fourth section narrates the evolution of natural resource management from the classical bullet and barbed wire national park designations to the participatory and market-based liberal approaches of CBNRM. The fifth section illustrates the analytical framework for the research highlighting the assumption that local participation needs capacity development at the individual, organizational, and community levels in order to bring about the desired outcomes of empowerment and equity. The sixth and seventh sections of this chapter discuss the theoretical underpinnings behind the concepts of local participation, empowerment, equity, and capacity development. Chapter Two narratives the contexts of the CBNRM program and the capacity development efforts associated with Namibian conservancies in general and the case study area in particular. It attempts to show the various actors and factors that influence the conservancy movement and local participation beginning with the historical narratives of land tenure and land use practices of Namibia throughout the pre-colonial, colonial and post colonial times. It then goes to narrate the history of conservation, and how the Namibian CBNRM program came about. It highlights the factors and actors associated with community based tourism and their influence on local participation in CBNRM programs. The third section outlines the capacity needs of communal conservancies in general. The fourth section illustrates the funding relationships and institutional arrangements of the capacity development service providers such as donors, government, NGO, and private enterprises and the beneficiares.  The  32 fifth section provides the biophysical, socio-economic, and organizational structure descriptions of the case study conservancy. The sixth or last section of this chapter illustrates the institutional framework of capacity development within the case study area.  Chapter Three details the methodological framework, the various research methods, and the types of data utilized in this case study with particular emphasis on the participatory self-assessment exercise that I carried out.  It concludes by highlighting the challenges and limitations of the research. Chapter Four illustrates the findings and analysis of how government, NGOs, and private enterprises develop the capacity of #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy of Namibia. It gives the assessment of the CD process using the criteria of program development framework, the scale of the intervention, the relationship between CD stakeholders, and the time and commitment invested in the process. It also includes the assessment of the CD tools in terms of ease of comprehension, local knowledge integration, and accessibility to diverse CD stakeholders. Chapter Five provides the findings and analysis of the products (new capacities) at individual, conservancy or organizational, and community levels respectively.  It also looks at the performance of these new capacities in terms of facilitating empowerment and equity in local participation. The fifth section assesses factors of sustainability or permanence of the new capacities in terms of their applicability and adaptability within the conservancy. Chapter six has twelve of the lessons learned from this case study about capacity development, CBNRM, and local participation. It also puts forward some recommendations for how to improve the CD planning processes and tools as well as the conservancy’s performance. The thesis ends with the seventh chapter that has the conclusion that also highlight directions for future research.  33 2. THE HISTORICAL EVOLUTION AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT OF CBNRM AND ASSOCIATED CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN NAMIBIA  2.1. Community Based Natural Resource Management in Namibia    The literature review indicates that three things are influential for effective local participation: (1) deep viable social and historical tradition of participation or strong social capital; (2) group of individuals workings from such participatory tradition where the group dynamics is governed with democratic principles, and where people can voluntarily get involved in every aspect of the group formation including program development, implementation or evaluation; and (3) where the external environment within which the group operates allows the development of vibrant and participatory civil society (Midgley 1986; Nylen 2003; Roussopoulos and Benello 2005). When we look at the Namibian conservancies, we see that they have emerged from complex historical and social legacies from Namibia’s pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial eras that are also influential for how local participation unfolds. We also see that the conservancy movement is shaped and reshaped continuously with various external actors such as government and its subsidiaries, supporting NGOs, and donor communities, and the internal stakeholders such as the resource users, the conservancy staff or management members, and the traditional authorities. Hence, the purpose of this chapter is to narrate the historical aspects and highlight the various conservancy related actors and factors and their impacts on local participation.  2.2. Influential Actors and Factors for Conservancies of Namibia    In order to comprehend local participation within the Namibian conservancies, one needs to understand the historical, socio-economical, and political context from which the conservancy movement originated from, and the role and influence of the various external and internal actors and factors.  I divided up these influential issues as discussed below into three: land tenure and land use practices, history of conservation of natural resources, and tourism.  34 2.2.1. Land Tenure, Land Use Practices, and their Institutions in Namibia    Namibia is a country located in the southwest part of Africa bordered by a long Atlantic Ocean Coast to the west, Angola to the north, Zambia to the northeast, Botswana to the east, and South Africa to the south. It is a country with population of 1.8 million with highly scattered human settlement patterns. 30% of the total population lives in urban areas, and 70% are rural inhabitants with the highest population concentrated in the northeast and northwest of the country.   The Nama, Damara, Ovambo, Kavango, and Caprivi tribes account for the majority of the black population who live on communal lands and depend on agro-pastoralism in much of northern and northeastern Namibia. The Herrero, Tswana, and Himba tribes practice semi- nomadic pastoralism in the north, south, and west, while the indigenous nomadic “Bushmen” (the San people) are dispersed throughout the northeast and central west, and subsist on hunting and gathering. In the pre-colonial era, the agro-pastoralists and pastoralists lived with wildlife in relative harmony. Some of the threats between human and wildlife originated from conflicts associated with livestock loss to predators or land-disputes between the various ethnic groups (Jacobhson and Owen-smith 2003). Although, the pastoralists didn’t depend on wildlife for their food intake as the San people did, they used wildlife and wild plants for clothing, shoes, jewelry, medicinal, and ceremonial purposes (Jacobhson and Owen-smith 2003). Land-related disputes for water resources and grazing land has been taking place since the first time the pastoralist tribes came in contact with the hunter-gatherer San people. The San have been pushed and marginalized by the more powerful agro-pastoralist and pastoralist tribes before colonialism and even after independence because the San are considered as physically and militarily weak (Jacobhson and Owen-smith 2003).   In the pre-colonial era, resource use was not free for all in the agro-pastoralist and pastoralist tribes since they had traditional authorities5 who were responsible for setting up governing rules based on customary laws (Corbett and Jones 2000; Jacobhson and Owen-smith 2003; Jones and Luipert 2002). The land is usually owned by a king or a chief and is allocated  5 The traditional authority are informal structures that have public support and influence from rural inhabitants of most of Africa and who acquire their legitimacy and authority from hereditary links to founding lineages within their focus area (Fabricius 2004 )  35 according to customary laws to residents of the area. Traditional authorities used to regulate land uses for residential, cropping, grazing, hunting, and consumption of wildlife, and they were also instrumental in reconciling land related disputes and conflicts (Jones 2003a). These customary rules that traditional authorities used are different from formal or western laws because they are not written, and are mostly passed down to generations through oral traditions, so they may have diverse interpretations (Corbett and Jones 2000).   Once colonialism took root in Namibia first through German invasion (1884-1914), and then the South African apartheid regime (1915-1990), appropriation of land and forceful removal of people began. At first, the settlers started erecting fences around their acquired land (Adams and Devitt 1990). They then started partitioning the land in a race-based system (Barnard et. al. 1998). The land partitioning through the Bantustan system in the name of “separate development6” carried out by the South African Apartheid Regime led to the forceful removal of many communal land tribes from their traditional lands and practices. The Bantustan Rule is a form of “divide and conquer” implemented by the Odendaal Commission of South Africa in the 1960s where every black person in the country was registered as a resident of a specific tribal area, and is prohibited from moving unless needed to work on a white-owned farm or as a domestic servant (Adam and Devitt 1990). This system was used to forcefully organize the “non- white population” according to their racial and ethnic affiliation for the purpose of securing cheap labor, best grazing and resource rich areas, and urban land to white settlers (Fosse 1997). Accordingly, 40% of the non-white population—blacks Africans, and the “Baster—“people of mixed origin or “brown skin coloring” (KjÆret and Stokke 2003, P. 580) were organized by their ethnic affiliations into designated “homelands” 7 which are now called communal lands. Based on this designation, the better quality and fertile central savannah were distributed to white commercial farmers; the marginal and less fertile lands of the northwest and east were given to black farmers who live communally, and the non-fertile and uninhabitable lands with no value for mining were set aside as parks or undesignated state land (Barnard et. al. 1998). About 13% of the land is comprised of 21 parks and game reserves established throughout the colonial era which are currently under state control.   6 Administrative language used by the Odendaal Commission of South Africa to mean ethnic based development. 7 Homelands are what are called as “Native Reserves” in North America.  36   Informal institutions were also disrupted during the colonial rule when the traditional authorities’ power to manage the lands were taken away from them and transferred to the central government (Jones 2003b; Schiffer 2004). Such rearrangement of the powers created an “open system” on communal lands enhancing uncontrollable resource utilization whilst the role of the traditional authorities began to be embedded into the social engineering of the Apartheid regime (Schiffer 2004).  …parallel to the “modern”, white government several representative authorities of the different language groups were put into power and given certain responsibilities to partly manage the affairs of their people (Kössler, 1998). In some cases, where tribes had weak traditional hierarchies, the colonial powers invented new pseudo-traditional structures. The traditional leaders of the homelands were in the double role of being the traditional authority of their people and a petty official of the Southwest African [the older name of Namibia] administration (Schiffer 2004, P. 39)    Namibia gained its independence in 1990 but it still suffers from its colonial legacies. It is characterized with a wide gap between the rich and the poor and inequity in accessing land, natural resources, education, health, and housing (Corbett and Jones 2000). While it is a middle income country, it suffers from one of the highest income disparities along racial lines as well as urban-rural inhabitants in the world (OECD 2002), since the richest 10% of the total population receive 65% of the total income (Corbett and Jones 2000). Emerging from this legacy, the land tenure at the current time consists of 43% of the land allocated as freehold for private, medium to large scale commercial ranches (NACSO 2004). This freehold farmland is divided into 6,300 farms and is owned by 4,200 landowners who are mostly white (Corbett and Jones 2000). While 41% of the land in the north and some in the south are communal lands formerly called “homelands” that are state owned, and are home to 1.2 million people (Corbett and Jones 2000). Communal lands are occupied by blacks who are agro-cattle herders, semi-nomad pastoralists, and hunter-gatherer tribes who account for 60% of the total population (Barnes 2003; Corbett and Jones 2000; Jocobsohn 2003).    Moreover, the decolonization and power transfer process of Namibia to a post-apartheid sovereign state is characterized as what Melber calls a “controlled change” since most of the constitutional principles adopted after independence were designed in the 1980s by the so called Western Contact Group8 (Melber 2002; 2003). Hence, contested issues such as land tenure ship  8 The Western Contact Group consists of United States, Canada, United Kingdom, France and the Federal Republic of Germany who have carried out a diplomatic negotiation  from 1977-82  between the South African government  37 were still kept in status-quo as land owners were entitled to their private land and protected by the common law (Melber 2002). The post-independence government took land reform measures delicately since coming to power, in order to prevent conflicts such as the one witnessed in the neighboring Zimbabwe in recent years.  A land reform policy was initiated in 1990 and the Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform Act was passed in 1995. According to this act, the land reform is based largely on “a willing seller and buyer” basis, where the government buys lands from willing sellers and redistributes it to those who don’t have land (Turner 1996; Werner 2003). The criteria for land distribution are mostly based by the amount of land a person owns but it doesn’t put income into consideration (Schiffer 2004). Hence, this criterion created the opportunity to the new political officials and the elite at the top level of government who now have modest income but less amount of land to take disproportionate advantage of the new policy to grab as much land as they can (Melber 2002).  In addition, according to the land reform policy, the government prohibits commercial farmers from owning multiple properties with “excessive” amount of land, under-utilized or abandoned land, and land needed for resettlement and in such cases, it has the right to expropriate (Blaikie 2000). However, “excessive amount” is not defined well on the legislation, so according to (Blaikie 2000), a person who owns two farms with 5,000 ha can lose one farm, while a person who owns one farm with 20,000 ha can keep the land. Others consider this policy as very slow and inefficient process because even after 10 years after independence, Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation only acquired 54 farms or 341,000 hectares to redistribute (Werner 2000 as quoted by Melber 2002).    As a result of the Bantustan Rule of the apartheid regime, the current Namibia is characterized not only by extremely discriminatory land tenure ship, but also by class divisions, high tribalism, and ethnic affiliations (Fosse 1997; KjÆret and Stokke 2003). As part of the nation-building process, the post-colonial government decentralized its power to regional governance systems through the Regional Councils and Local Authorities Acts of 1992 (Larsen 2003). This policy was adopted in 1997 in spite of resistance from some of the members of the ruling South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO) party for fear of federal autonomy that can weaken the power of the central government (Larsen 2003). Using Larsen’s words:   After having fought so long for independence, SWAPO was not about to lose the power once  gained, and the last thing SWAPO wished to promote were separate political and  administrative  and the leaders of the liberation movement of SWAPO (South West African People’s Organization) to liberate Namibia.  38  areas which were created during the apartheid era. Furthermore, if decentralization was to  be implemented, it would undermine SWAPO’s way of  doing politics (Larsen 2003, p. 13)    The decentralization policy’s main proposal was to abandon ethnic compartmentalization and create demographic diversity with new regional and local authority councils. The regional administrative delineations were done with the purpose to bring together the various ethnic groups, and demographically poor and rich areas such as commercial and communal lands (Schiffer 2004). The new regional authorities are responsible for creating regional, constituency, and local level development committees to coordinate development planning efforts at these scales, and establish better communication between local and regional governments. The regional councils deal with planning issues including but not limited to agriculture, water, forestry, and wildlife conservation. The central government has set up a two-chamber government of National Assembly and National Council where the council is mandated to support regional governments (Schiffer 2004). However, as shown by a number of studies, the national council and regional governments are characterized by weak structures, lack of experienced and skilled personnel, lack of cooperation with various ministries and NGOs, and lack of funding (Larsen 2003; Corbett and Jones 2000; Schiffer 2004). Hence much of the regional planning and policy making are still done by specific ministries, and decentralization continues to be top-down mostly used for implementation of national policies and planning (Larsen 2003). The shortcomings of the decentralization process and the colonial legacy of deeply embedded ethnic identity preferences severely curtailed the development of active civil society groups in the country (Fosse 1997; Larsen 2003). Moreover, the conservancy policy doesn’t illustrate the linkages or differences with regional councils or vice versa. Regional councilors are left out from conservancy formation and associated consultations as they were also new and emerging organizational structures. There was also fear that they the regional councils will over power conservancies to take their rights, revenues, and resources as also seen in Zimbabwe’s CBNRM experiences (Corbett and Jones 2000). As a result, regional councilors did not support the formation of conservancies initially since both organizations have overlapping roles and responsibilities.   In addition, the post-colonial government policy attempted to re-legitimize the role of traditional authorities through the Traditional Authorities Act of 1995 (Jones 2003a; Turner 1996). The Traditional Authorities Act states that traditional leaders   39  …shall ensure that the members of their traditional community use the natural resources  at their  disposal on a sustainable basis and in a manner that conserves the environment and maintains  the ecosystems, for the benefit of all persons in Namibia (Jones 2003a p. 33).  Nevertheless, the Act is short in detailing the duties and responsibilities of traditional authorities regarding how they can achieve sustainable use of resources, leaving the policy implementation for open interpretation (Jones 2003a). Furthermore, the Communal Land Reform Act that was passed by the National Assembly in 2002 recognizes the role of traditional authorities and the customary law but establishes an additional layer of modernized structure called Land Boards to oversee the works of traditional authorities curtailing their independence further (Jones 2003a). According to this Act, traditional authorities have the right to give grazing land access to communal land residents, and they can also regulate grazing livestock number as well as where grazing can take place. The chief may also give the right for non-residents to access grazing land for limited or indefinite amount of time or to revoke such rights. However, the customary land rights allocated by traditional authorities must always be ratified and granted by the Land Boards (Jones 2003a).The Communal Land Reform Act enables conservancies to be involved in land- use allocation where their own land use plans have to also be taken into account by the Land Boards (Jones 2003a). The role of traditional authorities within the conservancy framework is not spelled out in detail. Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) requires a representative of traditional authority to sit in the conservancy management committee (Schiffer 2004; Jones and Luipert 2002). However, the position and responsibilities of the traditional authority is unclear, therefore traditional authority representatives have taken inconsistent roles in various conservancies. In conservancies especially in the NE of the country, the traditional authority has an active role in making decisions in conservancies, while in most conservancies in the NW, they are limited to advisory or observer roles as a way of “reducing conflict of interests”. Such overlap of responsibilities between conservancies and traditional authority has been problematic in some occasions creating conflicts between the two institutions (Jones and Luipert 2002). For instance, in Salambala Conservancy located in NE of Namibia, there was a conflict when the khuta (traditional authority) gave permission for exotic tree plantation for commercial forestry project in his jurisdiction without consulting with the conservancy committee members (Jones 2002). But the biggest limitation of the legislation is that it is short from giving group land tenure ship to traditional authorities and communal conservancies (Corbett and Jones 2000).   40 In this section, we saw the historical and social complexities of land tenure, land use practices, and their associated institutions from the pre-colonial, colonial, and post colonial eras of Namibia that have ramifications for local participation in CBNRM. As a result of the colonial era practices, there exists extreme disparity of land allocations. Traditional authorities have also lost their once significant power and role in land allocation and natural resource management. The country is still divided through deeply embedded racial and tribal affiliations deterring the growth of active civil society and strong national identity. To a certain extent, the postcolonial era addresses the gross inequities using various policies and legislations. The Traditional Authority Act for instance attempts to incorporate features of pre-colonial indigenous practices by instituting the roles of traditional authorities. However, much of the powers re-legitimized back to traditional authorities are now clipped, and there is a lot of ambiguity as to how their powers come into play in the course of CBNRM implementation. In particular, pre-colonial traditional authorities once had land tenure ship and power to decide on any land and resource use issues, but in the current dispensation, few have become active decision-makers but most only serve as advisors and observers with no real power to make any significant changes in conservancies.  We now move to the historical factors and actors of nature conservation that lead to the formation of communal conservancies.  2.2.2. From National Parks to Conservancies: History of Conservation    Similar to many countries in Africa, the nature conservation history prior to the independence of Namibia is characterized by major imbalances and inequities. The first conservation initiative came as hunting regulation to minimize over hunting of large mammals, and was introduced by the colonial German government in 1892 (Barnard et. al. 1998). In 1907, the first three national parks or game reserves that are now called Etosha, Namib-Naukluft, and Gross Barmen were proclaimed through expropriation of tribal lands (Schoeman 1996), while all large indigenous mammals were also declared as State Property (Turner 1996). Through this process, not only people lost their access rights to land, but they also lost their rights to wildlife and other resources. Namibians, who resisted these changes and maintained hunting, became guilty of poaching and met harsh penalties from the official appointed as the “nature conservator” (Turner 1996).   41    Although the objective of the protected areas (national parks and game reserves) were to conserve the wildlife and wild land of the area, they were also instruments of segregation since they also served as buffer zones between commercial lands and communal lands to prevent the spread of veterinary diseases (Barnard et. al. 1998). There is an additional veterinary fence known as “Red Line” that crosses between the northern communal lands and the southern commercial lands to prevent the movement of livestock and spread of epidemics (Adams and Devitt 1992). In the 1960s, South African higher officials and prominent cabinet members began to carry out private hunting expeditions on communal lands (Sullivan 2002). In the 1970s, South West African People’s Organization (SWAPO) began its liberation movement, so the South African Defense Force (SADF) provided thousands of automatic weapons to the local tribes in an effort to subdue the oppositions which also introduced large scale and uncontrollable hunting of wild animals (Jacobsohn and Owen-Smith 2003; Sullivan 2002). Whilst this event brought high number of South African Defense Force and other high government officials  into the area who continued to carry out their own large scale illegal hunting expeditions and ivory trafficking that led to further decimation of wildlife and other resources (Jacobsohn and Owen-Smith 2003; Schiffer 2004).  In the 1980s, severe drought occurred in much of the NW communal region, where 80% of the cattle and 50% of the small stock died of starvation, so cattle herders intensified their hunting to the point where many charismatic mammals such as elephants, lions, cheetahs, and various ungulates were completely wiped out (Jacobsohn and Owen-Smith 2003). The communal conservancy initiatives came about in the late 1970s when few environmentalists from a private trust called Namibian Wildlife Trust expressed their concern about the large amount of loss of wildlife particularly big mammals such as elephants and black rhinos on communal lands (Sullivan 2002). They initiated a Community Game Guard system with the support of resident communities and traditional leaders in the NW of the country in 1983. The game guards are selected by their communities and are employed by an NGO called Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC). The game guards’ main role was to patrol and monitor wildlife movement and poaching, and report incidents to the traditional authorities (Turner 1996).  This communal land conservation effort began showing a reduction in poaching, leading to recovery of some wildlife, especially the critically endangered black rhino population (NACSO 2004). However, the active role that community game guards played was short lived following the reduction of salaries and supervision by IRDNC especially in the eve of Namibian independence (Sullivan 2002).   42  While the number of wildlife was reduced through poaching and illegal hunting on communal lands, they were thriving on commercial ranches. In 1968, conditional hunting rights were given to commercial farmers as long as they fenced their land. By 1975, a new legislation gave full proprietorship to commercial farmers to retain all income from wildlife consumption, and encouraged the formation of conservancies, helping to create multi-million dollar tourism and sport hunting industry on commercial lands (NACSO 2004). This policy incentive also encouraged commercial farmers to take down their fences and pool together their land, financial, human, and natural resources to manage wildlife communally through conservancy institutions. However the 1968 or 1975 policies did not allow the same rights to those who lived on communal lands.   The post-independence government took drastic measures to integrate social justice, rural development, and biodiversity conservation as a way to reverse the negative impacts of fortress conservation of the colonial era. A series of socio-ecological surveys were conducted by Ministry of Wildlife, Conservation and Tourism which is currently called the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) and partner NGOs in 1991 in communal areas, where most of black Africans lived closely with wildlife. The survey results revealed that communal land communities wanted the same land ownership and legal amenities as commercial ranchers to manage and benefit from wildlife resources (NACSO 2004). Hence, the Namibian government decided to integrate participatory and market based ideologies to coincide with the global phenomenon of participatory development and decentralization to respond to the needs of communal land inhabitants.   This search for an appropriate natural resource management scheme was underway at the time when the discourse of fortress conservation was shifting to self-governing common property institution approaches globally following the introduction of Common Property Theories as depicted by (Ostrom 1990) and (Wade 1987). In the meantime, a pioneering CBNRM model, which Sullivan (2002, p. 159) described as “the blue-print for USAID CBNRM programmes throughout southern Africa and elsewhere”, called Communal Areas Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) was established in neighbouring Zimbabwe that shared similar land tenure and nature conservation issues with Namibia. Hence, with careful consideration of the socio-ecological survey results carried out on communal lands, previous successful experiences of conservancies on commercial lands, the recovery of wildlife on communal lands because of  43 the community game guard systems, and the CAMPFIRE program of the neighbouring Zimbabwe, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism of Namibia developed the first draft communal conservancy policy in 1992 (NACSO 2004). The policy’s aim was to provide access rights over wildlife and tourism to communal land communities through the formation of conservancies (NACSO 2004). This ambitious initiative was expected to not only protect the ecological capital, but also alleviate the extreme rural poverty of communal lands of Namibia. The National Development Plan (NDP) 1 and 2 and the country’s Vision 2030 track the progress and contribution of conservancies for local as well as national development using the National Poverty Monitoring Strategy indicators (NACSO 2004). In 1996, the policy was passed by parliament as legislation called the Nature Conservation Amendment Act, and in 1998, the first three conservancies were gazetted, and the national communal CBNRM program was officially launched by former President Sam Nujoma.   Following the policy formation, the United States Agency for Development (USAID) through an intermediary international NGO called WWF-LIFE9 (World Wide Fund for Nature- Living in an Infinite Environment) came into the process in 1993 and brought an initial 14 million dollars financial support to the program (Jones 2004). USAID gave a total of $30 Million of funding support to the CBNRM program of Namibia in two phases that run until 2010. The Namibian CBNRM program along with the CAMPFIRE program of Zimbabwe, Zambia’s Administrative Management Design Programme for Game Management Areas (ADMADE), and Botswana’s Natural Resource Management Programme (NRMP) create a network of CBNRM projects in southern Africa supported by USAID (Turner 1996).    As of 2006, there were 44 registered conservancies in Namibia managing 10.5 Million hectares or over 35% of the communal lands (NNF 2006). Figure 2.1 below has the map of communal conservancies in Namibia as of 2004.  9 The intermediary international NGO WWF-LIFE is a branch of the World Wildlife Fund US (WWFUS) whose headquarters is located in Washington DC.  44 Figure 2.1 Map of Registered and Emerging Communal Conservancies of Namibia (2004)   Source: Courtesy of  NACSO and MET, NACSO Report 2004, P.16)  45 There were also 26 emerging conservancies at different stages of development. Conservancies played a major role in the recovery of wildlife especially flagship species such as black rhino and elephants that were at the brink of extinction on communal lands. This is mainly because many conservancies lie next to national parks and game reserves enhancing connectivity between wildlife habitats by extending the protected area network in the country (NACSO 2004). Communal conservancies cover 9% of Namibia’s surface area. Adding this to the 14% within national parks and game reserves, and 5% from commercial farm conservancies brings the total land surface in Namibia under protection to 27% (NACSO 2004). In addition to the recovery and increase of wildlife populations, conservancies are also responsible for conserving biodiversity through protection of species endemism and richness. As of 2003, there were seven registered and eleven emerging conservancies in areas where there is relatively high species richness, whilst eighteen registered and at least seventeen emerging conservancies make a valuable contribution to the conservation of endemic species (NACSO 2004).   The total income from conservancies increased from N$600,000 in 1998 to N$19.5 million in 2005 (NNF 2006). Some 3,800 full and part time jobs are created to rural communal residents through the conservancy movement (Ogbaharya 2006). Most of the income for conservancies comes from trophy hunting and joint-venture tourism.  A household income expenditure survey was carried out in seven conservancies in 2002 to evaluate the impact of conservancies on household incomes and welfare. The results showed that conservancy members received cash income, non-cash rewards, and community level benefits (Bandyopadhyay 2004). Nevertheless, individual households overall did not enjoy significant financial gain from conservancies. The survey data show that some 12% of the surveyed households report conservancy related cash income. 21% of all survey households viewed meat distribution as one benefit of conservancies (a non-cash reward). Living within conservancies and close to wildlife also comes with its costs, however. Over 50% of the households surveyed reported that they suffered crop or livestock damage from wildlife.   In summary, nature conservation in Namibia originated from the classical bullet and barbed wire approach where large amount of land were set aside by forcefully removing indigenous tribes to protect wilderness and prevent the spread of veterinary diseases on commercial lands. However the fortress conservation topped with the introduction of modern weapons to put down civil unrest from the liberation movement, and large-scale illegal hunting  46 by South African army and bureaucrats has caused severe damage on wildlife of communal lands. The post-independence era embraced participatory and market based approaches of natural resource management and established the policy to create communal conservancies in order to appeal to donor interests and ease the pressure for land tenure ship from communal residents. Conservancies are successful in increasing wildlife numbers by opening up large area of land for wildlife roaming making the initiative a conservation victory. They also brought limited economic development through cash and non-cash goods to communal land residents. Nevertheless the economic benefits are not significant enough to change rural livelihoods, while the costs from wildlife damages are comparably higher causing difficulty for rural inhabitants.  2.2.3. Tourism as Development Enterprise in Namibian Communal Conservancies    Much of the land in Namibia experiences extreme dry weather making it the most arid country south of the Sahara (Ashley 2000). The country’s economy is heavily dependent on mining, livestock farming, fishing, and tourism. Mineral mining accounts for 20% of the GDP and 50% of the foreign currency (OCED 2002). Mineral mining activities are located in central west and south east of the country further away from communal and commercial farm lands. Minerals exploited include diamond, copper, uranium, gold, lead, tin, silver, and tungsten. Less than 1% of the country is arable land—mostly susceptible to drought—supporting subsistence crop farming of millet and maize on communal lands. Livestock grazing and ranching on commercial lands contributes 8.4 % of the GDP and is a major source of income and employment (Institute for Security Studies 2006). Packed in between the Namib and Kalahari Deserts, Namibia is also rich with diverse vegetations and large charismatic wildlife such as giraffes, rhinos, buffalos, cheetahs, spotted hyenas, and the largest population of African elephants that are attracting tourists from around the world. Accordingly, the tourism industry stems mainly from national parks, game reserves, and cultural visits, and contributed N$2.8 billion to the national GDP in 2004 which is approximately 23 % of the national income ( 2006).   As the largest industry in the world, tourism is increasingly used as development incentive for economically impoverished but natural resource rich countries. By the mid 1990s, USAID had 105 projects, totaling US $2 billion with ecotourism components, and 32 of the 55 World Bank-financed projects that supported Protected Areas (PAs) in Africa between 1988 and  47 2003 included Community Based Ecotourism (CBET) components (Kiss 2004). Similarly, the post-colonial government of Namibia recognized tourism as one of its development strategies (Ashley 2000). Shortly after, the European Commission (EC) currently known as European Union (EU) brought funding assistance of 7.2 million Euros to develop the Namibian tourism sector through integrated Technical Assistance approaches. The funding provided support for equipment purchase, technical assistance, tourism education and curriculum development at local academic institutions, tourism quality certification program development, tourism infrastructure development, technological upgrading, and various short and long term training to government and relevant NGOs (Novelli and Gebhardt 2007). The funding was provided to Ministry of Environment and Tourism and the technical assistance was led by a local consulting firm. Subsequently, the Namibian Tourism Development Plan (NTDP) was established in 1993. Within this plan, a community based tourism (CBT) policy was also approved in 1995. The CBT’s objectives were to give communal land residents the right to utilize tourism as a way to diversify the unreliable agriculture economy, and as an incentive for wildlife conservation (Ashley 2000; MET 1995b).  Currently there are five types of tourism arrangements on communal lands (Ashley 2000):  • Private lodges or camping sites: These are enterprises that have been  operating in communal areas even before the CBT policy came about with  government permission but don’t have any agreements with the locals.  • Private lodges voluntarily sharing revenue with locals: These also operate with government concession, and have been in the area before the CBT policy came into effect, and voluntarily pay bed nigh levies to local communities.  • Joint venture lodges and trophy hunting (partnership between private   investors and the community): Private investors build and manage the   lodge or bring tourists for trophy hunting expeditions and they have to have a   contractual agreement with communities or conservancies for financial   and other capacity development benefits.   48 • Local enterprise run by community representatives or local  entrepreneurs: These include locally owned lodges, campsites, craft centers,  and tour guiding services.  • Informal goods and service suppliers: These are local people who  provide food,  craft, and other materials to area tourists or lodges.    Following the adoption of the CBT policy, all new tourism ventures applying for concession rights to operate on communal lands need to establish joint venture agreements with communal land residents or conservancies highlighting the details of how locals participate in the enterprise, and the types of direct benefits they intend to provide to the host communities (Novelli and Gebhardt 2007). From 1992-1998, many Community Based Tourism Enterprises (CBTEs) began to operate in much of the NW of the country. A local NGO called Namibia Community-Based Tourism Association (NACOBTA) representing these newly formed CBTEs was created in 1995 with material and financial support from EU’s Technical Assistance Program. NACOBTA’s role is to assist communal land residents to gain benefits of jobs and income from joint venture tourism enterprises and to establish local enterprises (Novelli and Gebhardt 2007). It provides training, business plan development assistance, marketing support, as well as funding for construction of small-scale tourism related infrastructures such as camp sites to conservancies. It also exposes the CBTEs to the world market by supporting their participation in international trade fairs (Novelli and Gebhardt 2007). NACOBTA is heavily reliant on donor funding, and also charges CBT enterprises an annual membership fee of $150 for its services. Currently, NACOBTA is currently supported by the government of Austria and USAID and has experienced financial hardship due to the redirection of donor funding to other priority areas. Thus it has gone through major restructuring and had to reduce staff and some of its services to CBTEs ((Novelli and Gbhardt 2007). In addition to NACOBTA, the Namibia Tourism Board which is also established with funding support from EU’s Technical Assistance Program ensures that tour operators coming from overseas diversify their packages to include CBT enterprises (Novelli and Gbhardt 2007).    In spite of its promising results and alleged potentials, tourism based development is also known for bringing many detrimental ecological as well as socio-economic impacts. Hence, promoting tourism growth as a panacea for rural poverty might not bring the purported  49 sustainable development. In fact, there are studies showing that the large number of tourists visiting African national parks caused alarming destruction to pristine habitats because there are no mechanisms to control the number of visitors (Cater 1994). In addition, harmful socio- economic impacts vary from commodification of indigenous arts and cultures to inflation of prices of goods and services to residents of the host country, and forceful removal of indigenous people to make way for tourism infrastructure developments (Cater 1994; Wheat 2002). Employment benefits to rural people are often limited and unsatisfactory as most people are hired to do unskilled low-wage jobs (Sullivan 2002). In Namibia, the high rate of population on communal lands makes tourism related individual benefits very low and insignificant for diversifying livelihoods (Sullivan 2002). Another challenge arises from insecurity of land tenures on Namibian communal lands discouraging high end safari lodge investors from investing in the area (Massyn 2007). This is because bigger and reputable tourism investors need to have secured land rights to allow them enough time to earn reasonable profit for their investment. Hence, much of the investments in these areas tend to be small-scale enterprises that offer quick return to the investors but insignificant amount of benefits to the residents (Massyn 2007). Furthermore, many studies show that the tourism industry’s dependency on global market threatens its sustainability when the number of tourists coming into the country reduces suddenly due to events such as natural disasters, disease outbreaks, or civil strife within the host country, or fluctuating currency rates or recession in industrialized nations where most of the tourists come from. Namibia experienced such threats when conflicts from the Caprivi separatist movement broke out in NE of the country in 1999, and the spillover of the neighboring Angolan war into Namibia in 2000 (Inambao 1999, 2000 as quoted by Sullivan 2002). Such conflicts caused massive tourist cancellations, temporary closure of 10 lodges in the area, as well as job losses to the local residents.   In summary, the tourism industry development is intensified on communal lands despite its challenges for sustainability due to lack of land tenure or unreliable dependency on the global market. The Community Based Tourism (CBT) policy allows communal land residents to gain benefits from the industry. Similar to the larger CBNRM program, donors also have much influence in the creation of CBT enterprises or their supporting institutions such as NACOBTA, and the Namibia Tourism Board. In the next sections I will describe the institutional arrangements of the capacity development program for CBNRM in Namibia in general and the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy in particular.  50 2.3. Capacity Development for Local Participation in Namibian Conservancies    Communal conservancies need to have CD interventions in two phases: 2.3.1. Pre-Conservancy Formation Capacity Needs:  These are the capacities of communal residents to fulfill the six requirements set by Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) in order to get a legally recognized conservancy status. Box 2.1 below has the MET requirements for communal conservancies. Box 2.1 Ministry of Environment and Tourism Requirements to Establish Conservancies               These requirements are complex and time consuming, needing the intervention of capacity developers from the start. For instance, the boundaries for conservancies have to be set using permanent land marks, or they need to be recorded using Global Positioning System (GPS), and these boundaries need to be agreed with neighboring communities (Schiffer 2004). Various consultations and negotiations should also be carried out by those interested to form conservancies with community members and outside stakeholders. This involves a process of community mobilization and awareness-raising by visiting all the farm posts within the designated area and explaining the purposes of the conservancy as well as establishing membership through registration (Long 2004). In addition, the conservancy has to have an all- member approved constitution with its mission, objectives, and boundary details, and where the roles and responsibilities of the management committee and conservancy members are clearly defined. The ministry has a “constitution template” created for the purpose of training conservancies highlighting some of the obligations of conservancies such as the presence of traditional authorities in conservancy management committees (MET 1996). Conservancies The requirements created by the 1996 Conservation Amendment Act in order for conservancies to be legally recognized entities are as the following: • A statement setting out the boundaries of the geographic area in respect of which an  application is made; • A constitution that provides for the sustainable management and utilization of  game; • A committee that is representative of the community residing in the area to which the  application relates; • A list of members of the conservancy. Source: (Government of the Republic of Namibia, 1996, p1)  51 should also have conservancy management committee (CMC) members that are representative of the whole area, and their selection needs to be done through democratic elections.  The CMC members have the responsibility to oversee the management of hard resources (finances, infrastructure, equipment, and staff) of the conservancy and the sound utilization of natural resources. 2.3.2. Post-Conservancy Formation Capacities   Once the conservancy is established and recognized by the government, it is linked with one or two government or NGO CD service providers to build its hard and soft capacities. For instance, the conservancy should have the necessary skilled human resource to run the day to day operations of the conservancy in terms of administrative and financial issues, and to monitor and regulate the status of natural resources. Once the conservancy has adequate capacity to run on its own, each conservancy continues to be linked with one or more NGO or government service providers for long-term continual support whenever the need arises. The conservancy should also have a benefit distribution plan to make sure that conservancy members are getting their fair share of benefits from natural resources. Management plans should also be in place for how to manage wildlife and other renewable natural resources sustain ably. Many of these plans are supposed to be developed in consultation with community members. The conservancy should also have financial sustainability through trophy hunter contracts, joint venture agreements with private enterprises, or development of its own tourism enterprises. Last but not least, the conservancy should have effective communication mechanisms to ensure that members are updated and consulted with various conservancy issues regularly.  2.4. The Namibian CBNRM Capacity Development Institutional Framework    The Namibian CBNRM capacity development program is a joint effort between donors, state, local and international NGOs, private enterprises, and communal land resource user communities (Long 2004). The main focus of the capacity development program has been on training and technical assistance on issues of institution development, natural resource management, and enterprise development (Long 2004). We will see how the CBNRM capacity development service providers are organized in detail on Figure 2.2 below.  52 Figure 2.2 Funding Relationships and Institutional Arrangements of CD in CBNRM          Donors          USAID            EU     World Bank     UNDP/GEF           SIDA         DfID-UK CD Service Providers        NACSO  (12 NGOs & University Namibia)  Conservancies Intermediary NGO Namibia Nature Foundation  (Member of NACSO)  Ministry of Environment and Tourism Tourism (Joint Ventures and Private Enterprises Voluntarily Sharing Revenues)  53 The straight lines on the diagram above indicate organizational relationships, while the dotted lines show where the CBNRM funding comes from and how it flows to the various stakeholders. 2.4.1. Donors  When the conservancy movement began, the donor influence was minimal. The main donors were WWF US and WWF International who had local personnel managing their projects with supervisory visits from their headquarters (Jones and Murphree 2001). Later on as the CBNRM program expanded, major funding came from the USAID in 1993 through the WWF- LIFE program where an expatriate staff began managing this new initiative. Following USAID, Austrian, German, Swedish, Finnish, and British development agencies (ADA, GTZ, SIDA, Finnida and DfID) as well as the EU, World Bank, and the UNDP supported various components of the CBNRM program mostly through financial, material, and technical support. 2.4.2. State  When communities intend to establish a conservancy, they make their first contact with Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET). The CBNRM unit is located within the Directorate of Resource Management of MET, and is partnered with the Directorate of Tourism, the Directorate of Environmental Affairs, and Director of Forestry to provide the necessary support to conservancies for implementation of the Nature Conservation Act of 1996. Initially, the conservancy movement began by few people in the ministry who wanted to reform the classical fortress conservation, and they were met with resistance from those in higher positions who were reluctant to change the traditional ways (Jones and Murphree 2001). Hence, until the CBNRM program got a proper recognition thorough the 1996 legislation, it was driven by a small policy and planning division of the MET and was excluded from the “powerful” Parks and Wildlife directorate of MET (Jones and Murphree 2001).   The ministry doesn’t have adequate capacity to give any financial or material assistance to conservancies. This is mainly because the bulk of donor funding for supporting CBNRM program or conservancies are directed to NGOs. Accordingly, the state classified itself as the policy making body, while considering NGOs as the financial and material support providers to conservancies. Jones and Murphree have described this as the following (2001, P. 171)   54  The DEA [Department of Environmental Affairs] partnered with Integrated Rural Development  and Nature Conservation (IRDNC) [an NGO] in establishing the national CBNRM programme,  based on the acknowledgement that MET did not have the necessary institution building and  community development skills and that it would be costly and time-consuming to build this  capacity. The DEA saw the role of government as being to provide the enabling framework  within which communities could gain rights over wildlife and tourism while NGOs could  facilitate and support community action.  Hence, MET is primarily responsible to establish the legal and policy frameworks of CBNRM, oversee the policy implementation, and give the necessary guidance to communities in forming conservancies.  It’s primary capacity development focus is on wildlife management including law enforcement, patrolling training, and the annual quota setting of wildlife consumption for trophy or community hunting. Although sufficient donor funding is not allocated to the ministry, it has received some assistance especially from the European Commission for purposes of conservancy-related research, staff training, as well as the development of the tourism sector. NGOs have also given limited financial assistance to the government for staff training and running workshops with conservancies. Conservancies also collaborate with Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural development (MAWRD) in various capacity and community development efforts.  2.4.3. NGOs               Although MET is the leading institution for policy design and implementation, as discussed above, it has scarce human, material, and financial resources to provide effective capacity development to conservancies. Hence, the role of NGOs is primarily to fill in the gaps where the government doesn’t have the capacity (Long 2004). These include a. providing services in regions where the government doesn’t have the human             resources but where a specific NGO is active; b. providing training and technical assistance especially in areas of institutional development such as community mobilization, organizational development, natural resource management, and financial management; and c.  providing financial and resource support in the forms of small grants, vehicles, and office equipments for establishing conservancies.   WWF-LIFE, an international NGO overseeing the management of USAID funding for CBNRM projects carried out the bulk of the support associated with the CBNRM policy  55 implementation in the earlier years of the conservancy movement (Jones et al 2001; Long 2004). However, a need for indigenizing the process was recognized so a strategy for local organizations to take over the responsibilities of LIFE became a priority (Long 2004). Part of this process was the transfer of donor funds to local NGOs. Hence, Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF), a local NGO with adequate hard and soft capacities was given the responsibility to manage and dispense donor funding to the relevant CBNRM stakeholders such as government, other NGOs, and conservancies. In addition to managing donor funding, NNF also gives technical and training support to conservancies. Moreover, as part of the uplifting of indigenous capacity, CBNRM support organizations created a new partnership under an independent secretariat called The Namibia Association of Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Support Organizations (NACSO). NACSO was founded in 1999 from 11 non government organizations and University of Namibia (UNAM). See Table 2.1 below for the list of organizations within the NACSO umbrella.  Table 2.1 List of Organizations Under NACSO and Their CD Focus  Organizations Under NACSO Focus and Specialty of Each of the NGOs Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC) Field based organization assisting emerging and registered conservancies in NW and NE of the country Legal Assistance Center (LAC)  Provides legal advice to conservancies and serves on various CBNRM advocacy issues Living in a Finite Environment (LIFE) Provides technical assistance to policy implementers in natural resource management, enterprise and business development, and institutional development University of Namibia (UNAM) Provides research related support to CBNRM Namibia Community Based Tourism Association (NACOBTA) Umbrella organizations supporting tourism and enterprise development within conservancies Namibia Development Trust (NDT) Field based organization assisting conservancies in the eastern part of the country Nyae Nyae Development Foundation (NNDFN) Field based organization supporting the San (Bushmen) communities Namibia Nature Foundation (NNF) Provides assistance in grant making, administration, fund raising, financial administration and monitoring & evaluation Rossing Foundation Provides resource and training support including community craft development and marketing to conservancies in the NW Rural Peoples of Institute of Namibia (RISE) Field Based organization assisting emerging and registered conservancies in central and top north region of the country Deseret Research Foundation of Namibia (DRFN) Assisting conservancies in combating desertification  56    NACSO’s objectives are to bring together skills, resources, and capacities from various institutions to coordinate support to conservancies, advocate for policy and legislative changes when necessary, and monitor and evaluate the effectiveness and impacts of conservancy development (Long 2004).  Although MET was a member of the association when NACSO was created, it withdrew itself because of political and bureaucratic concerns associated with the appropriateness of the ministry’s partnership with NGOs (Long 2004).  MET continues to sit on NACSO’s quarterly meetings as an observer, and collaborates closely with NACSO partners in implementing the CBNRM program nationally. NACSO coordinates its services to conservancies through various working groups structured parallel to the three pillars of the Namibian CBNRM program (i.e.) natural resource management, institutional development, and enterprise development. Initially, NACSO had ten working groups which are now consolidated to four to avoid overlaps and enhance efficiency (Personal Communication with S. Nangulah, UNAM CBNRM Unit). The working groups include the Institutional Development Working group, the Business and Enterprise Development Working Group, The Natural Resources Management Working Group, and the Monitoring and Evaluation Working group. Each of the working groups has a chairperson and representatives of the various NGOs whose particular services match the type of support provided by the specific working group. The working groups are mostly based in the urban areas but they work closely with the conservancies and their field staff to explore the needs of conservancies and respond to them accordingly. For instance the working groups produced training materials and manuals on various institutional development and natural resource management issues based on the needs assessment done with the conservancies. In addition to the working groups, NGOs within the NACSO structure work in specific geographical areas in order to avoid overlap of services. 2.4.4.  Private Enterprises    The Community Based Tourism (CBT) policy helps conservancies to establish partnerships with private enterprises in order to gain concession fees and employment opportunities for local residents. So conservancies sign joint venture agreements with private enterprises such as lodges, trophy hunters, and camp sites operating in their areas. These joint venture agreements usually have “empowerment clauses” where private enterprises have to give the necessary skills and training to local residents in trophy hunting and camp site management. The training is expected to help conservancies to have the skills and capacity so they are able to  57 open up their own campsite and trophy hunting enterprises in the long run. It also helps locals to acquire the necessary lodge management capacity to move up from the usual service related occupations to more advanced technical and managerial positions within the private enterprises.  2.5. The #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy   I chose #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy located in NW region of the country for this study because it has nine years of existence providing my research longer history of information than other conservancies. It is also a conservancy that received adequate amounts of capacity development training, technical assistance, and donor funding, and is no longer getting financial assistance since it is considered as a fully “capacitated” and “self-sufficient” conservancy. Moreover, #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy is considered as a showcase conservancy of Namibia since it has strong organizational and institutional structures, a well established benefit sharing plan, and possesses its own tourism enterprises such as a lodge and campsite (Communication with Conservancy Manager).  #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy is one of the first four communal conservancies established in Namibia in 1998. It is located in northwest Namibia in Kunene Region, within Ward 10 of the Khorixas District. Members of the Grootberg Farmers Association (GFA), a well organized and established community based organization (CBO) that has been operating in the area since the 1970s created the conservancy. #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy took a unique approach of natural resource management that has integrated programs of livestock and wildlife management. The conservancy has an annual operating budget of N$180,000-200,000. The majority of its revenue comes from trophy hunting, and small proportion comes from wildlife capture and sell and wildlife shoot and sale agreements. One of the new models of Community Based Tourism Enterprises currently being explored in Namibia is the development of a community lodge. This is because small scale enterprises such as campsites did not generate adequate income to the conservancies, while the community empowerment from joint ventures are limited (Novelli and Gebhardt 2007). Consequently, the European Union financed the construction of the first community owned lodge in the country called Grootberg Lodge in #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy through the Namibian Tourism Development Program within MET with a capital of N$4.5 Million. The conservancy also owns a campsite called Hoada Campsite which is financed with  58 donor funding via the intermediary local NGO NACOBTA (See Figure 2.3 below for pictures of the lodge and campsite).    Figure 2.3 Pictures of Hoada Campsite and Grootberg Lodge  Source: Author      This Grootberg lodge has 12 rooms, and the 12,000 hectare area surrounding it is zoned and managed exclusively for non-consumptive tourism activities. The lodge is currently managed by a private company called EcoLodgistix Namibia. According to the 10 year agreement signed between the conservancy and  EcoLodgistix Namibia, the lodge management will be handed over to the community after the first five years (by the year 2009) after the necessary capacities are developed. Once the community starts managing the lodge, EcoLodgistix Namibia is expected to have minimal supervisory role to assist in the transition five years between the years 2009-2013.  The lodge created job opportunities for 16-20 local residents. Grootberg Lodge is expected to generate about N$ 300,000 income on its first year to cover its own running cost and sustain itself (The Namibian 2005). I was at the conservancy exactly one year after the lodge opened. I learned that the income generated in the initial few months after its official opening was low because the lodge was not marketed well. Nevertheless, at the time of my research, the lodge had full occupancy for the entire summer of 2006. If such booking rates continue, the lodge is expected to pay out dividends to cover some of the  59 conservancy’s administrative costs by the end of 2007 (Communication with conservancy manager). 2.5.1. Biophysical Features of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy   The #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy consists of some 362, 000 hectares of semi-arid rangeland. The topography of the area is characterized with flat sandy highland plains, granite hills, and the Grootberg Plateau. Its extreme aridity influences the variation of rainfall which is between 240 and 300 mm, and where drought is a common occurrence (Vaughn 2002).  The Hoanib and Huab ephemeral (seasonal) Rivers cross the conservancy area. The majority of the vegetation is mopane savannah and acacia grass. The area has rich diversity of wildlife consisting of some 200 elephants which is also why the conservancy is given the name #Khoadi ||Hôas meaning “Elephants Corner” in Damara language. Other wildlife includes rhinos, springbok, gemsbok, kudu, zebra, giraffe, and various birds and reptiles.  The extreme aridity makes the area totally unsuitable for crop farming, and even large-scale livestock farming is difficult. There is severe water shortage, and the water points are shared among people, livestock, and wildlife populations increasing the human-wildlife conflict at an alarming rate (Jones 1999b). 2.5.2. Socio-Economic Features of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy  The area was once held by European settlers under commercial land tenure but the South African government bought the land and redistributed it as a Damaraland Native Reserve through its Bantustan System (Vaughan and Katjiua 2002). The conservancy has 3,000-3,500 people with about 160 main households or farm posts. The majority of the population is from the Damara tribe, followed by the Hererro and few Ovambos. The population is widely scattered primarily settled closer to water points and grazing areas. (See Figure 2.4 below for the location of the conservancy and its land mark features).   60    Figure 2.4 Map of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy   Source: Courtesy of NACSO and MET (NACSO CBNRM Report 2004, P. 52)   As can be seen on the above map, there are two semi-urban settlement areas in the conservancy called Anker and Erwee where the majority of the population lives. Each town has a clinic, primary school, and small shops; Erwee has the Agricultural Extension Center (AGEC) which is a department under the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. The AGEC gives various training and material assistance to the area farmers on livestock and farming techniques, and is also instrumental in forming the Grootberg Farmers Association. Many people in these towns are employed as government employees working for the Agricultural Extension Center (AGEC) or as teachers at the primary schools. Majority of the population living outside the two urban centers live off of livestock farming mainly rearing goats, sheep, and few cattle. There are also people who do receive remittances from family members living in cities as well as  61 pensioners who get financial support from the government. Employment opportunities for young people are slim to none. The conservancy and its associated enterprises hired around 30-32 people at full and part time basis, and so far those who are hired are mostly medium-aged (30- 50) male employees, while there are few female and young employees.  The conservancy is also divided into eight farmers’ associations (Figure 2.5 shows the farmers’ associations).   Figure 2.5 The Eight Farmers Associations in #Khoadi ||Hôas Conservancy   2.5.3. The #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy Structure   #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy has about 3,000 registered members. The current Conservancy Management Committee (CMC) is made up of 17 members with 5 women and 12 men. The executives in the CMC is comprised of 6 members who are holding the positions of chairperson, vice chairperson, secretary, vice secretary, treasurer, and vice treasurer. There are a total of nine additional members in the conservancy management committee including a representative of the traditional authority. Aside from the organizational structure, the conservancy also has a constitution. The conservancy successfully distributed individual and community level benefits to its members according to its benefit sharing plan. In addition to its  62 non-cash benefits, the conservancy has 2 full time staff (the Conservancy Manager and the Information Liaison Officer), 3 full time and 3 part time environmental shepherds, and 2 camp site staff members. Environmental shepherds are staff members of the conservancy who are trained to field monitor and collect data of the local livestock, vegetation, and wildlife status through regular patrolling. They use the Event Book system10 to record their daily wildlife count, veld (vegetation) monitoring, as well as incidents of fire, poaching, problem animals, and wildlife mortalities (Stuart-hill et. al. 2005). The Event Book System is made of various colored data forms for daily and monthly reporting. A copy of the recorded data is sent to the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) at the end of each year, so the ministry can use the data to set up the annual quota of wildlife for trophy hunting and community consumption. Environmental shepherds are also responsible to enforce wildlife related laws and policies as adopted by the conservancy and Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET).  2.6. The Capacity Development Institutional Arrangements for #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy   #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy is one of the first conservancies to be established, so it has benefited from generous financial, material, training, and technical assistance. The capacity development efforts were facilitated to the conservancy using three approaches: 2.6.1. CD through the FIRM Approach   The #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy benefited from a uniquely organized capacity development network created by Namibia’s Programme to Combat Desertification (NAPCOD). NAPCOD is a partnership between government, NGOs and Community based organizations (CBOs) working in the area. NAPCOD is instrumental in developing and testing a model of integrated livestock and wildlife resource management called FIRM (Forum for Integrated Resource Management). (See Figure 2.6 for the FIRM structure as adapted from FIRM 2003).   10 The Event Book system is a local level wildlife monitoring system that has been created within the Namibian Conservancies.  63     Figure 2.6 FIRM Stakeholders Structure   The objective of the FIRM is to better coordinate training and technical assistance services provided by government and NGOs to the community-based organizations operating in the area. According to a CD expert, through the FIRM platform, all of the CBOs within the conservancy which are the traditional authority, Grootberg Farmers Association, #Khoadi //Hoas Conservancy, the women’s desk, and the youth league were able to gather in one platform and establish integrated annual work plans with the support of government and NGO service providers. Once the annual work plans are established, training and technical assistance needs are identified and prioritized in order to avoid duplication of efforts and enhance effective utilization of resources.  The service-providers use the integrated work plans drawn out by the CBOs to assess their own capacities and human resource skills in order to facilitate effective and efficient capacity development. FIRM stakeholders held quarterly meetings to report about the various training and technical assistance activities. Within the FIRM platform, training is provided to the area CBOs on livestock and range management issues such as improved CBOs • Traditional Authority • #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy • Grootberg Farmers Union • Veterinary Services • Women’s Desk • Youth League  Government • Ministry of Environment and Tourism • Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development • Rural Water Supply • Agricultural Extension Center NGOs • Namibian Nature Foundation • Deseret Research Foundation • World Wildlife Fund-LIFE • Namibian Community Based Tourism Association • Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations (NACSO)  Forum for Integrated Resource Management FIRM  64 livestock farming, integrating wildlife and tourism into community livelihoods, improved water supply management, and more efficient information exchange and networking (FIRM 2003).   In addition, the service providers along with the community organizations carried out baseline surveys of the biophysical features and status of the natural resource base of the area in order to create adaptive resource management plans. Environmental shepherds are also trained to do regular monitoring and recording of the status of natural resources through the FIRM apprach. Most of the service providers except MET have withdrawn from the FIRM platform at the current time since most of the CBOs are satisfactorily capacitated and need limited amount of support. But the CBOs themselves with the local MET staff kept the FIRM structure, and they continue to carry out their activities using integrated work plans.  2.6.2. CD through NACSO   These are additional training and technical assistances specifically designed and provided to the conservancy staff and CMC members to enhance the conservancy’s organizational development and institutional capacity. Training is provided on financial management, office administration, record keeping, hospitality, tour guiding, roles and responsibilities of CMC members, fundraising, and proposal writing. In addition, the service providers assisted the conservancy in the development of its benefit sharing, land use, and conservancy management plans.  2.6.3. CD through the Private Sector (The Lodge Management)  This is the training that Ecolodgestix provides to the lodge employed staff. The initial training on lodge management and safari guiding occurred outside the conservancy in private training institutions. According to a service provider interviewee, the first group of local employees took two month intense training on the day to day operations of a lodge such as housekeeping, bar managing, food processing and catering, table waiting, front desk reception, and safari guiding from other lodges located in the south of the country. In addition to the day to day operation of the lodge, Ecolodgestix Namibia is also responsible to identify and train local managers who can take over the management of the lodge in the first five years.  65 In summary, the Namibian communal conservancy originated from complex socio- economic histories and events associated with its pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial eras. Such complex histories shape the tradition that can enhance or weaken local participation. In addition, remnants of the colonial era such as extreme disparities in land allocation and wealth, tribalism, patronage politics, and racial and class divisions amongst Namibians undermines the development of active civil society and social capital which are influential for the enhancement of local participation. The post independence government designed a number of new policies, legislative acts, and governance structures to address the injustices of the colonial era. One of these legislations is the 1996 Nature Conservation Act that gave custodianship of wildlife on communal lands to those who live on them. However, when the policy implementation is underway, various challenges unfolded due to the government’s reluctance to devolve full autonomy and power to the locals; overlapping of duties and responsibilities amongst the newly formed formal and the re-legitimized informal institutions undermining each others authorities and performance; as well as excessive global influences of donors and tourism challenging sustainability of the conservancy program. Nevertheless, within such complex contextual framework exists the conservancy movement facilitating limited but tangible and intangible benefits to few of the residents of communal conservancies. The conservancy program is integrated with its own capacity development programs in order to develop the institutional, natural resource management, and enterprise development capacities of communal conservancies. Government, NGOs, and private enterprises brought their resources together in an effective manner to facilitate the capacity development process. The #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy which is the study site for this particular research is one of the first communal conservancies of Namibia that benefited from such integrated capacity development efforts. CD in #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy is facilitated through the FIRM platform, the NACSO partnerships, and the private enterprises tasked with managing the community owned lodge.  66 3. USING THE PAST AND THE PRESENT AS TOMORROW’S  GUIDE: EVALUATING CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN  #KHOADI //HÔAS CONSERVANCY  3.1. Case Study Methodology in an Evaluation Research   There are forty-four registered conservancies on the communal lands of Namibia where local people participate in their management. The best way to examine capacity development for local participation is by choosing a conservancy and studying it intensely through the case study methodology. This in turn allows the in-depth exploration of phenomenon within a particular context in specific place and time which in turn helps to draw out information about the bigger picture (Hartley 1994; Yin 1989).   The case study methodology is a qualitative descriptive research used when questions such as “how” or “why” are posed, and the researcher has no control over the specific phenomenon (Yin 1989). This research is an explanatory case study showing cause and effect of phenomenon investigated through specific place and time period. In other words, capacity development strategies i.e. (causes) and their impact on local participation i.e. (effects) are assessed by examining the CD processes and tools and the resulting new capacities, and their performance and permanence at individual, conservancy/organizational, and community levels from the time of the conservancy’s formation to its current stage. This methodology is preferred for assessing community-based initiatives such as CBNRM because of its ability to pinpoint specific features that the project is successful for instance in achieving its objectives or in meeting the needs of its constituents or pointers of weaknesses if the project is not successful (Hartley 1994). Another unique strength of the case study methodology “is its ability to deal with variety of evidence – documents, artifacts, interviews, and observations” (Yin 1989). Such diverse evidence strengths the validity and triangulation of the research results.   I chose the case study area in consultation with Mr. Alfons Mosimane, the CBNRM Research Program Leader at the Multidisciplinary Research Center (MRC) located at the University of Namibia (UNAM). The criteria I established for choosing the research site were (a) conservancies that had a longer history of existence with established income-generating and benefit-sharing plans and mechanisms; (b) those willing to participate in evaluation research; and (c) those that didn’t experience research fatigue from dealing with outside researchers. My  67 original plan was to look at capacity development issues in two conservancies. However, I decided to concentrate on one conservancy that has moderate amount of information in order to study the CD tools and processes and their effects in detail given that the time that I had in Namibia was only six months. I realized that I needed more time and financial resources if I wanted to do a comparative analysis of two conservancies.  3.2. Designing the Evaluation Research Framework   Horton et. al. (2003) defined evaluation, which I am also using for my research as  [A]n assessment at a point in time, often after the fact, that determines the worth, value or quality of an activity, project, program, or policy (Horton, et. al. 2003, p. 32).  When we look at the practices of evaluation of capacity development, we find that it is a relatively new field of study where much of the knowledge comes from practical experiences of development practitioners and not from the academic realm (Horton et. al. 2000; 2003; Mizrahi 2004). Morgan (1997) recommends that four factors need to be considered in evaluating capacity development. These are (1) processes of how the capacities are developed, (2) product meaning capacities actually developed, (3) performance in terms of substantive developmental outcomes, and (4) permanence in terms of sustainability of the new capacities (Morgan 1997; 1999). Peter Morgan indicates that there should be a mechanism to “arrive at the right relationship” with all four factors when designing or evaluating capacity development programs (Morgan 1997, p. IV).   Products without sufficient attention to process can lead to outcomes and impacts with little  sustainability (Morgan, 1997, p. IV).  Accordingly, this research attempts to investigate the process of capacity development in terms of how the program is designed and facilitated, the products which are the new capacities developed at individual, organizational (conservancy) and community levels, performance or outcomes of the new capacities in terms of enhancing empowerment and equity in local participation in CBNRM, permanence of the new capacities in terms of their sustainability in applicability and adaptability in the conservancy environment.  68  3.3. Criteria for Evaluation of Capacity Development  I developed four sets of criteria to evaluate the CD process, tools, products, performance, and permanence. The CD process is evaluated using the criteria such as the framework for program development, the scale of the intervention, the relationship between CD stakeholders, and the time and commitment invested in the CD process. The CD tools are evaluated using the criteria such as diversity and integration of CD tools, ease of comprehension of concepts and procedures, integration of local knowledge, and accessibility to wide-range of stakeholders. The capacity products or new capacities at individual, conservancy, and community levels are identified and assessed to determine if they were successful in achieving the ideal outcomes of empowerment and equity in local participation. The permanence or sustainability of the new capacities is evaluated in terms of their applicability and adaptability within the conservancy’s environment.  3.3.1. Criteria for CD Process: These are the strategies by which the program is designed, implemented, and evaluated.  The Framework for Program Development This criterion examines the CD program through analysis of the step by step procedures of how the program is planned, implemented, and evaluated to highlight gaps that need to be filled or processes that need to be strengthened.  Scale of the Capacity Development Intervention This criterion explores if the CD process is holistic enough to integrate individual, organizational, and community levels.  Relationship between CD Stakeholders This criterion assesses the relationships that exist between the CD stakeholders. This in turn helps to determine the degree of ownership, partnership, and power differences that can affect the CD process.   69 Time and Commitment to the CD Process This criterion looks at the duration of time and resources allocated to the CD process to find out if such commitments were able to accommodate the users’ capacity needs and learning abilities.  3.3.2. Criteria for CD Tools: These are the methodologies and techniques such as training, technical assistance, research, and others by which capacity development are facilitated.   Diversity and Integration of CD Tools  This criterion assesses the types and diversity of theoretical and practical tools that are used to enhance effective understanding of various concepts.  Ease of Comprehension, Integration of Local Knowledge, and Accessibility  These criteria identify which CD tools facilitated the best learning and transformation to the capacity users. In addition, this process explores how local knowledge is integrated in the CD process, and how the tools were organized to accommodate the learning needs of those who are traditionally marginalized groups such as women, elders, youth, and illiterate people in the CD process.  3.3.3. Criteria for CD Performance or Outcomes: Once the products or new capacities at individual, organizational, and community levels are identified, their performance is analyzed at all three levels.  Empowerment This criterion is used to determine if empowerment is achieved, how it is manifested at individual, conservancy, and community levels, and how this affects local participation in the conservancy.  Equity  This criterion evaluates if the conservancy provides equitable and inclusive political and economical participation to its members. Political participation is the ability of local people to participate in public decision-making, and it should be inclusive of those who are traditionally  70 marginalized groups such as the poor, women, and ethnic-minorities. While economic equitability is the mechanism for fair share distribution of benefits to resource users with special consideration and priorities to those who are marginalized or affected because of various factors. 3.3.4. Permanence or Sustainability of New Capacities or Products: This is the criterion to evaluate if and how the new capacities are sustainable within the conservancy especially once the CD initiatives are over.  Applicability and Adaptability of New Capacities These criteria explores if the capacity products or new capacities are sustainable in terms of their applicability and adaptaiblity within the conservancy’s environment. It also determines if the new capacities are modifiable to specific conditions, functions, or purposes enabling the capacity users to respond back to diverse issues with flexibility and creativity sustaining the capacity and knowledge for a long time (Gibbons 1994; Horton et. al. 2003).  3.4. The Research Methods and Data Sources  The methods used for evaluating a program equally determine the usefulness, reliability, and validity of the results (Morgan 1999a). In accordance with this view, evaluation experts recommend stakeholders’ participation, utilization of both quantitative and qualitative data, triangulation of the results through diverse methods, and historical comparisons to establish credible data and analysis (Horton et. al. 2003; Morgan 1999a). Using this concept as a foundation, this particular research was implemented in four phases, as can be seen in detail in the next section. Three qualitative methods consisting of in-depth interviews with key informants, participatory self assessment through focus groups, and reviewing of primary and secondary documents were used. I was not able to observe a training session or attend conservancy functions as originally planned. Most of the training was provided to the conservancy and none was scheduled while I was in Namibia. The conservancy Annual General Meeting (AGM) that was supposed to take place in October 2006 was also postponed to the end of November 2006 by which time I had already left Namibia.  The use of mixed methods and phases in this research helped to triangulate the results, to organize the data according to the various levels of CD interventions for ease of analysis, and to  71 better capture and understand historical successions of events and processes which are considered as key components of an evaluation research. 3.4.1. Group 1: In-depth Interviews with Individual Beneficiaries of CD  This is the first phase of the research to explore capacity development at the individual level (See Appendix A for set of interview questions). The particular focus is to understand what type of capacity development interventions took place in the conservancy, who has benefited from these interventions, how the capacity development was facilitated to the capacity users, what type of new capacities are built, and how these capacities are used at individual, conservancy, and community levels. I also used this phase to determine if an evaluation was done in the conservancy prior to this research, and to assess the needs and logistical details for carrying out a self-assessment evaluation. This interview was carried out with the following nine participants: 2 conservancy office staff members 2 former and 2 current conservancy management committee members 1 environmental shepherd 1 lodge staff 1 camp site staff 3.4.2. Group 2: Participatory Self-Assessment Exercise in Focus Group Settings  This is the second phase where I collaborated with the conservancy stakeholders to carry out a self-assessment exercise on the conservancy’s capacities and performance. The conservancy staff members, former and current CMC members, conservancy registered farmers, traditional authority representatives, and a representative of the women’s desk (a conservancy partner CBO) were able to attend the discussions. These discussions were carried out in men’s and women’s focus groups (See Appendix B for the focus group framework and self-assessment questions).The focus group report is shared with various stakeholders as identified by the two conservancy staff members. In accordance to UBC’s research ethics policy, participants gave their consent for their names to appear on the summary of the focus group report. The four-day participatory self-assessment focus group discussion on the conservancy’s governance and  72 service delivery capacities was carried out from September 11th- 14th, 2006. Details of how the participatory self-assessment exercise was carried out are presented in section 3.6. 3.4.3. Group 3: In Depth Interviews with Registered Conservancy Members  This phase of the interview was carried out with eight farmers from each of the farmers’ associations within the conservancy. The purpose was to find out the knowledge and participation level of conservancy members in the community. This phase helped to determine if the farmers as registered members of the conservancy knew their roles and responsibilities in order to gain individual benefits, participate in the conservancy’s platforms effectively, hold the conservancy accountable, and support or oppose initiatives of the conservancy. I also included an interview with a representative of the traditional authority in this group (See Appendix C for interview questions with the farmers).  3.4.4. Group 4: Key informant Interviews with CD Experts and Trainers  In this phase of the research, representatives from the government, NGOs, and private sectors that helped develop the capacity of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy were targeted as key respondents. Many of them supported the conservancy from its initiation, and are still engaged with the conservancy. The purpose of this phase was to assess the overall framework of the CD planning and implementation process, the types of CD tools that were used, the CD outcomes and effects on the conservancy as well as the community, and the opportunities and challenges that were faced in CD. Local and international CD service providers as seen below are interviewed in this phase (Appendix D has the interview questions for the CD service providers). 1 expert from Namibian Nature Foundation 1 expert from Ministry of Environment and Tourism 2 experts from Deseret Research Foundation of Namibia 2 Grootberg Lodge Managers 2 individuals who currently live in the US, and worked as Fulbright scholars in Namibia during the conservancy’s establishment were interviewed as they played major role in the capacity development efforts. I was able to send my interview questions to them by e-mail, and they sent me their extensive response.  73 3.4.5. Group 5: Reviewing Relevant Documents  I also reviewed primary and secondary documents such as the conservancy’s constitution, its benefit sharing plan, draft wildlife management plan, the contractual agreement with the lodge management, and the annual financial reports. I also reviewed training manuals and policy documents from the various NGO and government sectors.  3.5. Data Sampling Techniques  Participants of the research from Group 1 (staff and conservancy management committee members) and Group 4 (Capacity Development service providers) were selected through snowball sampling using my own resourceful contacts. The staff members of the conservancy and the University of Namibia, Multidisciplinary Research Center, CBNRM Unit helped me in making connections with the relevant research participants through introductory telephone calls and formal letters. The focus group participants in Group 2 were identified by the two conservancy staff members. The farmers from the eight farmers’ associations within the conservancy were chosen through random selection from various farm posts by driving around within the boundaries of each of the farmers’ associations. The three criteria used in selecting farmer participants are (1) those that are registered conservancy members; (2) have some knowledge of the conservancy; and (3) participated in at least one or more conservancy events. The conservancy staff announced my arrival through the local radio to the community members so I was able to get cooperation from the farmers when I was doing the interviews. I tried to balance the gender and age diversity of the participants on both my interviews and focus group discussions.  Field Interviews The interviews that I carried out with CMC members, conservancy staff members, and the CD service providers were in English, and they were tape recorded and transcribed verbatim. With the exception of one farmer, the interviews with the eight farmers were carried out with the Damara language with the help of an interpreter. The interpreter spoke Damara, Afrikaans, and English languages. I read each question to the interpreter who translated them to the participant in his/her local language and gave me their response in English. During my interview with the farmers, I encountered a language barrier where some of the English terms were difficult to  74 translate to the local Damara language and vice versa. I took quite a bit of time making sure that the concept is clearly understood by the interviewees by giving various examples and rephrasing the words. I also asked probing questions whenever there were responses that were not clear. After the interviews were transcribed, I identified where I saw gaps in interpretations and reviewed the transcripts with the interpreter to get clear understanding of some of the terms used. Two interview participants chose not to be tape recorded. In such cases, I wrote the transcripts by hand and read them to the participants word to word to make sure that I captured their views correctly.  3.6. Participatory Self Assessment of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy’s Capacity   The Universalia-IDRC model indicates that organizational performance is dependent upon the organization’s operating environment, motivation, and capacity (Lusthaus et. al. 1995). Evaluation of capacity development “is both a process and an end” (Hagey 1997, p. 1). This is because  Every evaluation of a capacity development effort should itself contribute to the capacity development effort and ultimately to the organization’s performance (Patton 1997 as quoted on Horton et. al. 2003, p. V).  Participatory evaluation tools are particularly favored for CD evaluation for two purposes: The first reason is because the approach allows community members to use their collective knowledge in assessing projects that do affect their lives (Aubel 1999; Horton 2003; Rahman 1995). This in turn helps them to easily identify particular strengths and weaknesses and come up with recommendations and strategies for management decision making. The second reason is because the process can manifest change in behaviors and thought processes of those who are planning and executing programs to be able to achieve better outcomes in the future (Horton et. al. 2003).  This is mainly because the process engages the participants in an evaluative thinking which has a long term value, and can facilitate ongoing learning in organizational development (Horton et. al. 2003).  The trustworthiness of participatory researches depends on credibility of the information that is built upon the trust and understanding with informants (Freire 2000), knowledge of the  75 local context, and convergence of information by triangulation (Pretty 1995 as quoted by Francis 2001). In addition, Park notes that  Participatory research is thought to be a means of putting research capabilities in the hands of the deprived and disenfranchised people so that they can transform their lives for themselves (Park 1993, P. 1).  Hence, creating a medium for engaging those who are owners of the process through participatory techniques is expected to enhance the potential of the usability of the evaluation exercise and its byproducts (Patton 1997). Accordingly, I chose to use the participatory self- assessment exercise in my research where the participants conduct their own evaluations based on their own knowledge of the local processes and what they consider important and useful. The preliminary interviews that I carried out with former and current CMC members, conservancy staff, and registered members indicated that the conservancy has not done any evaluation since it was established. The interviewees also indicated that #Khoadi //HÔas Conservancy is at a stage and time where it needs to reflect on its own performance and make some modifications and adjustments appropriately. Based on these results, I proposed the idea of a participatory self- assessment exercise to the staff of the conservancy, which they have accepted. Self-assessment exercise is an organizational diagnosis  “where the stakeholders and beneficiaries of the organization have some kind of control  over the  assessment” (Lusthaus et. al. 1999, P. 2).    Described by Peter Morgan as “fourth generation” evaluation, this approach is “negotiation-oriented” (Morgan 1999a). I chose the self-assessment evaluation model because it can be simply designed, easily institutionalized into the conservancy’s annual management cycle, and is an efficiency tool i.e. (greater productivity at lower costs) for achieving better project outcomes (Cleaver and Moss 2001). Simple design, cost, time efficiency, and effectiveness are mandatory when it comes to evaluating the #Khoadi //HÔas Conservancy or any of the Namibian conservancies as most of them have very limited financial capacity to explore on different evaluation techniques or hire outside consultants. The conservancy staff and CMC members are also eager to learn about evaluation tools that are not too technical, easily understandable, and have the ability to generate concrete information such as action plans in short span of time (personal communication with conservancy manager and CMC members).   76  I prepared a training material on how to do a participatory self assessment based on a manual from the International Development Research Center (IDRC) (Lusthaus et. al. 1999).  I adapted the manual to the local context and issues using local examples and names and by translating the material into the Afrikaans language. I also modified the IDRC model to include action plans and accountability strategies of how, by whom, and when the action plans are carried out as well as performance indicators or output targets to be used as reference points for future evaluations. Appendix E has an excerpt of the Focus Group report that shows one of the discussion topics highlighting the specific recommendations and action plans on the issue.  The staff members are quick learners that they were able to establish the frameworks for both the focus group and the evaluation process with minimal support from me (Appendix B has both frameworks). Once they defined the purpose of the exercise, they created 12 principles by which the process will be guided. They were able to brainstorm the topics for evaluation and the corresponding questions in a short time.  They chose to evaluate governance and service delivery capacities. The first three topics under governance capacities are related to the conservancy’s organizational and institutional structures. These include election of CMC members, performance of CMC members, and communication with conservancy members. Service delivery capacities are abilities of the conservancy to give its intended services to its constituents. These include the benefit sharing plan, conservancy office operation, and education and awareness of the conservancy members. The two staff members became the facilitators of the discussions while I was tasked with taking minutes and assembling the report. This approach of the staff members leading the process was preferred because it is one way of developing the capacity of the staff members through learning by doing. It also gives ownership of the process and its outcomes to the participants as the information is generated based on their knowledge and experiences. Language barriers were also minimized as the facilitators and participants are able to communicate with both English and their mother tongue as they wish.  The staff members suggested that the focus group be divided into two for male and female participants. They indicated that such structures enable participants to take part in the process in an equitable manner. When we actually carried out the discussions, I observed the gender-related barriers and power imbalances that might have occurred if the two groups came together as one. Discussions in the men’s group took shorter time compared to the women’s group, and the participants were able to cover all six topics on the agenda. This is because many  77 of the men participants have thorough knowledge of the conservancy since most of them are founding members, and they have participated in the conservancy more intimately which allowed them to respond back to the questions at relative ease. Many of the male participants are also elite group of individuals who have completed secondary education and have public speaking skills. There were teachers, a principal of one of the elementary schools, traditional leaders, and a director of the agricultural extension center in the group. Their long time professional experiences and knowledge are shown by their confidence, eloquence, and ease in communicating with the English language. The women’s group discussion on the other hand took longer because the participants needed more time to remember and analyze historical processes and situations as many of them have played lesser role in the conservancy compared to the men’s group. This is because of the historical and cultural gender differentiations that exist in the community that didn’t encourage women to participate in public processes or organizations. The discussions were also carried out both in English and the local Damara languages consecutively. As a result, we were able to cover only five out of the six topics in detail.  The methods used for the evaluation were mainly question and answer sessions, discussions and debates, and regular monitoring and evaluation of the process itself. The questions were formulated in three sets: The first set of questions was helpful to understand historical successions of events and processes in governance and service delivery performances of the conservancy. Time frames of past (first five years of the conservancy), present (the last four years until the time of evaluation) and future (participant’s visions of what’s to come) were used.  The second set of questions was used to identify challenges and their causes in governance and service-delivery capacities, and their impact on the conservancy’s performance. The third set of questions dealt with establishing solutions to mitigate the challenges and formulate action plans with concrete indicators for measuring success. The discussions dealt with issues of equity, efficiency, and sustainability at great lengths as the participants explored the questions of “how things were done”, “why they were done in a specific way”, and “what needs to change in the future”. There was constant monitoring of the process through 10 minute reflection times at the end of each topic discussions so people can comment on what they did. This was to ensure that participants are fully engaged, and to make any appropriate modifications in a timely manner since the process is based on the principles of adaptability, learning by doing, and flexibility. There was also a meta-evaluation or an evaluation of the whole self-assessment exercise carried out through few questions at the end. The meta-evaluation revealed that the strength of the  78 process was on the teamwork as the participants were paired to work through the questions and discussions which facilitated collaboration and supportive atmosphere. The weakness was on the structure of the program set up that has too many topics packed within a tight schedule causing exhaustion and fatigue on participants. Participants were pleased with the discussions and the ideas brainstormed. Some participants commented that these types of exercises should be done regularly in the future to strengthen the performance of the conservancy. The staff members were also pleased to see lists of specific activities to build into their work plans for the upcoming months and years. Since the self-assessment exercise is not an end by itself, the results were compiled and communicated in various formats. These include the minutes from each of the focus groups, a technical report detailing what came out of the two focus groups, a hand out of bullet points in both Afrkiaans and English summarizing what was discussed, and a power point presentation that the staff members can use at various meetings. Such diverse outputs are expected to help the users and service providers to refer to the results regularly and use them frequently.  When I reflect back on the self-assessment exercise, I realize that the process facilitated an organizational-learning (Edwards 2002). This is the capacity of the organization to gain knowledge from its own experiences and provide this knowledge back to its members and stakeholders allowing them to reflect on it as well (Iles and Mabey 1993). This process if done at a regular basis can bring a continual transformation in program planning, implementation, and evaluation to enhance the ability of the organization to adapt and cope with changes (Edwards 2002).Through the self assessment exercise, the conservancy stakeholders also had the opportunity to learn and relearn about their organization’s history, new developments, and future plans so they can reflect on the processes, and create the mechanisms to make the appropriate changes accordingly.  3.7. Limitations and Challenges of the Research  As a researcher, I had to learn ways of accommodating socio-cultural differences and challenges within this exercise. Although I am originally from Africa, I lived in the West for many years and assimilated with Western world views and thought processes. Thus I had to learn how to overcome challenges of working in a community with different cultural expectations and norms from my own. Some of these challenges include what Umemoto calls “respecting and  79 navigating cultural protocols and social relationships” as well as “understanding the role of power in cultural translations” (Umemoto 2001, 19). This came particularly apparent during the process of designing the structure of the focus group. My original plan was to carry out the self assessment exercise within one focus group setting to ensure that diverse members of the conservancy can come together as one to discuss the issues of the conservancy which is also in accordance to the theoretical principles of participatory monitoring and evaluation (Horton et. al. 2003; Lusthaus 1999). However, the staff members based on their previous experiences suggested dividing the group into male and female focus groups to enhance active participation. They have pointed out that the gender based group structure ensures that participants, especially women, can interact and actively engage in the discussions with confidence and comfort. They mentioned that the men’s group might be dominant and take over the discussions which would limit the valuable contribution of the women participants. Hence, such situation needed informed decisions based on understanding the cultural norms, social interactions, and the consequences of the decisions I take as an investigator (Umemoto 2001). The decisions were between choosing to continue the status quo protocol of gender-based focus group practices or try to challenge such a practice by bringing all the participants together. I chose to solve such dilemma by trying to understand the impacts of the process on the desired outcome. As Angeles and Gurstein indicated,  Meaningful participation11 process has to be considered in a way that can be effective in  facilitating change, and in a manner that respects the contribution of those participating  (Angeles and Gurstein 2000, p.35).  Hence, I understood that the power differences determine the interaction and negotiation between the genders, and they can also influence whose interest, objectives, and values are better represented in the process (McAllister and Vernooy 1999). Accordingly, in order to enhance meaningful participation where each of the participants take part in the discussion freely and with full confidence that each person’s contribution mattered, I decided to keep the gender based focus group structure as advised by the conservancy staff members. This was important not only to produce usable evaluation results but also to prevent the alienation and disempowerment of the already marginalized groups of society by those who have more powerful positions. Although I kept the status quo in carrying out the evaluation exercise, I also made sure that the  11 “when a person has a sense of his involvement in a total enterprise, a sense of where his effort fits into an overall plan, when he identifies with the collective goals, has a feeling of efficacy with respect to the accomplishment of the goals, and has a stake in the result of the total enterprise” (Kanter 2005, p. 57)  80 minutes from each of the focus group discussions and the summary report that has integrated the discussions from both groups were distributed to all the participants. I believe the dissemination of the minutes and the report fulfills three purposes: It encourages the participants to recognize the potentials of each group based on what they accomplished; it helps participants to understand and learn the differences and similarities of the thought processes of the two groups; and it also helps participants to identify the areas of where they can collaborate in the future.  Another limitation of the self assessment exercise came from the lack of adequate documentation about the history of the conservancy. This is because much of the historical facts are kept within individuals’ memories instead of being stored in document formats. Supplemental documents such as the conservancy constitution and benefit sharing plan were provided to the participants so they can refer to them during the self-assessment exercise. However, historical documents such as meeting minutes from the time of the conservancy formation, annual reports, and benefit sharing survey results were not available or non-existent. Hence, in some occasions, it was clear that the long time elapsed has distorted the memories of participants to some of the details of the past. So the participants decided to take longer time to discuss the specific historical issues that they have differing accounts on and come up to a group agreed facts.   Lastly, the time constraints and logistical challenges of this research also created limitations. I was only in Namibia for six months, and the short term duration of my stay did not give me enough time to explore various qualitative evaluation methods or test the self assessment evaluation model before I began using it. Although participatory evaluation mechanisms need to have all potential users of the exercise including NGO and government CD service providers to be involved in the discussions, I was not able to involve the service providers in the self- assessment exercise. This is because most of them are based in the capital city or other urban cities further away from the conservancy, and time constraints, logistical barriers, and budget limited me from bringing the service providers and users together. However, the CD service providers are identified as potential users of the focus group discussion results and the summary report is distributed to them. Although the participants were able to generate concrete results and mitigation strategies from the exercise, it was important to follow up this self assessment exercise with surveys or individual interviews to ensure triangulation and validity of data.  81 Because of time constraints, we were not able to carry out the follow up research; however, I emphasized the need to do such research when I trained the staff members.  In summary, this research used the case study methodology to evaluate the capacity development planning processes, implementation tools, the CD products developed at individual, organizational (conservancy) and community levels, and their performance and permanence within the conservancy. Three qualitative methods of in depth interviews, participatory self assessment, and primary and secondary document reviews were used in this research. Diverse data sources such as conservancy staff, CMC members, conservancy registered farmers, as well as CD experts or service providers participated in this research. The use of diverse groups and research methods enhanced the usability, validity, and triangulation of the research results.  In the next three chapters, we will see the findings of this research.  82 4. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT IN CBNRM OF NAMIBIA: HOW GOVERNMENT, NGOS, AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES DEVELOP THE CAPACITY OF COMMUNAL CONSERVANCIES TO ENHANCE LOCAL PARTICIPATION  The main focus of the Namibian CBNRM capacity development is institutional development, natural resource management, and benefit sharing (Long 2004). Capacity development for #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy is mostly facilitated in the forms of financial and equipment support, training of various skills and knowledge, and technical advice in designing various management plans and joint venture agreements. In this chapter, I focus on the first research question that deals with the processes and tools of capacity development particularly those related to training as provided by government, non-government, and private enterprises. The CD process is the mechanism by which the CD program is designed and implemented. The CD tools are the methodologies and techniques such as training or technical assistance by which the capacity development process is facilitated. In this study, those who facilitate CD such as government, NGO, and private enterprises are labeled as service providers while those who are on the receiving end of CD such as conservancy staff and Conservancy Management Committee (CMC) members are identified as CD users.  The chapter begins with how the concept of capacity development is understood by the research participants of this case study. The second section gives us the findings on the overall framework of the CD planning and implementation process. This will be followed by three sections (3, 4, and 5) that highlight the assessment of the CD process in terms of scale of the intervention, the relationship between CD stakeholders, and the time and commitment invested in the process. The 6th and 7th sections deal with the diversity and integration of CD tools and their assessment in terms of ease of comprehension of concepts and procedures and accessibility to wide-range of stakeholder. The eighth or last section summarizes the findings for CD processes and tools.  83 4.1. Understanding of Capacity Development in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy  The literature on the concept of capacity development clearly indicates that CD has different meanings to different people, and has become an umbrella concept that seems to embrace most everything associated with development (Bolger 2000; Lusthaus et. al. 1999; Morgan 1999b; Smillie 2001). Hence, it was important to begin my exploration with how the participants in my research understood the concept of capacity development12:  The findings indicate that some consider capacity development as a means to development while others consider it as an end product on its own. Those who considered capacity development as a means associated it to two-way processes of gaining knowledge and transferring the gained knowledge back to the community to bring about development.   “Let’s say I have little knowledge about something, and then I attend training and I get more knowledge, it is a capacity building. Capacity building is not only people training you but you must also transfer the knowledge to the community” (CD User #7).   “It is when transferring my knowledge and experiences to the community so the community is also at equal level of knowledge” (CD User #2).   “It is the transfer of knowledge and skills so the person can do things by himself” (CD Service Provider #1).   Others considered capacity development as an end product of high standard of living, self- reliance, or independence.  “Capacity building means uplifting of my standard of living through learning” (CD User #5).   “It is a capacity to be on our own and not depend on others which means if there is a capacity, the conservancy staff should be able to do on their own and not depend on others” (CD User Interviewee #8).   12 The open-ended questions that were asked for this analysis were: How do you understand capacity development? Do you consider capacity development to be important component of a conservancy work? Why or why not? (Question 4, Appendix A or Question 2, Appendix D)  84 The dual purposes of CD for gaining knowledge individually and passing on this knowledge to the larger segment of society comes from the recognition that individual capacity needs to be complemented with community knowledge to bring about sustainable development (Horton, 2003; Lopez 2003; Smillie 2001). This is also consistent with the theory of empowerment that embraces both individual and class actions (Abers 2000; Bachrach and Botwinick; 1992; Cleaver 2001; Narayan 2003). According to theory of empowerment, once assets and capabilities are secured at individual level effectively, in this case from the capacity development process, the individual begins to develop the desire to create mutual knowledge enhancement and development at the society level (Narayan 2002). This is important not only for sustainability of knowledge and capacity, but to also enhance accountability as those at the society level gain knowledge and understanding of the issues that affect them.  4.2. The CD Program Framework in Khaodi Hôas Conservancy  The CD process follows six sequential steps of planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation13.  Each of these six steps is described below:  4.2.1. Initial Contact: Many of the service providers indicated that the CD planning begins when conservancies approach the service providers with requests for specific training or technical support. This is expected to enhance ownership of the process by the users as they do initiate the process of capacity development. The following interview quips from CD service providers suggest the ways by which this initial contact is done:  “We don’t go to them, the communities themselves come to us when they want help or need to initiate a conservancy” (CD Service Provider #2).   “Conservancies come to us and we do needs assessment so we can train them ourselves or we request assistance from NGOs for someone who has the capacity to train” (CD Service Provider #4).  In the case of ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy, since it is one of the first conservancies, it has received diverse training and generous financial support until 2003. The conservancy also received material support in the forms of a vehicle, printer and fax machine, telephone, and a  13 The responses on Appendix A (5-8, 11-14, and 26) and Appendix D (4, 5, 14, 23, 24, 25) for CD service providers have been used to assess the overall framework for Capacity Development.  85 computer. Service providers also provided support in mobilizing communities and registering conservancy members in order for the conservancy to meet the necessary government requirements.  “Our vehicle transported conservancy enumerators to more than 115 settlements across ≠Khoadi  //Hôas to register members and map with GPS resources identified as conservation priorities by  the conservancy leadership.  We trained both Bob Guibeb and Helga Howases in the use of our  laptop computer. We helped ensure that the elected leadership stayed on track to meet the  requirements of conservancy formation.  We facilitated many meetings of the conservancy  leadership including strategic planning meetings and the initial training of the first 8  environmental shepherds” (CD Service Provider #5).  4.2.2. Preliminary Consultation/ Needs Assessment: The service providers do preliminary consultations with conservancy staff or CMC members to find out their capacity needs and what the conservancy is trying to accomplish with the specific training or technical support.  “I ask them questions like what are your objectives, what type of activities do you have to generate income, and what would you like to do, and how would you like to get there” (CD Service Provider #1).  “We learned to capture the [capacity] needs by living with and interacting with the people of ≠Khoadi //Hôas and those involved in forming the conservancy […] when it comes to determining capacity needs it was through asking questions that got the members themselves to explain the difficulties rather than jumping straight to a position on what needed to be done to address them” (CD Service Provider #6).  Such front-end analysis of the existing capacity needs is important to make the CD design a user- centered model (Gordon 1994), and to meet the needs and aspirations of the conservancy effectively. Although such needs assessment is considered a high priority by the service providers as shown above, its implementation faced challenges in recent years because of the limited capacities of the service providers in accommodating the large number of emerging and mature conservancies. This was particularly shown from the following excerpt of a conservancy interviewee:  “At the beginning, the NGOs used to consult with us to find out what our needs are because there were only four conservancies. But nowadays, they only call us to tell us that there is such and such training in Windhoek [the capital city of Namibia where most of the NGOs are located] which is offered on this and this date. They don’t even give us early notices so sometimes we might have to miss these training even if they are important for our job because we might not have transportation or we might have other commitments. (CD User #12)   86 4.2.3. Preparation of Training Materials: Based on the consultations, the service providers prepare the training materials using the manuals produced by the NACSO working groups with any additional information they think are relevant to include.  “We use the modules prepared by the NACSO working groups along with any additional things that the conservancies asked for. The NACSO modules were designed based on issues that arise from AGMs [Annual General Meetings] of conservancies and conservancy workshops that we have assisted” (Conservancy Service Provider #3).   4.2.4. Training Proper: The service providers use diverse tools of training to teach a concept or illustrate the procedural details of how to perform certain functions. The training is provided either through few days of intensive workshops, or is divided up in various sessions and given at various times of the year. It is given either within the conservancies or in the capital city, Windhoek, by bringing a number of conservancy representatives together.  “Financial management training starts from the simple tasks of record keeping and cash handling and goes all the way to budget and audit preparation. So I have to divide them [the procedures] into different training sessions and give them at different times” (CD Service Provider #2).  “The training sites vary. Some were given under the tree with flip charts and markers. Some were held in conference halls in the conservancy or in Windhoek, mostly done through participatory learning process by talking, giving ideas, and then comparing the knowledge we received with what is on the books and manuals” (CD User #7).  4.2.5. Monitoring: The service providers do follow ups and regular monitoring through conservancy visits to ensure that the information from the training are institutionalized within the conservancy’s operating environment. During this time, the service providers give the necessary guidance to conservancies for any problems encountered in the implementation of the training to practice.  “We go to the field to actually see how they are collecting the resource data and fill out the data forms. We sit down with them and go over the forms [to] show them if they have made any mistakes in filling out the data forms. We use their own data for demonstration and it becomes easier for them to understand” (CD Service Provider #1).  “Usually the capacity building is done in theory and practice. I give them the concept of basic accounting procedures, rules and regulations, creating budget, writing checks and cash books in a course format either at Windhoek or at their conservancy. Then I go to the field to do the hands  87 on exercise using their own financial materials to create the budget or teach them the practical things” (CD Service Provider #2).  The service providers continue their interventions until the conservancy can perform the specific task independently. Depending on the complexity of the issue, this process might take from few months to many years. I asked the experts how they determine if the conservancy is already capacitated on a particular issue and doesn’t need any more support14. My respondents noted two indicators they used to determine that the necessary capacities are built. They indicated that when conservancies are accomplishing their tasks with less number of errors, and when the number of times they request for guidance starts decreasing because they know how to perform certain functions on their own, it shows that they are self reliant and thus capacitated.   “…[T]hey have to do it several times before they can do it on their own, so it takes time.    When #Khôadi did their audit books in the past years, I did the finances with them. But  this year, they did it on their own and sent it to me just to check it for them. Except in    getting some of the balances wrong in some occasions, most of the information was     accurate. So this is a big progress” (CD Service Provider #2).  “The success depends on the conservancy manager, when the manager does the follow up on his own and NNF [Namibian Nature Foundation] doesn’t need to follow up any more, I think they are capacitated. It is also important when they can recognize any of their own problems and create a way to solve the problem with less and less guidance from us” (CD Service Provider #1).  4.2.6. Evaluation: Diverse responses came in terms of evaluating the capacity development process itself.  Some of the service providers indicated that they never did evaluations, although they believe it is a useful exercise. Others indicated that they carried out evaluations in the form of questionnaires or group discussions usually after the training is done.  “We gave feedback on training using different colored cards that have poor, satisfactory and good written on them. In other training, we have discussed our experiences at the end of the training” (CD User #7).  However, in some occasions, the service providers indicated that they had to skip carrying out the evaluation exercise that they built in the training agenda because of time constraints. There is also no system set up to ensure that the evaluation results are incorporated in future training. Although there is an effort underway to monitor and evaluate how the various training, technical  14 The response for Question No. 10 on Appendix D stated as “How do you determine that conservancies are running smoothly and no longer need the assistance of government and NGOs?” is used on this analysis.   88 assistance, and advisory roles helped conservancies in terms of institutional development, natural resource management, and benefit sharing, the process is still at a developmental stage (Personal Communication with S. Nangulah of University of Namibia, MRC).  “Evaluation is something we talked about regularly, but not having enough time and resources is preventing us from doing it” (CD Service Provider #2).  Figure 4.1 below indicates how the CD process unfolds from one step to another.   Figure 4.1 Capacity Development Planning, Implementation and Evaluation   The black arrows indicate processes carried out fully; the gray arrows indicate that the process is carried out inconsistently or unsatisfactorily; while the un-shaded arrow shows that the process is non-existent creating a gap in the process. The important step that is missing from the framework as shown with the un-shaded arrow is pre-testing the training materials. Pre-testing the training materials determines if the tools that are used are in line with the users’ desires and expectations. Such feedback mechanism should help understand service providers if the material is positively accepted by the learner and if it is easy to learn and effective to use (Gordon 1994; Kirkpatrick 1994). This will also help to make the necessary adjustments and modifications even before the Initial Contact Needs assessment Consultations Training   Training material preparation Follow up and monitoring Evaluation Pre-test training materials  89 CD process begins in order to make the end product more valuable to the users. The inconsistent use of the needs assessment and evaluation processes as indicated by the shaded arrows is also an important gap that needs be filled. A well articulated evaluation mechanism is critical in order to provide effective capacity development to conservancies. Evaluation gives valuable feedback to improve the quality of the capacity development programs in the future. When the users are not asked to comment on the program or when their feedbacks are not utilized properly, it undermines their ownership and partnership in the process as it might give a meaning that the service providers knew what was needed, and acted on it without any contribution from the users. Evaluation can also provide qualitative and quantitative information helpful for establishing standards of performance which in turn helps to gauge the CD progress and the program’s worth to the service providers, government policy makers, and donors.  4.3.  Scales of Intervention in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy CD Process  Much of the capacity development process in Namibia follows the traditional CD process and is focused more developing individual and organizational (conservancy) level capacities and doesn’t adequately address the needs of the larger community of the conservancy or of the informal institutions.  Similarly, #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy follows the traditional process of developing individual capacities in order to improve and strengthen the capacity of the conservancy and the larger community15.  “Especially in the first few years, the emphasis was on developing capacities of the core leadership and staff positions” (CD Service Provider #4).  “Staff and management of ≠Khoadi //Hôas, the Grootberg Farmers Association, and traditional leaders were the primary beneficiaries of the training and capacity building skills we provided” (CD Service Provider #5).   As can be seen below on Figure 4.2, those who are directly employed by the conservancy or conservancy based enterprises such as the conservancy office staff, environmental shepherds, lodge and campsite staff have received majority of the training, while the CMC members have benefited from a moderate number of training.  15 The responses for Appendix D, Question #17 stated as “At what level is your capacity development intervention focused (conservancy staff, CMC members, conservancy registered farmers)?”   90  Figure 4.2 The CD Scales of #Khoadi //Hoas Conservancy      NGO service providers such as Namibian Deseret Research Foundation (DRFN) in collaboration with the Grootberg Farmers’ Union (GFU) have provided various training to selected number of farmers from the eight farmers associations across the conservancy but the conservancy’s contribution in this is limited.  The training of individuals is beneficial to create experts in various areas of organizational administration, governance, and service delivery. In ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy, many of the interviewees16 alluded to the fact that the conservancy office staff members are considered as the “local experts”. They know the conservancy’s history, its day to day operations and challenges, and mitigation strategies. They are not only the experts of the conservancy but they are also considered as the institutional memory of the conservancy.  “I can say the staff members are the brain of the conservancy because they have been there from the beginning and the reason why the conservancy is where it is because they transferred what they have learned to their actual work with the conservancy” (CD User #8)  While individual capacity-building in the form of human resource development is a necessary, it does not by itself facilitate or guarantee organizational and community level development.  16 The responses for Appendix A, Question 20 as stated as “Are there any local experts that emerged as a result of the capacity development in the conservancy work? Where are they now, and what are they doing?” was used in this analysis.        Conservancy Members              Conservancy Management Committee Conservancy Staff High CD intervention Moderate CD interventions Limited to None CD intervention  91 Moreover, the sustainability of the capacity development might get threatened when the capacitated individuals, in this case the conservancy staff or CMC members, decide to abandon their responsibilities and search for more lucrative opportunities (Horton et. al. 2003; Lusthaus et. al. 1999).  Service provider interviewees describe this challenge in the following manner.  “We give certificates after the completion of the training. And people, especially young ones use them [the certificates] as their ticket to leave their rural lives and come to the city so they can get a more [better] paying job which means that all the investment has been wasted”(CD Service Provider Interviewee #3).  “When those who are trained move to new jobs and opportunities or when new CMC members get elected, the training must be given all over again and all the effort is lost” (CD Service Provider Interviewee #2).    There is a growing recognition in the literature for trained individuals to share their new knowledge, skills, and attitudes with their constituents so these capacities become imbedded in organizational or community based activities and processes (Horton et. al. 2003). The transfer of knowledge also enhances accountability and transparency within the organization and community so the constituents can monitor the actions of their elected representatives closely. This is also recognized by the service providers and the conservancy members.  “We now know that the communities need to participate in the training because if the conservancy members do have the knowledge about the conservancy, then the conservancy also has no choice but to be transparent” (CD Service Provider Interviewee #2).  Accordingly, one of the topics that were discussed during the self-assessment exercise of the conservancy was the importance of community-wide education and awareness17. As shown below from the excerpt of the Draft Focus Group Report (2006), once the users identified some of the community-wide capacity needs, the users recommended the following two options of how the CD interventions can take place at the community level:  1. Local conservancy experts who received training such as the staff, CMC, and environmental shepherds can give training to selected trainers so those trainers can train the rest of the community members. Some focus group participants emphasized partnering with NGOs because those trained in the conservancy in the past might not be fully competent to give training on their own.   17 The focus group discussion on Community Wide Education and Awareness as stated in Appendix B is used here.   92 2. The trainers of trainees should be selected from each of the eight farmers’ associations. They should have basic skills of reading and writing so they can train their respective association members. The trainers should be given clear instructions on how they should train the larger community of farmers in their respective associations. There should also be a clear system to monitor their training activities (Draft Focus Group Report 2006, p. 29)  4.4. Stakeholders Relationship in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy CD Process  Capacity development is often viewed as supply-driven external intervention with already defined objectives, resources, and deadlines often confused or in conflict with the objectives of the organization or the community to be capacitated (Horton et. al. 2000; 2003; Smillie 2001). CD experts recommend that supply-driven and donor influenced relationships need to move to more collaborative and mutually beneficial partnerships between the CD developers and capacity users in order to enhance ownership and bring about sustainable results (Fukuda-Parr et. al. 2004; Horton et. al. 2003). Partnership in this case consists of collaboration, inclusivity, ownership, and complementarities (Abugre 1999; Fowler 2002; Fukuda-Parr et. al. 2004; Horton et. al. 2003).  However, the interviews18 I carried out revealed the tensions between the existing power differences challenging the concept of “partnership” as defined by the CD theories.  “Initially, emerging conservancies were heavily reliant on NGO support to have the capacity to comply with the requirements for conservancy formation, and this required a degree of sublimation of local desires to donor interests.  ≠Khoadi //Hôas was different, because the Grootberg Farmers Association was known for going its own way and refusing to compromise with those who would push them in ways they did not desire to be pushed” (Conservancy Service Provider #5).  “The capacity development is driven by the government policy and even donors’ interests” (Conservancy Service Provider #1)  The relationship between capacity development service providers and users can be characterized with both cooperation and contention. On the one hand, the FIRM institutional framework as indicated in Chapter Two that brought together the CD service providers and users in one  18 The analysis above was based on participants’ responses for questions on Appendix A, Question 3 stated as “What areas or types of capacities do you think local communities should have to efficiently and effectively run their conservancies? Who do you think should develop these capacities?”   93 platform seemed to challenge the power dynamics, and facilitate a true cooperation and partnership. Instead of their usual role as external interventionists, the service providers are seen as the “catalysts” of an already existing process based on what the community organizations actually identified. The self-assessment exercise with the conservancy stakeholders also indicates that the members are able to identify the specific areas of where they need technical support and training without outsider’s interventions. However, the individual interviews19 I carried out with service providers and capacity users indicate contentions created by the power differences clearly. For instance, the service providers considered themselves as having not a partnership but a supporting role to conservancies.  “…I don’t think the word partnership applies here because to me partnership is as if we have a business relationship with conservancies. We consider ourselves as the custodians of conservancies and we support them to make sure they are successful” (CD Service Provider Interviewee #5).  “The interaction we have with conservancies is as a supporter helping them in meeting their goals and objectives” (CD Service Provider Interviewee #2).  But when I asked Capacity users20 about their relationship with the service providers, their responses are diverse, showing both partnership and subordination as can be seen below:  “I can say they helped us like a baby who is brought up with information so I can say they are our supporters” (Conservancy Interviewee #12).  “We are like a family because we have respect and care for each other. I think our relationship is about team building” (Conservancy Interviewee #5).   Such tensions of power differences and hierarchies occurred because those who controlled the material and financial resources were able to acquired more power and influence in the conservancy program. For instance, Jones (2004) indicates that the Namibian conservancy policy when it was originally enacted was to provide proprietorship over wildlife utilization and management to communal land residents. The benefits coming from wildlife and other resources on communal lands were considered as incentives for sustain ably using resources (Jones 2004).  19 The responses for Appendix D, Question 8 stated as: “When you build capacities in the ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy, How is your interaction? How do you see your relationship with ≠Khoadi or any other conservancies?” were used for this analysis.  20 The responses for Appendix A Question 8 stated as: “How do the CD experts interact with you? How do you see your relationship with them?” were used here.  94 On the other hand, as one of the major donors of CBNRM, USAID’s funding objective was “to improve the quality of life of rural Namibians through sustainable resource management” (Jones, 2004, p. 6), hence the derivation of benefits was considered as the end product while sustainable use of resources was the means. Consequently, when the CBNRM supporting NGOs umbrella NACSO was created in 1999, its objectives shifted from the original objectives of the conservancy program which is sustainable resource use to rural development and livelihoods as a way of aligning itself with donor interests as stated below.  The aim of NACSO is to promote, support and further the development of community-based approaches to the wise and sustainable management of natural resources, thereby striving to advance rural development and livelihoods, to promote biodiversity conservation and to empower communities through capacity building and good governance, to determine their own long-term destinies (Jones 2004, P. 6).  Such shifting of objectives from sustainable resource use to poverty alleviation was also detected with the responses from one of my interviewees:   “The core objective of the conservancies is to empower and assist rural communities so they can  utilize their natural resources and improve their livelihoods” (CD Service Provider #5).   Another interesting power imbalance exists between NGOs, government, and conservancies.  As I have mentioned it in the previous chapter, the state’s role in CBNRM is focused mainly on designing and enforcing policies and wildlife management. The government doesn’t provide conservancies with any financial support which is also confirmed with the following excerpt from an interview.  “MET doesn’t give financial support to conservancies. But I can assure you that we will  always  support them even if we don’t give them cash” (CD Service Provider #5)  Much of the funding and material support especially for emerging conservancies comes from NGOs since most of the donor funding is directed to them. NGOs provide limited funding support to the government as well as shown below:   “We have a partnership and cooperation with the NGOs. The NGOs provide assistance by  training MET staff and they also give us funds for workshops.” (CD Service Provider #5)  This arrangement of who transfers the funding and material support to conservancies impacts the way conservancies understand the roles of government and NGOs as service providers. A study  95 that was done by (Schiffer 2004) indicates that the ministry is considered as “senior player” because of its role in policy designs, but it is also regarded as “weak” with “less impacts” on conservancies compared to NGOs because of its limited human and financial resources. On the other hand, NGOs are considered as knowledgeable, trustworthy, and strong partners with conservancies because they provide the necessary resource support (Schiffer 2004).  Such power imbalances between the government and NGOs are further articulated by an interviewee from Schiffer’s study as the following:  “The MET is like a disabled child in a wheelchair, pushed around by the NGOs. It starts to crawl now but still it is disempowered.” (Interviewee from Schiffer 2004, P. 166)  The above examples can confirm that the theoretical concept of partnership is over simplified, and might run into various challenges during implementation, especially in the face of clear power differences. This is because those who controlled the funding, in this case NGO and donors, are considered as powerful while those who don’t have access to funding such as government are considered as weak regardless of their legitimacy and importance to conservancies.  4.5. Time and Commitment in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy CD Process  Capacity development is a slow process where real success and tangible results don’t come true within fixed time tables and donor specificities (Bolger 2000; Lopez and Theisohn 2003; Schacter 2000; Smillie 2001). The CD service providers in Namibia understand that CD is a time consuming process as well.  “Doing conservancy training is a slow process because it is a learning by doing exercise where they have to do it several times before they can be competent with it” (Capacity Service Provider #2)  Nevertheless, donor governments keep shifting their interests and reduce, eliminate, or redirect their foreign assistance commitments from time to time as much of their international aid priorities are driven by the public opinions of their own constituents, their political beliefs, or the global trend. Conservancy service provider NGOs working under the NACSO umbrella exist  96 with donor funding. This in turn affects the quality of services that most of the NGOs provide to conservancies as all of them depend on foreign aid21.  “We live off of funding from foreign donors so when the funding runs out, then we have to also move our focus to other projects” (Capacity Service Provider #3).   “We have now 44 conservancies and they need different levels of assistance but our own capacity is shrinking to reach all of them because the funding priorities for our donors have changed” (Capacity Service Provider #1)   This is because most donors tend to have arbitrary time and budget set on their commitments since most of their projects are based on “interventionist” approaches (Jones and Murphree 2001) instead of long term and sustainable support. One incident that Jones and Murphree (2001) described about USAID wanting to withdraw funding from a community in Namibia to be used “strategically” in a place where there is high rate of success can illustrate this situation clearly.  Similar to the NGOs, the government is struggling with financial and human resource scarcity where the number of MET wardens (personnel) is not comparable to the high number of conservancies registering. This led the ministry to assign 8-10 conservancies per warden which in turn is affecting the quality of support that conservancies receive. This problem is further exacerbated as many competent and qualified individuals who worked for MET once have left and joined the NGOs in search of better pay and benefits.   This lack of funding and limited and reduced quality of assistance is especially affecting conservancies such as #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy that are considered as “mature” and “self- sufficient”. When they require assistance or specific training, they have to either pay the expenses of the service providers to come to their area and give them the necessary support, or the conservancy staff members have to pay their own expenses and go to where the service providers are located. This in turn creates a huge financial pressure on the already tight budget of the conservancy.   21 Question 10 from Appendix D stated as “Do you pull out of conservancies or stop building capacity programs after some years of intervention?” have been used for the above analysis.   97 “You plan for training or assistance that you need but sometimes you don’t have the budget for training. Sometimes you have to pay or share the costs to get the experts in your area or you have to go to the experts…” (CD User #7)   “We pull out of conservancies not because we want to, it is because we don’t have the financial capacity to help them as we also exist with donor funding and the funding has been reduced drastically. So we concentrate more on the emerging ones which limits the quality [of] support that we have been giving to the mature ones” (Capacity Service Provider #2).   Capacity development is a voluntary learning process that requires the users’ genuine commitment and interest to bring about the necessary changes (UNDP 2006; Lopez and Theisohn 2003). A UNDP publication articulates this in the following manner:  A lag usually exists between any investment in capacity development, the emergence of  new  capacities and their translation into performance improvements. Indeed, the development of  individual competency takes many years, while societal transformation may take generations  (UNDP 2006, p. 6).  Recognizing the longer timeframe that capacity development requires especially in rural settings, it is important for donors to ensure that long term commitment and financial support is available to obtain genuinely sustainable results.  4.6. The Capacity Development Tools: Integration of Theory and Practice   Learning is The extent to which users change attitudes, improve knowledge, and/or increase skill as a result of attending the [training] program (Kirkpatrick  1994, p. 22).  Similarly, the training provided to #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy has dual purposes of developing technical skills and facilitating attitudinal changes22.  “…..[T]he tools that we use to teach communities have been helpful not only to develop technical skills of planning and administration but also to hone leadership, facilitation and negotiation skills necessary to capture local knowledge and understanding, hopes and aspirations, constraints in ways that drive the work of the conservancy, not just inform someone else’s plan for its conservation work” (CD Service Provider #5).   22 The responses for Question 7-15 on Appendix A and Questions 6, 7, 11-14 on Appendix D are used for this particular analysis.  98 According to the literature, CD as is currently practiced gives higher emphasis to training tools because it is considered as more efficient and effective in terms of time, resources, and the limited capacity of the CD practitioners themselves (Smillie 2001). Similarly, the CD of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy is focused mostly on training where diverse theoretical and practical tools are used in the process. Many of the theoretical training tools are instrumental and developmental. The instrumental ones are designed to give step by step procedural training and facilitation techniques on how to accomplish various tasks such as financial training, office administration, or food preparation.  The developmental tools are mostly sense making models used in conjunction with the instrumental tools to provide understanding of complex concepts using simple terms and pictorial representations.  The theoretical CD tools are all complemented with the appropriate practical training tools. For instance, the lodge management has a strategy of action learning where the staff members acquire their skills and knowledge of customer service from guest relations to food preparation on their daily jobs. The integrated livestock and natural resource management and monitoring training have field visit components so trainees can actually observe and understand what they learned in a classroom setting from the real world. Environmental shepherds go out in the field to physically observe and assess the wildlife, vegetation, and livestock status, and record what they saw on their diaries as well as the event book recording system. They also have the opportunity to identify various species of plants and animals and learn the use of scientific instruments such as the rain gauge and the GPS systems in the field. The conservancy has an annual operating budget of almost 200,000 Namibian Rand. So there is a need for financial administration training beginning with basic accounting procedures starting from writing checks and making cash deposits to complex procedures of preparing financial reports for meetings and auditing purposes. The practical tools include templates of bank statements, deposit-slips, checks, financial record keeping and monthly and annual financial reporting forms that the trainees can actually fill out to learn how the various financial transactions and reporting are carried out as shown on Figure 4.3.  99     Figure 4.3 Sample Check Used for Financial Training  Source: Courtesy of Namibian Nature Foundation (Hands on Guide to Financial Management 2006, p. 16)  Trainees also have the opportunity to do study visits to other conservancies and institutions such as the Cheetah Conservation Fund (CCF) to expand their capacities through sharing of experiences. In recent years, communal conservancies are also beginning to convene with each other to discuss their experiences, identify areas for collaboration, and plan mutual actions as part of the conservancy capacity development efforts (Jones 2002). There is a demand and interest from conservancies to create regional and national communal land conservancy associations (Jones 2002).  4.7. Ease of Comprehension, Use of Local Knowledge, and Accessibility  Participatory and interactive tools facilitate the best learning experience since they enhance mutual learning based on true communication and dialogue (Freire 2000), in this case, between the CD service providers and the capacity users. Participatory and interactive tools such as participatory rural appraisal (PRA), games, role plays, small group discussions, question and answer sessions, case studies, and dialogues were frequently used to bring about the necessary development in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy. I found that both the CD service providers and the users in my study preferred the practical and interactive CD tools as they considered them as easy ways to understand complex concepts23.  23 The responses for Question 15, Appendix A stated as “What was the most effective capacity development approaches that you liked best? Why do you think it is the best?” and similar Question 11 to Service providers in Appendix D were used in this section. Conservancy Bank of Namibia   103-872 Conservancy Bank of Namibia Limited Reg no. 3333333333 Independence avenue, Windhoek  Date______________  Pay____________________________________________or bearer  Amount____________________________________________  _________________________________________________ P. O. Box 222, Windhoek for Ompo conservancy  Date ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ___________ ____  100  “The best and quickest way for learning is doing it practically. For instance, the theoretical training on flora and fauna was not working well initially but when we took the people into the field where they can actually see the plants and animals, it became easy” (CD Service Provider #4).   “I prefer case studies, group works, field work and role playing. From the case studies I can get specific points that I was interested in and they are also easy to remember because they were showing us pictures. The group work helped me to work out any problems together with other people….In the role play, you imagine what you can do in a situation and do it. The field work is to practice what I have learned” (CD User # 12).  “The lectures are good but they are also boring. Small group discussions and going out to the field to learn about the animals is what I liked. This is because in the field you see face to face with the animal and in a group discussion people can exchange ideas with their own language” (Conservancy Interviewee #6).  For instance an excerpt of the facilitators guide on financial training on Box 4.1 shows that the interactive learning begins with identifying what the users know about the issue at hand.   101 Box 4.1. Interactive Learning of Conservancy Financial Management  Once the facilitator gauges the users’ knowledge through question and answer sessions, he/she can begin to focus on areas of where the users have lesser knowledge or experience. The CD service providers then use various interactive means to emphasize on any new information and knowledge.  Another important aspect of CD is focused on the use of local knowledge and experience. CD experts advocate that in order to unveil new knowledge, the CD users have to be able to comprehend the subject matter through their lived experiences (Freire 2000; Lopez and Theisohn 2003). When it comes to modifying the training materials to local realities24, the service  24 The responses for Question #6 Appendix D stated as “Are the materials you use easily accessible by local communities such as in their local languages? How do you modify the processes and tools to make them fit local norms and cultures of the people?”  Conservancy like a business? Ask the participants how they would compare the conservancy to an enterprise like a shop. Write responses on a flipchart Emphasize that a conservancy, like a business is also involved in getting: Money in (selling – e.g. campsites, lodges, crafts, firewood etc) Money out (buying – e.g. paying for people and equipment needed to run the conservancy) Banking – keeping g the money safe Ask the group “What is the main aim of running a business?” Write responses on a flipchart.  If it is not mentioned stress the importance of “To make a profit” Explain to the group: That like any business, you have said that you want your conservancy (your business) to earn benefits for its  members.  In the same  way as a shop you want your conservancy to have enough profit so that there are benefits for the members.   Like any business needs ways of knowing what is happening and how well or badly the business is doing so does the conservancy. Good businesses keep a record of all the transactions that take place: money they receive money they spend finances moving in and out of the bank Source: Namibian Nature Foundation (NNF) Financial Management Training Facilitators Guide,  p. 3  102 providers indicate that the degree of modification depends on the specific capacity that they are developing.  “Financial management especially basic accounting has the same procedures anywhere in the world so we may not be able to make much modification to the step by step procedures or integrate local knowledge. But we use local examples to illustrate the concept” (CD Service Provider #2).  Service providers have indicated that natural resource management training was easier to modify and integrate with local knowledge and realities.  “A good example of how we integrated local knowledge with scientific knowledge was in resource mapping.  MET was keen to produce GIS maps of key resources for ≠Khoadi //Hôas that they identified, but rather than say here is what we need to record, now help us find it, we started with very basic discussions about what was important to have on their maps. The conservancy was interested in capturing local place names. We recorded over three hundred of these such as, historic sites, burial places, rock art, springs, and areas that were important for seasonal grazing.  We also GPS’d the Red Line [This is the veterinary line which in some parts is fences that has been delineated by the South African Apartheid regime in order to separate the livestock from communal lands from those on commercial lands in order to prevent Anthrax and other veterinary diseases] together, the first time that had been done, and found to our surprise that it ran deeper in some places and shallower in others than was customarily thought” (CD Service Provider #6).   Freire’s theory in Pedagogy of the Oppressed indicates that education and action begins from present, existential, and concrete situations reflecting aspirations of the people (Freire 2000, p.96). Similarly, the Namibian service providers focus only on issues that the specific conservancy is actively involved with to make it relevant and practical to the users’ experiences.  “The emerging conservancies don’t usually get financial training until they start making their own income. This is because if the financial training is given to them at the initial stage, the training needs to be given again to them once they start making money, it can be a waste of money and time” (CD Service Provider #2).  The third approach of integrating local realities is through the use of local materials and widely spoken languages such as Damara and Afrikaans. Many of the CD tools and discussions use the local languages as medium of communication. “There are usually running translations in Damara, Afrikaans and English during most training. We also had people draw their own maps with sticks and rocks and dirt and then translate these onto paper.  They could discuss and debate the location of resources known to all without our having to do anything but guide the process forward” (CD service provider #6).   103 When we look at the accessibility of CD to diverse range of stakeholders, we see that the tools are mostly tailored to the needs of the majority of the capacity users with limited modifications or approaches to accommodate those who have been traditionally marginalized. As indicated in section 4.3 on the scale of the CD intervention, those who are currently benefiting from the CD efforts are mainly conservancy staff and management committee (CMC) members. Most of them are men in their middle ages of 30-50 while there are fewer women. The under representation of women is a concern to many of the CMC members, but it also looks like an accepted norm of cultural barrier imposed on their participation in community activities. When we look at the diversity in age groups, we see that few elders have participated in the conservancy but some of them that I have interviewed indicated that they prefer to delegate the responsibility to the younger generation because of their limitations in fulfilling their responsibilities.  “Young people should represent the elders because it is hard for us to go to meetings and we are okay if we don’t have a CMC position because we can just give advice” (Farmer from Rodeon Farmers’ Association).  The service providers have indicated25 that interactive tools such as smaller groups have been instrumental in enhancing meaningful participation of the marginalized groups in the capacity development process.  “In the training, those who spoke least were the young, especially younger women, and lower status members. We made sure that they had opportunities in smaller, less threatening groups to communicate with some of the younger, English literate members of the conservancy”(Conservancy Service  Provider # 6).  “We had them work in smaller groups so that everyone had the opportunity to participate. Someone is elected as a facilitator, another becomes a writer and once their discussions are over, a third person report back to the whole group. This gives everyone a responsibility” (Capacity Service Provider #1).   The majority of capacity users do have the basic skills of reading and writing and there are only few illiterate people involved in the process. Every one in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy  25 The response for Question #9 on Appendix D stated as “Is there a gender and age balance in the capacity development programs? If not, why not? What kind of assistance do government/NGOs give to conservancies so there is gender and age balance in capacity development programs?” was used here.   104 management committee and all of the staff members are literate as well. When I tried to find out how illiterate people were accommodated26 in the CD process in general, the service providers indicated that it is through the assignment of an interpreter who can translate as well as read and write on behalf of the person.  “I had an older gentleman once in one of my training who is a treasurer of a conservancy and spoke OtjiHererro, he doesn’t know how to write. So I assigned someone who can write for him in his language so he was able to participate well” (Capacity Service Provider #3).  “Once a person who doesn’t read and write was there, so he sits with someone who can help to write what he said and translate the information for him. The lecturer also checked with the person if things are okay” (CD User #8).  The basic premise of the Namibian CBNRM is to empower communities in resource use decision making, benefit sharing, and biodiversity conservation by bringing the diverse resource users in one platform (NACSO 2004). The capacity development program can be aligned with the above premise when it has a mechanism to address the capacity needs of the different resource users based on gender, age, class, and ethnic affiliations. In addition, CBNRM mostly takes place in rural settings where many of those who participate are adults who have only few years or no formal education. Hence, participatory and interactive tools that are grounded with local realities and participant’s experiences are important to develop the necessary capacities for sustainable results.  4.8. Summary of Findings of CD Process and tools of ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy  This chapter deals with the findings and analysis of how the Namibian government, NGOs, and private enterprises develop the capacity of communal conservancies to enhance local participation. The specific exploration begins with how CD is understood by the research participants. It then moves to understand how the CD process is designed and implemented. The CD process was explored using factors such as the scale of the intervention, the relationship between CD stakeholders, and the time and resources invested in the process. The CD tools were  26 The responses for Question #9 on Appendix D stated as “How do you accommodate those who are illiterate and elderly in capacity development programs?” and Question 16 on Appendix A stated as “Have you participated in capacity building programs where illiterate people are accommodated? How do you think that worked?” were used here.  105 assessed in terms of clarity and easy comprehension, integration of local knowledge, and accessibility to diverse stakeholders.  1. The understanding of capacity development in ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy is that it serves as both a means and an end. As a means, it has dual purposes of gaining knowledge individually and passing on this knowledge to the larger segment of society. Self development and self-sufficiency are considered by the interviewees as end products of capacity development.  2. The CD of ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy process is designed using six important steps. The conservancy approaches the service providers with their needs. Service providers carry out the needs assessment and prepare the training materials based on what the conservancy requires. The service providers carry out the training and do regular monitoring and follow up until the new capacity is instituted within the conservancy’s operational environment. Two important steps of testing the training material and evaluation have to be well developed to make the process more sustainable.  3. The ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy CD process follows the traditional approach of training few individuals to enhance the capacity of the conservancy and the community. However this approach is unsustainable as those individuals who are capacitated might move to more lucrative opportunities, possibly in bigger cities, which might cause brain-drain in rural settings. This is especially challenging for this particular conservancy as the staff members are also considered as the local experts and institutional memories.  4. Non-hierarchical, participatory, and empowering partnership between CD stakeholders is prescribed for sustainable capacity development (Fowler 2002). However, the relationship of service providers and capacity users in ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy is characterized with both cooperation and contention. The service providers consider themselves as having a higher power and thus play supporting role for conservancy development, while the users consider themselves either as team players indicating equal footing with the service providers or as subordinates with less power and influence in the CD process. Such power imbalances are further exacerbated by who controls funding, in this case donors and NGOs. NGOs who receive more funding support from donors are considered as “strong” and “trustworthy” by capacity users, while government that doesn’t give financial support to conservancies is considered as weak subordinate of donors  106 and NGOs. Hence, the concept of partnership is hard to translate into the realities of capacity development in the face of clear power differences.  5. CD needs a long-term commitment in terms of time and resources to bring about the necessary changes. However longer time and commitment for capacity development is not possible within ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy because of the limited capacity of NGOs and government who are also heavily reliant on donor funding. Donor funding is mostly based on allocated time frame, budget, or success rates. It can get reduced, redirected, and cut without giving service providers the time to adjust. Hence, as the number of emerging conservancies increases, the service providing institutions especially NGOs are not able to provide quality services due to lack of funds.  6. Practical and interactive CD tools are favored by both the service providers and capacity users for easy comprehension of concepts and procedures. The CD tools are integrated to the local context and realities through the use of local examples, languages, and materials, as well as the selection of relevant and practical topics to the specific conservancy. Interactive tools such as small group discussions and assigning a person who can write and translate to illiterate people have been helpful to accommodate and enhance meaningful participation of marginalized groups in the CD process. However conservancies and capacity development service providers need to enhance their efforts to make sure that age, class and gender diversities are accommodated well.    107 5. THE CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT PRODUCTS, PERFORMANCE AND PERMANANCE AT INDIVIDUAL, CONSERVANCY, AND COMMUNITY LEVELS IN #KHOADI //HÔAS CONSERVANCY  Morgan (1999a) differentiates capacity products into instrumental and self-organizing. Instrumental capacities are the skills and abilities to carry out particular day to day functions while self-organizational are the results of the accompanying changes from the capacity development intervention. Such changes are mostly associated with human behaviors of will, vision, cohesion, and values that would produce outcomes of progress over time (Morgan 1999a). These new behaviors determine the capacity performance or outcomes in terms of the user’s level of participation, ownership, commitment, and leadership.  Capacity permanence on the other hand involves factors that determine the sustainability of the new capacities in the operating environment, which in this case is the conservancy.   This chapter identifies the new capacities or products exhibited at the individual, conservancy/organizational, and community levels and analyzes their performance or outcomes on local participation in #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy. The first section discusses the new capacities and their performance at the individual level focusing on conservancy staff and management committee members. The second section explores how the new capacities were instituted within the conservancy’s organizational framework to accomplish organizational objectives and satisfy stakeholders’ expectations. The third section deal with the community’s self-organizing capacities and their performance in the conservancy. The fourth section deals with the sustainability or permanence of the new capacities in terms of their applicability, appropriate utilization, and adaptability.  In this chapter, those who are identified as conservancy interviewees are the conservancy staff or CMC members while the farmers are identified by their farmers’ association.  5.1. New Capacities and their Outcomes at the Individual Level   Individual-level capacity is the basic unit of capacity (Lopes and Theisohn 2003). It is associated with capabilities that come from individuals’ increased competencies to accomplish certain functions or tasks resulting to empowerment.  Individual level empowerment occurs when the individual recognizes his/her rights and values in order to initiate change through actions. Paulo Freire calls this a process of “humanization” by which those marginalized or  108 oppressed can become subjects27 and attain the capacity to critically observe and analyze their own realities in order to act and transform themselves (Freire 2000). This in turn increases individuals’ capacity to secure assets and capabilities and creates possibilities for fuller and richer life (Narayan 2002). The following three new capacities and their performance were identified at the individual level in this study.  5.1.1. Social Empowerment   It is a type of empowerment associated with having the access to information, knowledge, skill, social organizations, and financial resources (Friedmann 1992). Such social powers can be utilized properly to gain personal assets and capabilities for individual empowerment (Narayan 2002)28.  “The financial training I received from the conservancy has helped me to prepare my own personal budget and I am able to save money and buy things that I never thought I could afford” (Conservancy Interviewee #2).  “The financial training didn’t only help the conservancy, it also helped me. I used to spend my money on anything. But now when I get paid, I know how to prioritize when I buy things and save some money as well” (Conservancy Interviewee #10).  The social powers have also been manifested through the transformation of world views, perceptions, and attitudes to create subjective well being on individuals. Many of the research participants gave a positive evaluation of their lives in the forms of pleasant emotions which they depict came as a result of the capacity development.  “The training I have received has given me a chance to open up my eyes to new things. I feel like I am now lifted up from the ground” (Conservancy Interviewee #8).  “I see things in a different way now. Problems that seem so big once can be solved easily now because I know how to solve them” (Conservancy Interviewee #9).   27 According to Freire, subjects are those who know and act. 28 The responses for Questions No. 17 and 18 on Appendix A inquiring about the types of new capacities, skills, and knowledge and how individuals have used them were analyzed for this analysis.  109 In addition, the information from the training has helped individuals to be innovative in taking precautionary measures to prevent bad outcomes or before any problems arise. They also have the necessary skills to find creative solutions to resolve conflicts.  “I have learned about elephant behavior, so I tell my kids and neighbors the time when they are active so they don’t go outside” (Conservancy Interviewee #4).  “I know how to vaccinate my own livestock, and people ask me to check on their livestock for them so I can tell them of any sickness” (Conservancy Interviewee #4).  “[…] what I have learned in conflict management training has helped me to calm a person down who has been so upset because of livestock loss to wildlife. When I sit with a farmer who had loss of livestock, I know that the first thing I have to do is ask questions such as… do you have a herder? do you have a dog? These questions will help me to see if the farmer has set up any measures to prevent the loss and mostly by asking these questions I can find out the cause of the loss. In doing so, I can clearly indicate why the farmer has lost his livestock and help him set up measures so similar events won’t happen again” (Conservancy Interviewee #12).   Hence, through social empowerment, the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy staff and the management committee members are able to use their newly developed capacities and the information they acquired to transform their own life style in order to gain tangible material and financial assets and intangible capabilities of innovation, positive outlooks about their lives and problem solving.  5.1.2. Psychological Empowerment   Psychological empowerment is often associated with self potency, sense of dignity, and personal worth that would help a person to achieve success, make valuable contributions, or gain personal fulfillments (Kanter 2005; Diener and Biswas-Deiner 2005; Friedmann 1992). Such positive emotions are known to induce self-confidence, sociability, active engagement, and creativity (Narayan 2005). In the case of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy, self confidence is expressed in two ways. One’s belief in his/her efficacy in accomplishing certain functions in an efficient manner is expressed as shown below.   “I know how the finances work in detail and where each of the numbers came from so I respond  to any questions from community members on AGMs [annual general meetings] with confidence”  (Conservancy Interviewee # 12)   110  “The confidence and courage I have gained from the training have helped me to know how  to negotiate with people so I now have a full-time job as a community counselor” (Conservancy  Interviewee #3).  According to Freire (2000), self-confidence comes when those who have been marginalized gain their social equity and humanization through a conscientization process. Through this process, they will learn to communicate, reflect, and engage in dialogues so they can form their own opinions and share them with others without fear or shame (Freire 2000). Similarly, self- confidence is also shown in this study as a way of expressing one’s views and opinions at ease as mostly expressed by women research participants.   “The training has helped me to gain my self confidence because I have to stand up and talk in  front of people” (Conservancy Interviewee #2)  Psychological empowerment in this case allowed CMC members or conservancy staff to have enhanced capacity not only in accomplishing their day to day tasks but also to present their activities to their constituents in transparent and confident manner.  It also enabled them to communicate their opinions with their peers and the general public easily since they recognize the importance and values of their contributions.  5.1.3. Manipulation Using Newly Gained Knowledge and Influence   Individual based capacity development might also create unintended harmful consequences by giving more power and influence to few individuals who may use their new gained capacity inappropriately (Freire 2000). The new local elites can manipulate their constituents in an efficient manner if there is an imbalance of power and knowledge between them and those who they represent (Freire 2000). In this specific study, individuals are believed to use their new capacity and position to gain un-equitable personal benefits and, even those who are active CMC members didn’t deny this as shown below.   “[…] few people have tried to hijack the conservancy process using what they have learned in the  training and their power for their own personal gain” (Conservancy Interviewee # 7).  For instance, many of the registered farmer interviewees have indicated that the conservancy staff or CMC members give job opportunity preferences to the wealthy members of the  111 community who already have more assets and thus bigger status in the community.  Furthermore, there is high patronage politics where the CMC members use their opportunity to keep the power to themselves and their supporters as we can clearly detect from the excerpts below.   “When the lodge opened, the positions were announced on the radio so people can apply for a  job. But the CMC members and staff only chose the known people in the area who have many  cattle […].even for environmental shepherd jobs, only those with donkey carts [donkey carts are  one of the main transportation means within the conservancy] were chosen but people without  donkey carts who can also do foot patrol were not chosen” (Farmer Interviewee from Condor  Farmer’s Association).   “CMC elections happen with all the people on the AGM but if an elected person leaves the  position, the management committee members just go ahead and elect their own family members  without consulting with the people” (Farmer Interviewee from Estoff Farmers’ Association).   The new local elites use their capacity, power, and position to manipulate their constituents to siphon off personal benefits for themselves and those associated with them. This is mainly caused when the capacity development is focused on producing individual experts over community-level awareness raising (Freire 2000; Horton 2003). When the community is aware and empowered, members are empowered enough to demand answers when they see incidents of corruption or misuse of power and such demands can enhance transparency and accountability of the CMC members.  5.2. New Capacities and Performance at Organizational or Conservancy Level  Effective devolution of power occurs when local people self-mobilize their resources to establish local organizations that would reflect their views and help them meet their own development objectives through institutions that they have developed (Midgley 1986; Pimbert and Pretty 1997; Ribot and Larson 2005). The Namibian communal conservancies are such local organizations created through self mobilization of communal land inhabitants. The main aim of the capacity development process facilitated by NGO and government entities is to help conservancies build institutional/governance, natural resource management, and benefit sharing capacities.   112  Horton (2003) defines organizational capacity as,   “[the organization’s] potential to perform—its ability to successfully apply its skills and  resources to accomplish its goals and satisfy its stakeholders’ expectations” (Horton et. al.  2003, p. 19).  The self-assessment exercise that I carried out with the conservancy staff members through the gender-based focus groups explored various governance and service delivery capacities of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy (See Appendix B for the evaluation framework and the various topics and associated questions that were discussed). Governance capacities are associated with the conservancy’s democratic and accountability processes that are in place including election of CMC members, performance of elected members, and communication with conservancy members. The service delivery capacities are those related to meeting the needs of conservancy members such as benefit sharing, conservancy office operation, and community wide training and awareness. The self assessment exercise explored the performance of these capacities in terms of achieving the objectives of the conservancy and the needs of its constituents. I have tried to illustrate the findings and analysis of four of the six topics that were discussed below since they are specifically related to local participation. 5.2.1. Democratic Decision Making Processes: Inequitable Representative Democracy  Local level organizations need to have democratic structure that gives locals the capacity to make their own political decisions. Accordingly, #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy exercises representative democracy to carry out  elections of its management Committee members guided through the principles of its constitution as shown on Box 5.1 below.            113     Box 5.1 Article 12 of the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy Constitution Representative or direct democracy is believed to be the best model for electing CMC members for #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy. This is because similar to Pennock’s theory (1979), there is a dire need for competent individuals who can devote their time and resources to learn about the conservancy in order to manage it effectively as can be seen below.   The constitution has general requirements that members must be eighteen or older, are registered  members of the conservancy, and should be full time residents of the area to be nominated for the  CMC positions. However there are no other qualifications established for nominating or electing  CMC members. Members’ limited knowledge of what the CMC membership position entails has  resulted to election of individuals who can’t fulfill their duties or are not able attend meetings  (Draft  Focus Group Report, p. 9)  Clear criteria for who should be elected for the CMC membership need to be established and communicated to the members ahead of elections. For instance, CMC members especially those at the executive level should not have full time jobs. This is because experiences have shown that those members with jobs are not able to fulfill their duties as expected of them. Unemployed youths with Grade 12 education can fill in the executive positions, and with the appropriate (1) Conservancy Management Committee members shall be nominated and elected at the Annual General Meeting of the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy and shall then choose and appoint their own officers. (2) Elections to the Conservancy Management Committee shall be free, fair and democratic, and independent observers are welcome to monitor elections and affirm their outcomes. (3) Every reasonable effort will be made to ensure that those nominated for membership in the Conservancy Management Committee represent the full, diverse character of the #Khoadi //Hôas area, with particular emphasis placed on the participation of women and representation from among the more remote communities. (4) Terms of office shall be five (5) years. (5) Two consecutive terms shall be established as the limit, unless two thirds (2/3) of the entire #Khoadi //Hôas membership shall petition to extend an individual’s term for a third and final five (5) year term. (6) Outgoing Conservancy Management Committee members shall say in office for three (3) months after the election of their successors as non-voting members of the Conservancy Management Committee to advise and train these individuals and ensure a smooth transition.   Source: #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy Constitution, P. 11  114 amount of incentives and training, they can dedicate their time to fulfill the CMC duties (Draft Focus Group Report, p. 9)  The focus group participants indicated that the two CMC elections carried out since the conservancy is established are free and fair29. However, the exclusivist nature of representative democracy as indicated by (Bachrach and Botwinick 1992; Nylen 2003; Pennock 1979) are clearly indicated in this case study as well. The centralized election process carried out from one specific location accommodates selected groups of conservancy members who live close to where the election is held and can easily attend the Annual General Meeting (See Figure 5.1 below for the location of conservancy office in relation to the farmers association within the conservancy).  Figure 5.1 Location of the Conservancy Office in Relation to the Farmers  Associations in #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy    In the meantime, such process marginalizes those who live further away from the office and can’t attend the meeting due to lack of transportation. The root cause of this is the large size area the conservancy covers and the highly scattered human settlements within it. As Jones  29 The questions on Appendix B Topic # 1: Election of CMC Members were used for this analysis. A portion of the focus group report that deals with elections is also included on Appendix E.   115 articulately puts this phenomenon, “the larger the unit, the more the issue of representation becomes problematic” (2001, p. 169).   Although there is an effort to elect people from the different farmers’ associations, majority of the  members who are attending the AGM are from the Anker and Erwee Associations, and they tend  to favor nominees from their own areas. Most members who live further away from the office do  not attend the AGM because of lack of transportation so they don’t have the capacity to mobilize  themselves and elect their own representatives (Draft Focus Group Report, p. 9).  In addition, this process of election allows the local elites with higher status to dominantly capture the central power as most of those elected for the executive positions are either teachers or government workers who live in Anker and Erwee farmers’ associations as we can see below.   Initially, many teachers were elected to be in the CMC because there was a need to have people  with working experience, who can volunteer their time and resources and didn’t need to be paid,  and who have their own transportation to come to meetings. (Draft Focus Group Report, p.12)  As the two semi-urban towns, Anker and Erwee, are economically vibrant and attract high concentration of the population compared to other associations in the conservancy (Vaughan and Katjiua 2002). This is because they have public amenities such as primary schools, clinics, and the newly built agricultural extension offices. Hence, many of the residents of these towns can diversify their livelihood of livestock farming with cash economy and formal employments (Vaughan and Katjiua 2002). Residents in these towns also have access to services such as transportation, electric power, and telephone. The farmers’ associations in the outlying areas of the conservancy on the other hand, are more remote and rural where public amenities and services are few or non-existent. The main livelihood for these areas is livestock farming and they don’t have as much opportunity to diversify their livelihoods because of lack of infrastructure or public services. Much of the infrastructure and roads are remnants of the colonization era and they are mostly in dilapidated conditions (Vaughan and Katjiua 2002). People from these distant associations usually don’t have efficient access to travel long distance unless they own donkey carts or hitch hike whenever the conservancy vehicle, tourists, or government trucks pass by their areas. These associations are also closer to the nearest Etosha National Park where they experience higher rates of conflict with wildlife.   As we can see clearly above, democratic processes are efficient and effective when they are based on governance capacity sensitive to equity (Lopes and Theisohn 2003). Such  116 governance capacity begins from developing all-inclusive democracy that provides an opportunity for all people to participate at every aspect of the political process (Lopes and Theisohn 2003). Recognizing such need for inclusive democracy, the focus group participants decided to integrate participatory democracy with the already existing representative democracy. Accordingly, the focus group participants recommended to amend the conservancy constitution (Chapter 4, Clause 12) so that the next CMC election can be held at each of the farmers’ associations instead of at the Annual General Meeting which is expected to enhance local participation in elections and avoid exclusivity and elitist democracy.  5.2.2. Organizational Structure: Voluntary Participation and Lack of Incentives   Having hard capacities of human and material resources in an organization does not automatically translate into improved performance and better development results (UNDP 2006). Although the appropriate capacities do exist, there should also be an incentive to motivate them to perform.       In the case of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy, voluntary management responsibilities for excessively long time (5 years of service) and lack of incentives are found to be the major causes for underperformance of the CMC members30. There is lack of interest and frequent absenteeism of CMC members. It is sometimes difficult to get five out of the nine executive members present at CMC meetings to form a quorum, so important decisions are not made in a timely manner. Many of the teachers who are holding the executive positions have a hard time juggling their professional jobs with their voluntary responsibilities in the conservancy as can be seen below.   But it turned out that teachers are overloaded with their daytime jobs and other commitments that  are conflicting with their CMC roles and responsibilities. After serving for many years mostly for  free or limited amount of allowances, they seemed to also want appropriate incentives as those  who are not employed (Draft Focus Group Report, p. 12)  As those unemployed members of the CMC do not have the interest to volunteer their time and resources for five years without any proper compensation, many of them have relinquished their positions. The issue of under performance among CMC members was discussed in detail and the focus group participants decided to create an incentive structure for CMC members to motivate  30 Questions on Appendix B, Topic #2: Performance of CMC members were used for this analysis.  117 them to fulfill their duties. Accordingly, it was decided that the clause on the constitution that describes financial remuneration of the Conservancy Managers and Officers (Chapter 5, Clause 1) will be revised. This clause as it stands states: “No elected member of the Conservancy Management Committee shall receive a salary for his or her service on the committee” (Conservancy Constitution, p. 9). The new amendment will allow all CMC members to get a combination of cash and wildlife life meat remittances for attending three official conservancy meetings in a year. The clause on the duration of CMC membership (Chapter 4, Clause 5) will also be amended to reduce the membership years from five to three.  5.2.3. Communication Strategies: Gap of Information and Lack of Interest  Many case studies indicate that effective and better project outcomes in community based initiatives are associated with active community participation (Mansuri and Rao 2003). The higher the level of awareness and information that community members have about the issues that affect their lives, the more enhanced is their ability to engage in collective actions (Abers 2001; Narayan 2002).  #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy uses the local radio, area-wide and annual general meetings, newsletters distributed at the AGMs, and word of mouth through environmental shepherds to communicate with its members or to consult with them about various conservancy issues. However, the focus group participants indicated that there is still a gap of communication gap with the members31. The conservancy’s limited hard capacities such as lack of enough vehicles, high prices of fuel, and inadequate human resource deterred the conservancy from doing effective communications and consultations with its members regularly. Members’ lack of interest and the high cost for participation they have to incur have also widened the gap of information and awareness.  Members are not attending AGM or area meetings because of • lack of transport to get to Grootberg [conservancy office location]; • lack of radios in some households which is why some members don’t know when the  meetings are happening; • Lack of interesting or valuable information from meetings because they follow the same  format every year;  31 Questions on Appendix B, Topic #3: Communication Gap with Conservancy Members was analyzed for this section.   118 • lack of incentives for people to attend meetings; • several meetings are carried out in the area by various CBOs in addition to the  conservancy that are taking conservancy members’ time and resources (Focus Group  Report, p. 16).  Furthermore, when the conservancy doesn’t not fulfill its promises to its constituents, it causes  causes wide spread dissatisfaction and lack of interest limiting member’s commitments.   People are reluctant to attend meetings because their expectations are only met partially and  promises made by the conservancy were not kept (Focus Group Report, p.15).  Another challenge discussed by the focus group participants is that the public outreach means employed by the conservancy are over-utilized and don’t generate any new information causing members’ lack of interest.  Meetings are not interesting for members anymore because they follow similar formats and don’t have any new information (Draft Focus Group Report 2006, P.16)   Many of the above challenges are not far from what similar studies found about local participation. When promises are not fulfilled, they can cause wide spread dissatisfaction and lack of interest limiting members’ commitment to the organization and its goals. In addition, if the amount of time and resources needed to participate in conservancy activities has higher cost, it deters members’ involvement with the organization (Mansuri and Rao 2003). The focus group participants discussed the above issues and made various recommendations to reduce the gap of communication and enhance members’ engagement. Some of these recommendations were to: • Create sub-information centers or satellite offices, especially in associations that  are further away from the conservancy office to be serviced by environmental  shepherds so members who live further away can get access to the  conservancy, • Rent vehicles to transport members from various associations to AGMs, • Conduct a survey in collaboration with University of Namibia to find out why  members’ are not attending meetings and what types of information or activities  will enhance their engagement, • Make regular use of the radio for communication and education programs. The radio is currently used to announce when and where meetings are taking place. But the focus group participants discussed the possibility of preparing live talk shows to communicate with their members regularly.  119 • Establish communicator’s roles for future CMC members to ensure that they hold  regular meetings with their respective farmers’ association constituents. 5.2.4. Benefit Sharing Plan: Inequitable Distribution Benefits   The premise of Common Property Theories are if local people can participate and gain tangible and intangible benefits from their natural resources, they will be interested to protect and use their resources in a sustainable manner (Ostrom 1990; Murphree 1993 and 1997; Wade 1987; Baland and Platteau 1996). Accordingly, Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) requires  “…an approved method for equitable distribution of benefits to members of the  community derived from consumptive and non-consumptive utilization of wildlife  in   order for communal conservancies to get a legalized status” (Jones 1998, p.12).  Based on this requirement, #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy has a benefit distribution plan in place launched from various participatory consultations and needs assessment surveys that  carried out with conservancy members.  Once the needs were identified and prioritized, the  conservancy  collaborated with a service provider NGO called the Rossing Foundation to  design the distribution plan later approved by the general membership at an annual general  meeting.  The conservancy began distributing various benefits successfully since 2002 once the plan became official. Individual benefits of 5 kilograms of wildlife meat were distributed to each household from community hunting expeditions carried out by the conservancy every two years. Conservancy members were able to purchase diesel oil (for pumping water for livestock) and veterinary vaccinations from the conservancy through subsidized prices. The conservancy gave livestock loans to its members. Members also benefited from various wildlife damage cash compensations. Community level benefits such as water point construction for elephants, soup kitchens for pensioners, financial contributions to upgrade the two area primary schools and the traditional authority offices were carried out successfully.  One of the principles of the benefit distribution plan is “equitable” distribution defined as “fairness” by the focus group participants32 or “providing the greatest benefit for those who  32 Questions on Appendix B, Topic 4: Community wide benefit sharing were used for the analysis above.  120 suffer the greatest cost” according to the benefit distribution plan itself (#Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy Benefit Distribution Plan, p.3). However during the plan implementation, the benefit distribution has not been equitable. For instance, distributing fixed amount of wildlife meat to everyone is not equitable since those who are at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder or highly impacted by conflict with wildlife didn’t get higher benefits as stated in the policy. As indicated by the focus group participants, the main reason for this is because the conservancy doesn’t have the data on the socio-economic status of each household or the capacity to analyze its already collected data on incidents of wildlife in order to create an equitable household level benefit distribution for those who need it most.   The focus group participants discussed the issue of equitability of the benefit sharing plan and made various recommendations. Some of these include: • Evaluate the benefit sharing plan to find out members’ satisfaction level and how  benefit-related problems can be resolved; • Conduct a conservancy-wide survey in partnership with University of  Namibia  (UNAM) to find out the number of people and the socio-economic status of each  household in the conservancy to ensure equitable benefit distributions.  5.3. New Capacities and Their Outcomes at Community Level   Community capacity is the aggregate awareness, knowledge, and attitudinal changes that occur because of people’s associations with organizations that represent them. These new capacities allow community members to use their rights, responsibilities, and power effectively so they can influence, control, and benefit from their local organizations and institutions.  As Narayan describes this:   “Better informed community can take effective actions in terms of taking advantage of  opportunities, access services, exercise their rights, negotiate effectively, and hold the state or  community based organizations accountable” (Narayan 2002, p.19).  Below are five of the new capacities and their associated performance as identified from the interviews I carried out with the farmers from the eight associations (Appendix C has the questions that were designed for conservancy farmers).    121 5.3.1. Political Empowerment   Friedmann defines political empowerment as the means to decision-making processes that comes from social empowerment (Friedmann 1992). This is also the type of empowerment that Narayan described as   “Capabilities of poor people to participate in, negotiate with, influence, control and hold  accountable institutions that affect their lives” (Narayan 2002, p.14).  For instance, #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy members’ are empowered to elect their own conservancy management members and express their views enhancing transparency and accountability of the conservancy33.  “If a farmer has reported about wildlife damage on his livestock to a CMC member and if the CMC member doesn’t report to the office, the farmer will complain about him on the AGM in front of all the members and demands answers” (Farmer from Rodeon  Association).   “I had a chance to go and see AGMs in other conservancies. I found that other conservancy  members don’t ask as #Khoadi’s do. Our members have many many difficult questions. They  want to know everything about the conservancy and they don’t like it if you give  them  unsatisfactory answers. So we have to prepare to answer everything in the meetings”  (Conservancy Interviewee #8).  Moreover, political empowerment is not only about securing power of voice and votes but is also about influencing actions and decisions (Friedmann 1992; Narayan 2002). This is particularly important for those marginalized groups with limited assets and capabilities (Narayan 2002). Similarly, the conservancy members have used the AGM platform to influence the conservancy to act according to their desires.   “Things get done when people ask for them at the AGM. Two years ago, we asked that the finance  books get audited. The next year, the finance books were audited and the reports were distributed  to the members. We also ask questions about the financial books or budget and the CMC  members have to always give us the correct answers and explain everything so we can  understand what money went to what” (Farmer from Anker Association.)   33 The responses for questions 19-22 on Appendix A for conservancy staff or CMC members about changes in terms of skills and knowledge increase and the resulting strengths and weaknesses that are exhibited in the community were used for this particular section. Responses for Question #13 on Appendix C for conservancy farmers about members’ ability in presenting their complaints on AGMs was used in this analysis.  122 The above quotes indicate that the political process has empowered the conservancy members to elect their representatives, demand for transparency and accountability, and influence the conservancy’s decision-making processes effectively. 5.3.2. Change of Attitude towards Wildlife   Common property theoreticians such as (Murphree 1997; Ostrom 1990; Steiner and Rehoy 1995) highlight the importance of retaining resource derived benefits that can out weight the costs of managing the resource to bring the attitudinal desire towards protecting natural resources. Attitudinal change towards resource use is the fundamental and key principle of a CBNRM program especially if the end result is for sustainable resource use. In the case of #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy, the members who still believe in the conservancy’s potential to provide them benefits have shown positive attitudes towards living with wildlife in spite of the costs they have incurred34.   “Elephants came and destroyed my garden a while back but I didn’t do anything to them because  I knew that I can benefit when the trophy hunter comes and kills the elephant because the  conservancy gives us the meat” (Farmer from Erwee Association).  Although limited and not consistent, some of the tangible benefits that members have received from the conservancy have been instrumental in enhancing people’s cooperation with the conservancy compared to the initial period of the conservancy formation.   “It was difficult when we started the conservancy because people didn’t want to live with wildlife.  But now, it is easier to work with community members and even talk about conserving the wildlife  of the area because they now understand the value of wildlife and natural resources better  because they are seeing the benefits from them” (Conservancy Interviewee #7).   The positive attitudinal change towards wildlife in this study is the result of tangible benefits provided by the conservancy. This proves that with the consistency and assurance of benefits, members are able to recognize the economic and financial values of their resource so they can tolerate small damages as long as there is a mechanism to compensate them for their loss in an effective and efficient manner. The conservancy has set up a wildlife-related damage compensation scheme that pays individuals various amounts of cash for livestock loss, property  34 Responses for Questions 15 and 16 of Appendix C for conservancy farmers on the types of benefits they received from the conservancy and the positive and negative changes that they experienced because of the conservancy were used in this analysis.  123 damage, or injuries to humans. Members are also provided free diesel oil for their water pumps if elephants drink from their wells. However, such individual benefits can only be tolerated when they occur at a manageable rate. In my interviews, I have heard of stories where some individuals have lost 30-40 goats to a cheetah in just one night. Events like these are inevitable as the number of wildlife increases in human dominated landscapes. However, such high impacts can get beyond the financial reach of the conservancy to provide the appropriate compensations and they have the ability to threaten the livelihood that farmers depended on for many generations, hence when the cost is higher and insurmountable, it has the potential to reverse the positive attitude towards wildlife to a negative one. 5.3.3. Strong Group Identity and Collective Ownership of the Conservancy  As Benello (2005) indicates it, effective group structure becomes true when the people involved know and feel confident that the group they belong to is capable of  “significantly enriching their lives both through the solidarity it provides and the  performance of  tasks to its members” (2005, p. 39).  This process in turn creates the possibility for meaningful participation and strong group identity. This study demonstrates similar group cohesions in two forms35:  members’ strong commitment to the conservancy and their collective ownership of the conservancy. Members’ strong commitment to the conservancy self-motivated them to take the appropriate actions towards meeting one of the primary goals of the conservancy.   “People are acting like policeman for the conservancy. They are the eyes and the ears of the  conservancy on their own because whenever they see poaching or any dead animals on the road ,  they report it to the conservancy office or the CMC” (Conservancy Interviewee #10).  In addition, all of the eight farmers that I interviewed showed strong feeling of ownership towards the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy.  They know that the conservancy and its assets belong to them and that the staff and CMC members are working on their behalf. Furthermore, all of them are proud and happy to see the construction of the lodge and campsite and consider these  35 Response to the Question #20 of Appendix A to the conservancy staff or CMC members about the changes seen at the community level are used here.  124 new developments as the biggest achievements of their conservancy that they hope to benefit from in the near future36.   “New things like the lodge and campsite are coming to our conservancy. Good life is starting.  even if we are not benefiting from them now, maybe our children might get something so we are  very happy about that” (Farmers from Hobatere Association).  An interviewee expressed strong confidence on the conservancy without even receiving individual benefits. This is because the person believes the conservancy provides benefits to those who needed it most in the community.   “I didn’t get meat last year. The conservancy car went by the road and didn’t stop to drop meat.  But I don’t mind if the conservancy doesn’t give me any meat because I have my own goats since  the conservancy is helping the poorest people get some meat” (Farmer from Suider Kruess  Farmer’s Association)   When it comes to members’ awareness level about the conservancy, all eight farmers I interviewed37 knew that they are not supposed to hunt wildlife and they do agree with this rule. However, many of them couldn’t remember what rights they have or what they are allowed to do as members. Few of them didn’t even know that the conservancy has a constitution that spells out members’ rights and responsibilities in detail. This is mainly because the conservancy doesn’t have the mechanism or resources to carry out community wide awareness-raising in order to educate its constituents.  Intangible capacity products such as empowerment, the existence of new and improved institutions and organizations, transparent decision making, and communication processes and their associated outcomes are important at the individual and conservancy levels. However, the community members measure the success of the conservancy by the tangible benefits it provides since these are benefits they can see and identify them easily. Infrastructure development (construction of the lodge and campsite), the household level wildlife meat distribution, job opportunities for local residents, or even the conservancy vehicle passing by their neighborhoods are more meaningful and have higher values to the conservancy members.  36 Most of the responses for Question #19 and 21 on Appendix C about the positive and negatives changes exhibited in the community since the conservancy came about  and the strengths and achievements of the conservancy in its nine years of existence were used here. 37 The responses for Questions #4 and 5 on Appendix C associated with the farmers’ level of knowledge about the conservancy’s constitution were used here.  125  “The conservancy car is not coming to our area anymore. The last time this truck was here is  when they brought us kudu meat a long time ago…I think two years ago. But when I go to Anker,  I see the car all the time” (Farmer from Erwee Association).   Constructing a headquarter office is something that is critical to ensure that the conservancy has a  permanent space from where it operates. [The conservancy is using MET’s facility for office  space and members have indicated that there is no guarantee for how long the office space is  available]. The members on various AGMs have also requested the construction of the office  (Draft Focus Group Report 2006, p. 25).  Feelings of strong pride and ownership are enhanced if the conservancy is able to deliver consistent tangible benefits to its members. This in turn strengthens the social capital and cohesion between the members and it encourages a tradition of participation that allows them to get engaged and fulfill their membership duties out of their own self-initiation. Such strong group identities and feelings can overcome the need for individual benefits especially if members trust the conservancy is able to direct the benefits to those who actually need them. 5.3.4. Marginalization and Lack of Interest amongst Members   Often meaningful participation is threatened whenever organizations fail to meet rising expectations of their members (Kanter 2005; Nylen 2003). This in turn reduces the commitment that people initially had towards the organization causing high turn over of members, alienation, and dissatisfaction which can also cause internal conflict (Kanter 2005). Such outcomes usually arise from the heterogeneity of the community’s internal structures created by power differences, authority, gender, or social divisions that are based on caste, race, and ethnic identities (Agrawal and Gibson 1999; Mansuri and Rao 2003). Although the socio- economic divisions based on class, ethnic identities, and gender do exist within #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy, the main reason for the dissatisfaction and lack of interest amongst conservancy members primarily comes from marginalization due to geographical location and distance from conservancy office. The strong feelings of pride, confidence, trust and ownership are reduced as one moves away from the conservancy office and the two semi-urban areas, Anker and Erwee, where the power center lies. This is because the members from the distant associations have limited contact with the conservancy and the benefits they received are also not consistent when  126 compared to the associations closer to the conservancy office, while their cost of living with wildlife is higher than those closer to the office38.   “The people were pretty active in the beginning but their interest is less now. I know this because  I attend the AGM every year and I see that few people attending the AGM nowadays” (Farmer  from Erwee Association).  When I asked the farmer from Erwee Association why there is a decrease in participation at the present time compared to few years ago, the response was   “I think the benefits of the conservancy are taking too long to come while the costs are  increasing” (Farmer from Erwee Association).   “People are reluctant to attend meetings because promises were not kept before and even now  when it comes to benefits and the conservancy is also not communicating with the farmers”  (Farmer from Rodeon Association).  I probed about the phrase “promises were not kept before and even now” further. The interviewee associated it with the previous track record of the Grootberg Farmers Association which is also considered as the “mother body of the conservancy” (Personal communication with conservancy manager).   “The Grootberg Farmers Union many years ago asked us to give them a goat so we can get two  goats back and we gave the goats but didn’t get anything back. So when the conservancy was  created, some of us were reluctant to join because the GFU didn’t keep its promises and the same  people are the ones who created the conservancy” (Farmer from Rodeon Association).  Others mentioned that less number of people is attending the AGM not because people do not have the interest, it is because they live at further distance from the conservancy office.   “We would like to participate in the conservancy but it is too far to get by foot or donkey carts”  (Farmers from Hobatere Association).    Over-utilization of meetings that seem to take members’ time and resources were  also  presented as a factor of disinterest by the members.  38 The responses for Questions #9 and 10 of Appendix C to find out  if members go to conservancy meetings, how many times they have attended the AGM, if all registered members are coming to the AGM and if they don’t, what the reason is are used for the analysis here.  127  “We used to go to the AGM before but we are not going there anymore because we don’t want to listen to the same music” (Farmer from Condor Association).  When the conservancy couldn’t fulfill its promises to generate equitable benefits to all its constituents especially to those who lived further away from the conservancy office, those members will experience marginalization and they will stop participating in the conservancy  5.3.5. Nepotism  One of the key components for effective bottom-up participation is the existence of robust civil society that has deep tradition of democratic participation (Fukuda-Parr et. al. 2004; Midgley 1986; Nylen 2003; Putnam 1993; Roussopoulos and Benello 2005; Smillie 2003). However, in the case of Namibia, the civil society is generally weak and characterized by localized identities based on ethnic and racial differences that are remnant effects of the Apartheid era (Fosse 1997; KjÆret and Stokke 2003; Larsen 2003). Such preference for one’s familiar identity and space can hinder people’s meaningful participation in community wide development issues as their actions can be dictated by nepotism and patronage politics. This was clearly indicated with how the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy members nominated and elected their CMC representatives as shown by the excerpts below39.   “We only have 5-6 people going from Condor for AGM and those from Anker go in a bunch.  So Anker people only elected their own, that’s why you have the chairman, the vice  chairman, the treasurer, and vice treasurer from Anker. Our headman was elected on the last  election just because those from Anker knew him from the farmers union’s days so they  favored  him” (Farmers from Condor Association).    The CMC members do not represent the whole conservancy due to a problem of  favoritism  during elections. Although there is an effort to elect people from the different farmers’  associations, majority of the members who are attending the AGM are from Anker and Erwee  Associations, and they tend to favor nominees from their own areas. Most members who  live  further away from the office do not attend the AGM because of lack of transportation so they  don’t have the capacity to mobilize themselves and elect their own representatives. (Draft  Focus  Group Report, pps. 8-9).   39 Responses for Questions # 7 and #11 of Appendix C about representation and diversity of the Conservancy Management Committee (CMC) members and election procedures were used here.  The responses for the focus Group discussion questions on election of CMC members on Appendix B are also referred here.  128 The government of Namibia is trying to resurrect the feelings of national identity and strong civil society through the reorganization of its regional government structures, opening relatively free access to media sources, and arranging suitable environment for grass root organizations. However, the preference for individual identity is still strong in many parts of the country. Such preference for one’s identity through language, race, and ethnic affiliations does not allow the strong social capital that is needed for local participation to flourish. This lack of strong civil society is also the reason for the inequitable power distribution and marginalization of conservancy members as clearly shown in this particular study.  In the next section, the various capacity products at individual, conservancy and community levels and their performance or outcomes in terms of local participation in the conservancy are summarized in (Table 5.1)format.  129 5.4. New Capacities and their Outcomes on Local Participation of //Khaodi #Hôas Conservancy   Table 5.1 Summary of CD Products and their Outcomes on Local Participation Capacity Levels Products (New Capacities) of //Khaodi #Hôas Conservancy Outcomes or Performance  of the New Capacities on Local Participation Social Empowerment • Transformation of one’s lifestyle and world views through information assisting individuals to secure material and financial assets, positive well-being and hence increasing their participation •    One’s innovation to create pre-cautionary measures for self and to guide others •    Successful in applying problem-solving skills when problems or conflicts arise Psychological Empowerment • Believing in one’s efficacy to perform enhancing accountability • Confidence with one’s knowledge to give valuable contributions in public I. Individual Level Manipulation using Newly Gained Position and Capacity • Local elites influencing job appointment and political decisions to benefit themselves or those who they are associated with through family or kinship Inequitable Representative Democracy  • Centralized election process accommodating members who live closer to the conservancy office and marginalizing those who live further away Voluntary CMC Membership  • Volunteer-based membership for excessively long time and lack of incentives causing underperformance and low participation of CMC members Communication Gap and Members’ Disinterest  • Scarcity of hard capacity creating communication gap with members • Lack of motivation and interest amongst members affecting their participation II. Conservancy Level Inequitable Distribution and Unsustainable Benefit Types • Household level benefits are not equitable because of lack of socio-economic information and the capacity to analyze conservancy-wide wildlife conflict data Political Empowerment  • Active members are empowered to voice their opinions and influence actions of the conservancy enhancing its accountability and transparency Change of Attitude Towards Wildlife • Members who have benefited have shown positive attitudes towards living with wildlife but this may  not be sustainable if the rate of wildlife conflict continues Strong Group Identity and Ownership of the Conservancy • Members’ strong group identity with the conservancy motivating them to fulfill their membership obligations which in turn supports the goals of the conservancy • Members’ collective ownership and pride towards the conservancy and its achievements enhancing their participation even without individual benefits Marginalization and Lack of Interest amongst Members • Communication gap, unfulfilled promises, inconsistency in benefit distributions and  high costs of living with wildlife causing dissatisfaction amongst members who live further away from the conservancy office impacting their participation level negatively III. Community Level Nepotism • Lack of strong civil society structure has opened the door for nepotism and patronage politics where conservancy members elect only those they know during elections creating  inequity in power distribution  130 5.5. Permanence of New Capacities: Applicability and Adaptability of Capacity Products in #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy  Sustainability of new capacities mean “how best the performance, relevance, and benefits” of the organization are continued when the capacity development intervention or “stimulant” is no longer there (Morgan 1997, p. vi), which in this case means once conservancies stop receiving funding and training assistance because they are considered as “capacitated”. Others argue that new capacities are sustainable when they are adaptable and flexible to become relevant to the changing needs and aspirations of the local people or when they can respond to changing circumstances (Hall 2006; Horton et. al. 2003; Lopez and Theisohn 2003). Considering the importance of permanence or sustainability of capacities, after evaluating the CD processes, the various CD tools, capacity products, and their performance at individual, conservancy and community levels, I had to inquire40 if these new capacities are sustainable in terms of their application and adaptability in ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy. When I looked at how the acquired skills and capacities are used in the conservancy, I began to see that various internal and external factors41 play significant role in determining their sustainability. I will attempt to illustrate five of these sustainability factors as uncovered from this particular case study below. 5.5.1. Conducive Internal Environment   When we look at the sustainability of individuals’ newly acquired capacity and knowledge, we see that it has to be met with the right climate and positive attitude to come to fruition (Horton et. al. 2003; Kirkpatrik 1994). As stated by Kirkpatrick,   It becomes obvious that there is little or no chance that training will transfer to job behavior if the  climate is preventing or discouraging (Kirkpatrik 1994, P.34).  When the new capacity is met with reluctance and opposing views, the newly attained skill or knowledge will be under-utilized.  Below is a specific example from a conservancy interviewee on this42.  40Question #1 on Appendix A stated as “How do you integrate theory and practice in your capacity development work? What type of examples do you give to participants to make the concept clear?” was used for this analysis. 41 Appendix V lists the various factors that can influence the applicability of new capacities in an organization and thus determine the performance of the organization. 42Question #18, Appendix A stated as “Have you customized and modified what you have learned after the training in order to make it more suitable to the needs of your conservancy work? How so? Please give me an example where you have modified what you have learned?” was used for the analysis above.   131  “I learned few months ago in Caprivi how to deal with human-elephant conflicts. They [CD service-providers] were talking about using the chili plants. You wet the elephant dung with chili and water and dry it in the sun and when the elephants come, you burn them [the dung] like candle/incense which makes the elephants cry and move away quickly. But when I tried to bring this idea to my conservancy to see if we can use it but people refused. They thought it would chase their elephants away and they need them in their areas which is surprising. So these kinds of training need modification to find out how they can be used in other areas” (Conservancy Interviewee #12).  Such challenges might arise from focusing on developing individual capacities without simultaneously developing the conservancy or community level capacities (Horton et. al. 2003). This also attests to the fact that CD service providers should have better understanding of the conservancy’s internal environment in order to enhance the applicability of the new capacity (Laird 2003).  5.5.2. Incentives   New skills and capacity at the individual level are effectively applied not only in conducive environments but also in an environment that rewards or motivates this new capacities (Lopez and Theisohn 2003; UNDP 2006). A UNDP report articulates this in the following manner  Capacity does not automatically translate into improved performance and better development results. Capacities may be in place, but appropriate incentives need to be present to put them in high gear and in motion toward the desired development destination (UNDP 2006, P. 5-6).   The lack of incentives has negative impacts on the conservancy staff performance and in sustaining the new capacity within the conservancy as shown with this case study.  “Now that the staff has the capacity, they want to resign and move onto bigger salaries and opportunities because they want a salary increase but the conservancy can not give them salary increase because of its limited income. I think they should stay because the conservancy will have a hard time of surviving if they leave” (Conservancy Interviewee #8).  “I know that I am the only one who is trained and know how to do a specific job but I am not motivated to do it especially if I have to spend overtime because I know that the finances of the conservancy are tight and that I am not going to be paid for working overtime….” (Conservancy Interviewee #12)   132 A mechanism for those who are trained to transfer their new knowledge and skills to others would prevent the gap that can be created if these individuals leave their jobs.  5.5.3. Capacity Application and Ecological and Financial Sustainability   When we look at how the new capacities are applied at the conservancy level, we can detect various sustainability issues of concern. For instance, the way the benefit sharing plan is implemented conflicts with the ecological and financial sustainability of the conservancy.  The large number of wildlife, which according to the conservancy manager amounts to around 180- 400 ungulates hunted to provide meat for the whole conservancy is contrary to the main objectives of sustainable resource use as such large scale hunting expeditions have the potential to reduce the resource base in a drastic manner. This is also presented as a concern by the focus group participants as shown below.   Regular hunting especially for community consumption is not ecologically sustainable because it  reduces the numbers of wildlife. The reduction of wildlife numbers does not only cause shortage  of meat to the community members, it can also hurt the lodge as tourists come to the area mostly  for sight seeing and taking pictures of wildlife. This will also hurt the finances of the conservancy  gradually. Drought might also cause massive wildlife migration or death threatening the natural  resource base that the conservancy and its members are depending on. There has not been any  drought since the conservancy has started so its impact on the conservancy is not something that  has been thought about well. However, participants have agreed that sustainable wildlife  harvesting can help reduce threats from drought” (Draft Focus Group Report, ps. 20-21).  Moreover, the large scale hunting doesn’t account for natural disasters such as drought or fire that might cause decimation or migration of wildlife to other areas which can negatively affect the tourism industry. In addition, the benefits at household level are much smaller and insignificant (5 Kgs of meat every two years) to fulfill people’s dietary needs or to diversify their livelihoods in a sustainable manner.   Furthermore, many of the community-level benefits such as soup kitchen for pensioners, subsidized diesel oil sale, and livestock vaccinations have all been difficult to sustain and are discontinued due to the limited financial capacity of the conservancy. Much of the financial challenges that the conservancy is facing in recent years originated from the temporary elephant trophy hunting ban imposed by the government since 2006 and the discontinuation of financial support from donors. This demonstrates that community level benefits have to be consistent  133 enough to bring about the desired long lasting effects. In the meantime, the promise of benefits can not be a replacement for costs that people incur from living with wildlife as shown in earlier sections. Such challenges can undermine the relevance of the conservancy to its constituents and the incentives for conserving natural resources when members could not tolerate to bear higher costs from wildlife damages without receiving significant benefits. The focus group participants discussed this issue in detail and came up with a recommendation that the conservancy should move away from excessively consuming its resource to produce individual benefits. They discussed the possibility of providing funding support to small scale business enterprises that can bring financially sustainable and environmentally sound benefits to the community members. Such community based enterprises are expected to reduce the amount of money the conservancy has to budget for individual benefits and can enhance community entrepreneurships.  5.5.4. The External Policy Environment   The Namibian communal conservancies have conditional access rights to the resources on their land which creates many uncertainties. The state still dictates the overall decision making, land use options, as well as the quota for how much wildlife resource conservancies can use. Hence, when the government makes changes of policies on issues such as how resources ought to be consumed by communal conservancies or when it revokes the resource use rights of conservancies for various reasons, it impacts sustainability of the conservancy and deters its ability to respond to the changes adequately. We can take a specific government policy that has impacted the conservancy’s finances to illustrate this point43.  Elephants are the most expensive animals for trophy hunting generating modest amount of income to the conservancy. However, recently MET has taken out elephants from the hunting quota because of most have not reached their hunt-able age. This decision is costing the conservancy financially and deterring it from providing benefits to its members consistently. Many of the benefits provided to members previously are also no longer available because of lack of finances (Focus Group Draft Report, P.19)   Such problems arising from the external policies affecting the conservancy’s perfomance might be too cumbersome to solve by few individuals from any single conservancy. So there is a need to develop capacities of conservancies to form strategic alliance and partnership with each other in order to build the necessary support for all pertinent policy advocacy work.  43 This is based on the focus group  discussions associated with Benefit Sharing as listed on Appendix B.  134 5.5.5. The Ideologies behind the CD Objectives   When CD is inspired and driven by western ideologies instead of by what the local people vision and aspire for themselves, it can create a challenge in enhancing endogenous capacity. Knowing how to write checks, make bank deposits, doing computer-based financial reports for the purpose of annual audits, or serving and entertaining tourists who come mostly from the west as discussed in detail in Chapter 4 are out of the ordinary and every day realities of rural people. They are impositions of urban-based and western-style bureaucracy that might not necessarily coincide with the interests and aspirations of rural people. This is also corroborated with the excerpt below highlighting the challenges faced with the community lodge operations.  “Much of the problem of the lodge didn’t come from people not understanding the benefit of the lodge to the community. It comes from people not understanding the nature of the lodge operation. It is very hard for rural people to understand that working at a lodge is not a 9-5 job but a 24 hour one. Service giving, especially for western clientele, is also a total new mind set for the people of this area. It is also a challenge to teach people to understand the urgency of a matter or to respond to the needs of the tourists. Communicating and having self confidence with guests is also a big challenge because of the language barriers and people are still insecure because of what happened in the past” (CD service provider #4).  Such phenomenon is in line with the reason why post-developmentalists such as Apffel- Marglin (1996) and Escobar (1997) question the concept of development in general as it is often associated with effects of Euro-centrism and cultural imperialism imposed on developing countries after colonialism (Baaz 2005). It is also why scholars such as (Escobar 1997) argue that development should be abandoned and marginalized people should depend on their own capacities, needs, and opportunities to construct their future based on their own political, social, and cultural perspectives and resources. This also illustrates that the fundamental goal of capacity development should not be about imposition of a foreign model but instead, it should be about identifying and developing a domestic model of development.  5.6. Summary of Findings on Capacity Products, Performance and Permanence in ≠Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy   In summary, this chapter gives provides the findings on the capacity development products, performance, and permanence at individual, organizational or conservancy, and community levels.   135 1. At the individual level, social and psychological empowerment are seen as some of the positive impacts of the capacity development efforts. Using the information and knowledge they have received, conservancy staff and CMC members were able to change their own life styles, secure more assets and capabilities, and expand their world views. They built their self-confidence and understood their sense of worth to make valuable contributions to their conservancy and society. However, this study has shown that individual empowerment can also be used to manipulate the masses in order to expand one’s personal agenda and wealth especially if there is an imbalance in knowledge and capacity.  2. At the conservancy level, the representative democracy culture of electing Conservancy Management Committee (CMC) members from one centralized location is considered to be free and fair by those who participated in it. But such an approach marginalized those conservancy members who don’t have the means to get to the area where elections are held. Voluntary participation of CMC members for excessively long time without proper compensation is undermining their desire to fulfill their responsibilities. There is also a communication gap between the registered members and the conservancy because of lack of hard capacities or resources. The conservancy has distributed individual and community level benefits to its members. However, many of the benefits have not been sustainable because they are excessively dependant on the natural resource base or need large amount of finances from the conservancy.  3. At the community level, members of the conservancy are politically empowered to elect their members, voice their opinions, or influence conservancy decisions which also enhance transparency and accountability. Those members who are closer to the conservancy office, have received tangible and consistent benefits, and are in close contact with the conservancy do recognize the values of wildlife and are proud of the conservancy’s achievements. However, those who live further out in the conservancy that don’t receive benefits consistently or can’t get in touch with the conservancy regularly experience marginalization, mistrust, and dissatisfaction. Lack of civil society structure has also opened up the door for nepotism and patronage politics so conservancy members  136 tend to favor their neighbors, family members, friends or ethnic affiliates when nominating or electing individuals for CMC positions.  4. The sustainability of capacity development efforts can be measured by how the  knowledge and new capacities are applied and adapted to the local conditions in order to  respond to dynamic situations. The case study demonstrates that the adaptability of the  new problem solving skills are determined by factors such as the conducive  internal environment, ecological and financial sustainability, the basis and ideologies  behind the CD objectives, the external policy environment, and the existing incentive and  reward systems.    137 6. LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF CAPACITY  DEVELOPMENT FOR LOCAL PARTICIPATION   This chapter has two sections. The first one addresses the key research question: What are the overall lessons learned from this particular case study about capacity development for local participation in community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) projects? It also discusses the general findings in support or counter to theories of CBNRM, capacity development, and local participation. The second section provides recommendations for how to improve the capacity development program and enhance the performance of the conservancy.  1. Local participation in natural resource management needs strong collaboration of formal and informal institutions such as government and its subsidiaries, traditional authorities, NGOs, private enterprises, and the resource users themselves. Each of these actors has varying level of stakes and play different roles in fulfilling the objectives of sustainable resource management as I have attempted to show in Chapter 2. Accordingly, those who have more stake and responsibility to the CBNRM objectives have to be given a priority for capacity development. I will try to illustrate this by showing how some of the actors are involved in the CD process respectively.  (a) Government: Many states in Africa have reduced size and expenditures mainly as a result of the preconditions of privatization and small government as set by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (Brown 1995; Cheru 2002; Fowler 2002; Parpart and Veltemeyer 2004; Mkandawire, 2002), and the Namibian government is no exception. The role of many Africa states is weakened down to mainly designing policies with limited resources to ensure that these policies are implemented effectively on the ground. Consequently, many government sectors have lost their financial and human resource abilities to effectively deliver goods and services such as health, natural resource management, wildlife conservation, and job creations to rural communities (Larson 2005; Neumann 2005). Similarly, as we can clearly see it in the CD stakeholders relationship assessment findings in Chapter 4, the Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) perceives its role as the policy designer, while it considers NGOs as facilitators of the direct support to the communities since they have more financial  138 and resource capacities (Jones 2001). The problem gets more complicated when government is reluctant to devolve enough power to its local administrative units such as regional councils or conservancies while their overlapping responsibilities and unclear mandates continue to reduce their impact and undermine their roles as seen in Chapter 2.  (b) Local Resource Users and Traditional Authorities:  The burden of managing and maintaining of natural resources has been transferred from the central state to local institutions such as conservancies and the resource users that do not often have the necessary financial, material, and human capacities to do the functions states used to perform. In addition, as we can see it clearly in Chapter 2, informal institutions such as the traditional authorities who are considered as custodians of the natural resources and are mandated by the state to designate land and resolve conflicts do not seem to have significant influence in the conservancy management and are not targeted for capacity development (Corbet and Jones 2000; Schiffer 2004; Skyer 2003). This is because at least in my case study area, the role of traditional authorities is reduced to the point that they are mostly serving as observers or advisors to the conservancy as a way of “avoiding conflict of interest”.  (c) Local NGOs:  NGOs within the NACSO umbrella seem to play more influential role than the state when it comes to capacity development and implementation of the CBNRM policy to practice. This is mainly because these NGOs particularly Namibian Nature Foundation (NNF), as indicated in Chapter 2, have been targeted by donors as viable and effective service providers, and as a result they possess stronger financial and human resource capacity than the state. Such rise of NGOs as clearly indicated by (Smillie 2003) and is corroborated in the findings in Chapter 4 has been instrumental in weakening government further as they also take away trained professionals with higher salaries and benefits from the government.  This approach of the state relying heavily on local NGOs for implementation of its policies and for CBNRM-related capacity development is not sustainable in the long run. This is because as we can clearly confirm from the findings in Chapter 4, NGOs have high tendency of diverting their resources and responsibilities to other priority areas when donor funding ends, thus abandoning the conservancies in the process. In addition, the donors’ focus in developing the capacities of conservancies in close collaboration with local NGOs has left out the capacity development of the state, its subsidiaries, and  traditional authorities who  139 have equal stake in the issue and whose structural reformation and democratization are equally important for successful natural resource management.  2. The results of the program framework analysis in Chapter 4 indicate that successful capacity development for CBNRM produces the necessary skills, knowledge development, and attitudinal changes when the initial interest comes from the capacity users. The suitability of the internal environment and the effects of endogenous vs. exogenous CD objectives on sustaining the new capacities as discussed in detail in Chapter 5 also show that the service providers should design the CD interventions based on local realities and aspirations of the capacity users.  The CD service providers should also understand the various internal and external factors that affect the performance of conservancies in order to make the new capacities relevant and applicable to the realities on the ground.  This means capacity developers should know what type of successes the users would like to achieve and what they mean by success. This proves that capacity users’ contribution is critical not only in the needs assessment, but also in the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the capacity development process to ensure greater ownership and sustainable endogenous capacity. Participatory, interactive, and practical tools using local languages, context-specific issues, and learning by doing are favorable to enhance local participation. Such user-focused tools are also instrumental to understand complex concepts easily by relating the issues to the users’ own experiences.  Service providers should also do preliminary research to find out who are the participants of the capacity development in order to devise ways to accommodate the users’ learning needs. For instance, setting up small group discussions in a non-threatening and warm environment is helpful for those who don’t have experience in public engagement, while assigning local-language interpreter and writer is essential to engage those who are illiterate. It is also important for capacity development service providers to regularly monitor and evaluate the capacity development process to ensure that the new capacities and skills are appropriately instituted in the users’ environment, be it organization or community. Monitoring and evaluation enhances the quality of the program and its relevance to the needs of the users. It also helps to assess the adaptability of new skills and capacities for their intended purposes and their applicability to changing conditions.   140 3. This study clearly reiterates that developing the capacity of individuals needs to be complemented with organizational and systemic (community, civil society and state) capacities to bring about sustainable results in devolution of natural resource management. When the focus is solely on developing individual expertise and local leadership, it can threaten the performance and productivity of the community based organization when those capacitated individuals abandon their positions and responsibilities for better opportunities creating an enormous gap in the organization’s performance and a brain drain in rural settings. When individuals benefit from capacity development, they can use their knowledge and expertise for two diverse purposes as shown in chapter 5 of this study:  (a) They will be interested to transfer their new knowledge and skills to their organization or community in order to create mutual capacity development. This comes from effective empowerment of the individual that enhances the desire to create strong consciousness and awareness at the community level leaving behind the narrow understanding of individual self-interest. The process of transferring one’s knowledge and skills to the larger community can also occur effectively if local organizations have set up policies and mechanisms that allow those who are trained to train their cohorts and other community members.  (b) In the absence of a mechanism to transfer their new knowledge, the users can also opt to use their new capacities or the influence and power that come with it to manipulate their constituents in order to gain inequitable personal benefits. Paulo Frieire puts this articulately in the following manner:  … the so called “Leadership training” that is carried out with few members of the community, as soon as the leaders finish their training, they will use their skills to control the submerged people of their society by domination or they become strangers in their own communities but in order for them not to lose their leadership position, they will continue to manipulate the community with an efficient manner (Frieire 2006, p.142).  Such types of manipulation can occur from the imbalance of capacities created in terms of knowledge and awareness levels between those who benefited from the capacity development as community representatives and the general public they represent. It can also emanate from wanting to control power and influence for one’s self-interest.  141  4. The capacity development theory attests that the production of knowledge and skills is a voluntary learning process that requires capacity users’ genuine commitment and interest to bring about the necessary changes (Lopez and Theisohn 2003; UNDP 2006). Accordingly, capacity development needs to move beyond predetermined project objectives, project funding cycles, and timelines as set by outside entities such as donors, state, and NGOs (Bessette and Vernooy 2005; Schacter 2000). Such formalities of project cycles are usually associated with the earlier models of developing hard capacities such as infrastructure development and equipment purchases that have specific cost and timeline details. As CD processes move to developing soft capacities such as human skills, knowledge, and attitudinal change through learning by doing approaches, it is important to understand that real success and tangible results are slow to come and often difficult to measure in rigid and inflexible frameworks of time and budget. Setting up a goal and aim “to be fully capacitated by certain number of years using this much dollars” so donor funding can be withdrawn completely once the budget runs out or those specific years are over is not feasible or sustainable. Such touch and go mechanisms with few intensive training workshops have to be gradually geared towards continual and longer term financial, technical, and resource support commitments with the appropriate adaptive management schemes throughout the process.  Measuring progress should also include educating donors to give the appropriate flexibility to emerging realities and avoid rigidities of fixed budget and time.  5. The concept of partnership between CD stakeholders is recommended as important component of sustainable CD (Fowler 2002; Fukuda-Parr 2002; Smillie 2003). One of the best models for such partnership as shown in Chapter 2 of this case study is the FIRM (Forum for Integrated Resource Management) platform. Such platform brings all of the CD stakeholders (service provider NGOs, CBOs including the conservancy, traditional authority, and the Grootberg Farmers Association) together so various activities can be integrated on a common annual work plan. Such a process of planning, designing, and monitoring the CD activities promotes effective utilization of resources, enhances accountability of stakeholders, and legitimizes partnership between stakeholders at a formal setting. NACSO (Namibian Association of CBNRM Support Organizations) is another exemplary model of NGO partnerships that has been instrumental in delivering effective and efficient capacity development to the large number of conservancies of Namibia. Nevertheless, although  142 partnership is essential in theory, the concept is over simplified and can run into challenges during CD implementation especially in the face of clear power differences. This study shows that power differences are revealed not only by how each of the stakeholders defines their role in the process, but also by how they are influenced and coerced by those who are more powerful because they possess strong material and financial resources.  6. This study indicates that developing individual or organizational capacities doesn’t guarantee the permanence or sustainability of the new capacities in the users’ environment. This is because sustainability of the new capacities is possible when  (a) the internal and external political, cultural, social, policy, and organizational environment where the trained individual or the capacitated organization operates in are able to give the appropriate importance and value to the application of the new capacities;  (b) the basic premise of why the capacity is developed such as natural resource management, lodge operation, or conservancy office operation is based on the realities and aspirations of the beneficiaries to produce locally-induced solutions to their livelihood challenges instead of externally-imposed modernization;  (c) there are appropriate incentive structures that can enhance the motivation of the capacity users to apply their new skills and knowledge efficiently and effectively.  7. Soft and hard capacities should be developed integrally to enhance local participation in natural resource management. As shown on Chapter 5, the conservancy has limited hard (financial and equipment) capacities compared to soft capacities (skills and knowledge) to fulfill its objectives. Although, the conservancy staff possess strong soft capacities and are well trained, have strategic leadership qualities, and are good facilitators and problem- solvers, the lack of financial and material resources threatens their potential to give accountable and professional services to their members. For instance, the conservancy has only one vehicle that breaks down often which is preventing the staff from carrying out its community wide consultations and area meetings regularly. Thus lack of hard capacities has created a communication gap between the conservancy and its members and deterred the  143 conservancy from fulfilling its promises resulting to members’ lack of interest and dissatisfaction.  8. The implementation of local participation through representative democracy is significant but it doesn’t deliver meaningful participation on its own. The centralized electoral system gives unfair advantage to the elite or wealthy that can exert disproportionate influence in the political process. Such problem of inequity and marginalization is further exasperated within a weak civil society. People can develop their capacities for genuine local participation in the political and social space that a civil society provides (Castells 1983). In the absence of strong civil society, the constituents remain unorganized united only through geographical boundaries or racial and ethnic identities. Hence, people tend to favor their micro-communities of friends, family members, neighbors, or ethnic or racial affiliates when they get the opportunity to make political choices which causes unequal power distribution and marginalization.  In addition, as (Chickering 2005) points it out, when elections are carried out from one specific location, smaller proportion of the total population who have access to get to the meeting place end up participating, while those who are hindered through social, physical, and financial resource limitations would be marginalized. For instance, in this study, those who have access to transportation or are at close proximity to where meetings are held received higher benefits to motivate them to participate. Those who lived further away are discouraged to participate because of the higher costs of time and financial expenses they incur to get to the meeting place. Thus it is important that representative democracy should be complemented with participatory democracy in order to lessen the costs of participation and motivate people to get engaged. Participatory democracy opens up various opportunities to accommodate those who are marginalized because of lack of access and capabilities. Through participatory democracy, the civil society and community cohesion gets strengthened so people can make choices based on their collective interests for the sake of their social goods. However, as Nylen (2003) puts it articulately, it is important to realize that participatory democracy is not the alternative to representative democracy but is complementary to enhance inclusivity of the otherwise disadvantaged groups in the political process.   144 Participatory democracy should be seen not so much as an alternative to representative democracy than as a complementary set of inclusionary institutional reforms that could help to harness the social capital inherent in citizen politics everywhere, and thereby, revive some of contemporary democracy’s lost luster (Nylen 2003, 17).  9. CBNRM has many principles on how to organize resource groups to make sustainable resource use a reality. Accordingly, smaller group size of resource users are prescribed as important principles in designing effective CBNRM models (Agrawal 2003; Murphere 1997; Ostrom 1990).  In addition, this particular study indicates that smaller geographical area is also mandatory especially in areas where the human settlement pattern is widely dispersed. The bigger the area and the size of the group, the lesser opportunity there is to meaningfully participate and gain equitable benefits (Chickering 2005), thus it is important to reduce the group size and area coverage for effective results. However, caution should also be taken so the smaller group concentrated in a small area is not isolated from the bigger system. Hence, it is important to establish a mechanism to create the necessary linkages with other similar conservancies in order to make influential contributions and impacts at the systemic level. This is especially important in natural resource management for two reasons:  (a) Wildlife and vegetations are naturally distributed over a wide range of area beyond defined sizes and boundaries. Thus, the linkages between conservancies will provide the connectivity of protected areas promoting sustainable resource management.  (b)  Strategic alliance of conservancies would give them the necessary power to   negotiate and influence policy decisions and hold the state, traditional authorities, or service providing NGOs accountable.  In general, the theory and principles of CBNRM are oversimplified as they don’t provide adequate guidance or strategies for how resource users should cope with high costs of living with wildlife especially when such conflicts are threatening the livelihood strategy that most rural people have depended on through generations.  10. Theoreticians such as Benello (2005); Harrison (2002); Midgley (1986); Neumann (2005); and Pimbert and Pretty (1997) recommend voluntary and self-mobilized participation for sustainable community based development. Harrison (2002) particularly  145 indicated how incentive-driven participation is a form of coercion that can undermine the legitimacy of true participatory development. Contrary to these theories, this study illustrated that incentive-driven motivation may be the only viable option especially in rural settings to enhance people’s participation in CBNRM. Similar to Olson’s (1973) argument, in rural areas where employment opportunities are limited and there is a dire need for cash, one’s rational self-interest to complement income overcomes the desire to engage in collective action for social goods. Thus cash or material incentives can help enhance the self motivation for collective actions. Even those individuals who do have regular employment and sustainable cash income that allows them to secure individual benefits can easily experience fatigue of voluntary participation when it is prolonged by many years. This is especially challenging when volunteerism and free service is an exogenous ideology outside the norm of many African societies who usually rely on mutual aid of reciprocity and kinship.  11. One of the objectives of devolution of natural resources from central government to local communities is to foster strong ownership of decisions including on the rules of resource use (Larson et. al. 2005; Neumann 2005). The feeling of ownership in turn is assumed to motivate community members to be actively engaged in planning, implementing, and monitoring of their own organization’s activities and fulfill their responsibilities as members. In addition, CBNRM becomes successful on the premise that when the benefits from sustain ably using the resource exceeds the costs of not using it, resulting to a positive attitude towards conserving the resource (Murphree 1993 and 1997; Olson 1990). In this study, we have seen that when participants receive adequate and consistent resource related and other social benefits from the conservancy and have access to meaningfully participate in the organization, their trust, confidence, and ownership is enhanced and their attitude towards living with wildlife is also positive in spite of the manageable costs they have incurred. They are actively engaged in meetings, have strong ownership and entitlement towards the conservancy and its objectives, are willing to fulfill their membership duties, and are even willing to forego their individual benefits to those who are less fortunate than they. In the contrary, members’ feelings of ownership, trust, and confidence is replaced with dissatisfaction, frustration, and lack of interest when one moves away from the conservancy office or the power center. This is because those members who live further out do not have reliable access to the conservancy, don’t receive benefits consistently, and have incurred heavier costs from conflict with wildlife.  146  12. #Khoadi Hôas Conservancy staff members consult with the local community members regularly in most conservancy related issues. However, involving the locals without informing them about the various options, impacts, and outcomes of their actions so they can make informed decisions and choices might bring unsustainable results. For instance, the benefit sharing plan of the conservancy is created in consultation with the community members through various iterations of surveys and workshops. However, once the community benefits and their priorities were identified and the implementation of the plan was well underway, it was realized that many of the benefits identified such as the household level wildlife meat distribution are either harmful to the natural resource base or financially unsustainable as in the case of the subsidized diesel oil sale. This indicates that the capacity of local experts or conservancy staff has to go beyond  “…leadership, facilitation and negotiation skills necessary to capture local knowledge and understanding, hopes and aspirations, constraints in ways that drive the work of the conservancy, not just inform someone else’s plan for its conservation work” (CD Service Provider #5).  Their role should also include educating and raising the consciousness level of the community so members can understand the consequences of their actions and decisions.    I believe that the above 12 lessons are useful when developing capacity development programs and in choosing the best CD tools for CBNRM programs. The lessons on the capacity products, performance and permanence indicate that setting up organizational, governance, institutional structures, and an operating office with hard capacities are just the beginning stages of the capacity development process. The most important thing is to understand how these institutions and resources can be used effectively and efficiently to meet the demands of the stakeholders and stay relevant with changing times, priorities, and desires.   147 6.1. Where Do We Go From Here: Recommendations for Improvement   The recommendations that came out of the self-assessment exercise are converted into action plans as can be seen on Appendix E. The following nine recommendations can be used to complement or improve the already existing actions plans.  1. The Namibian Association of Community Based Natural Resource Management Support Organizations (NACSO) working groups should collaborate with conservancy representatives when designing, implementing, and evaluating the CD program and training materials. This in turn would ensure the inclusion of local knowledge, realities, and expectations of the capacity users in the capacity development programs. Training related evaluations shouldn’t just be for formalities. The results need to be incorporated into the training materials to improve the contents and fit them to the users’ needs.  2. The sustainability of capacity development has to be holistic involving all those who have stake such as CMC members, conservancy staff members, conservancy-wide registered members or resource users, as well as the state, and traditional authorities. The Namibian state as a formal institution should have the necessary capacity not only to design policies, but also to oversee their implementation. As custodians of the land, traditional authorities should also have a bigger role in the conservancy in order to strengthen the partnership between the conservancy and its members. Hence, holistic measures in capacity development should be taken in the following manner:  • Without undermining the significant role that NGOs are currently playing, certain portion of donor funding should be redirected to MET in order to boost the financial capacity of the state in giving quality and sustainable support to conservancies. Finances can be allocated so the state can provide support in the forms of small grants or loans to be used as emergency funds for those mature conservancies who face unexpected budget shortfalls. Certain budget should also be set aside so the ministry can evaluate its own policies regularly and find out their shortcomings on the ground so the necessary amendments and addendums can be set forth accordingly. The ministry and NGOs should collaboratively find strategies to reduce the human-wildlife conflicts that are affecting rural communities at an alarming rate at the current time.  148  • Technical training should be designed to develop the capacity of MET wardens and  traditional authorities in diverse skills such as community development, organizational  development, and financial management  so they can  provide the necessary support to  emerging conservancies;  • Institutional framework and new partnership should be developed so traditional  authorities can work side by side with MET in various conservancy capacity  development efforts. This includes the ministry to make the necessary amendments to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the formal and informal institutions working on natural resource management including local and regional government councils, conservancies, and traditional authorities;  • The number of wardens working for the ministry should be increased so the ratio  between MET staff and the number of conservancies that he/she are responsible for  is manageable.  3. Capacity development should expand from developing individual experts to creating community-wide competency to bring about sustainable results.  Active conservancy members should be selected from each of the eight farmers associations so they can be trained in diverse issues of organizational management, financial administration, natural resource monitoring, marketing, tour guiding, and ecotourism. These adequately trained community leaders with diverse skills can serve as support, substitute, or permanent staff in case the staff members of the conservancy decide to leave their positions. Their presence would alleviate the overburden of conservancy responsibilities from few individuals to wider group of people. The community leaders should be trained as trainers of trainees so they can share their information and skills with their respective constituents to help increase the knowledge and awareness of the community. There should be mandates on the conservancy constitution so outgoing Conservancy Management Committee (CMC) members can train the upcoming ones before they relinquish their positions once their term is over. When individual experts who benefited from the CD efforts want to launch their career in other areas outside the conservancy, there should be a mechanism to retain them within the larger natural resource management system. Government and its subsidiaries, NGOs under the  149 NACSO umbrella, or associated private enterprises should give job priorities to these individuals in order to protect the knowledge and expertise from leaving the system.   4. #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy should establish strategic relationships with private enterprises and relevant academic institutions to fill in its capacity gaps. For instance, the joint venture agreement with the trophy hunter operating in the conservancy can expand to collaboratively develop a conservancy business plan and marketing strategies since NGOs and government do not have the capacity to provide such assistance. This is especially important since the conservancy owns the lodge and campsite and need to market them both well to gain adequate financial benefits. Another area of collaboration can be fostered with academic institutions in order to close research capacity gap within conservancies. For instance, #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy does not have the necessary skills to collect and analyze data to determine the total number of households in its vicinity, or the socio- economic status of its members in order to provide equitable benefits. It also lacks the resources and knowledge base to do survey related quantitative researches in order to evaluate how its various benefits have impacted conservancy members. In the meantime, the current role of the CBNRM unit at the University of Namibia/Multi-disciplinary Research Center (UNAM/MRC) is mostly focused on providing CBNRM and conservancy related research support to NACSO and donor communities. Hence, a new form of relationship and collaboration can be fostered between the CBNRM Unit of UNAM/MRC and communal conservancies where the university can target issues that are relevant to the conservancies.  5. Communal Conservancy Associations as previously recommended by Jones (2002) need to be established right away so conservancies can learn from each other’s experiences and build the necessary leverage and collaboration to lobby the state for any relevant policy recommendations. For instance, the association can lobby so the ministry can do the necessary discussions and negotiations with conservancy association representatives before it adopts any natural resource related policies and legislations in order to understand the impacts of these policies on the performance of the conservancies. In addition, the communal conservancy association helps to create yet another layer of governance to enhance the transparency and accountability of the state and service providing NGOs.   150 6. Equity and empowerment are enhanced when society is organized and power is mobilized in smaller units so that individuals feel that it is worthwhile to participate and enjoy the fruits of their engagement (Pennock 1979). Accordingly, #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy needs to strengthen its cooperation with the eight farmers associations within it in order to facilitate effective governance, service delivery, benefit sharing, and communication. Having representatives from each of the farmers’ associations in the CMC as recommended by the focus group participants fosters proportional representation in smaller units. In addition, I recommend for the creation of one more layer of subsidiary groups representing the various social groups such as women, youth, and elders within each of the farmers’ associations as shown on Figure 6.1 below to strengthen civil society.        Figure 6.1 Groups within Farmers’ Associations of #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy   Each of the farmers’ associations and their respective subgroups should have the capacity to foster their own internal democracy in order for the system to be functional. When elections are carried out for CMC membership at the farmers’ associations level as recommended by the focus group participants, each of the subgroups should present a representative to run as a Erwee Farmers’ Association Women’s GroupYouth Group Elders Group Anker Farmers’ Association #Khaodi Hôas Conservancy Youth Group Women’s Group Elders Group Erwee Farmers’ Association  151 candidate. Such active involvement of the various social groups within each association mobilizes those who normally have a high probability for marginalization. This in turn reduces or prevents the probability for the elite and more powerful members of the community to predominantly take over the CMC positions. It also helps capture the totality of local interest in order to maximize the process of thinking in terms of public interest. Moreover, it increases the efficiency and effectiveness of communication with conservancy members.   7. The focus group discussion created an action plan to include a communicator’s role to the duties of future CMC members. Accordingly, all CMC representatives are supposed to give regular updates to their constituents in each of their respective associations’ right after CMC meetings are held. But empowerment is further sustained when local people are considered as  ‘co-producers with authority and control over decisions and resources—particularly financial resources (Narayana 2002, P.6 ).  Hence, a two way communication and decision making mechanism should be created for effective participation. This means, aside from information dissemination, the regular association-based meetings should be where community interests are explored, and decisions are made on issues such as activities for the conservancy annual work plan and yearly budget that affect majority of conservancy members. This helps CMC representatives to know the interests and aspirations of their constituents so they can take a firm stand to protect those interests on meetings. It also increases accountability of the conservancy as CMC representatives make decisions based on the interest of their constituents and not of their individual self-interest. The current practice of the conservancy is to make most of its major decisions especially on budget items at the AGM. However, I recommend that once constituent-approved ideas are explored and discussed at association-based meetings, final decision making should be the responsibility of CMC members and not of the general assembly or AGM. This hierarchy ensures that decisions are made by the body that represents the diversity of the conservancy successfully. The CMC members should be in a position to make final decisions on behalf of active members who are able to participate in the conservancy AGM as well as individuals who might not have the means to participate but are affected by conservancy made decisions. This leads to effective decisions made after all  152 relevant considerations are explored. The general assembly or AGM should be where public announcements of final decisions are communicated back to the larger membership.  8. The focus group discussion indicates that cash and meat remittances are going to be used to motivate and increase the productivity and participation of CMC members in the future. These incentives are used in exchange to the large amount of free labor that CMC members contribute to the conservancy. In addition, they are used to increase the feelings of responsibility and accountability amongst CMC members so they can take their positions and duties seriously. Motivating the CMC members through incentives is limited in responding to the problems of participation. Caution should be taken so the creation of incentives is not going to discourage community-wide volunteerism in the conservancy. Contributions of the larger community members are important in order to foster meaningful participation in community based initiatives. When members contribute to the conservancy through task sharing and social functions, the process instills the feelings of entitlement, satisfaction, and control strengthening interpersonal ties, psychological empowerment, and well being. It sustains and increases members’ commitment and dedication as they gain first hand knowledge of how the conservancy operates. As the members learn about the strengths and challenges of the conservancy through their own involvement, it helps the conservancy in number of ways. The members themselves get engaged in problem solving strategies of the conservancy. Their involvement enhances transparency and accountability of the conservancy as the staff and CMC members increasingly collaborate with the members. The members understand the realities and limitations of the conservancy if they are involved intimately that reduces any unnecessary high expectations they have about the conservancy. When members are engaged with the conservancy, they gain useful knowledge about the state of the various natural resources in their area which in turn develops their sense of appreciation and interest to protect them. Recognizing the above benefits of volunteering in the conservancy, there should be mechanisms so members contribute as groups or individuals in their nearest farmers’ associations or their sub social groups. For instance, members can take turns in supporting various activities and initiatives of the conservancy as the following: • supporting environmental shepherds in monitoring the livestock, vegetation, and  wildlife of the area or in their awareness raising efforts; • volunteering with the conservancy office one day a month through greeting guests,  answering phone calls, maintaining the office, and its surroundings;  153  • volunteering in organizing conservancy events such as the annual general  meeting,  community consultations, or the area-wide meetings; or  • serving in the monthly CMC meetings as observers and advisors.  These types of contributions should not be limited to conservancy-related initiatives, instead they should expand into areas that benefit the community as a whole. Activities such as maintaining the two area elementary schools, the traditional authority office, building water holes for livestock or elephants, road building, or veld-fire protection are some group activities that can support the community while increasing the sense of collaboration and mutual aid to strengthen the sense of community and ownership.  9. Awareness raising and access to information are important instruments to enhance community participation. However, as indicated in the focus group discussions and by farmer interviewees, there is lack of interest in participating in conservancy-led area meetings and general assemblies at the current time because these communication modes have been overused. Hence, without undermining the current communication strategies in place, it is important to diversify them with other cost effective tools to enhance community interest and participation. The conservancy office in partnership with the various civil society groups in each of the associations can add poetry, story telling, street theaters, musical shows, debates, and small task forces to change the monotonous formats of meetings, and add essence, entertainment, and the opportunity for interaction to enhance members’ interest. With the support of NGOs and donors, the sub-information centers throughout the conservancy, the area schools, the two clinics, the agricultural extension center, and local churches should be equipped to disseminate public information to the community. Communication outlets such as televisions, radios, computers, books, and conservancy-related pamphlets should be placed in the above areas where community members get access to information about various community development and natural resource management issues, and where they get updates about activities of the conservancy at a regular basis. The above communication tools should be designed using culturally appropriate and diverse local languages targeting diverse audiences of age, gender, and education levels including those who are illiterate.   154  I believe the above lessons and recommendations for moving forward can be integrated to strengthen the capacity development program as well as the performance of the conservancy. The next section has the concluding remarks and directions for future research.  155 7. CONCLUSION   The post-independence government of Namibia that took power in 1990 has inherited inequitable and unjust discriminatory system from the colonial era that has benefited few of its citizens at the expense of the majority of the population. One of these challenges deals with the vast amount of land owned amongst few commercial white farmers who were given full rights to benefit from consuming wildlife and other natural resources on their land, while majority of the black population who live communally on state land didn’t have the same rights. Hence, the government initiated new policies and legislation with objectives of rectifying problems of inequity and injustice of the colonial era, alleviating rural poverty, and sustainable use of natural resources. Following the ideology of participatory development, various modern bureaucracies such as conservancies and regional government councils were established to involve the locals in decision making in various aspects of governance in general, and in communal land natural resource management in particular.  The government formed these new formal institutions while attempting to revive the role of traditional kings and chiefs who once governed resource use through customary laws for many generations before colonialism. However, this thesis indicates that the incorporation of multi-layered formal and informal bureaucracies for managing resources without clear mandates created ambiguity of roles and overlapping of responsibilities resulting to conflicts and inconsistencies of policy implementation. In addition, pressure and influence from donor communities through reduction of government size, strengthening of NGOs, and the introduction of market based economy involving tourism are found to provide band-aid solutions to rural poverty alleviation. As explored in the study, NGOs tend to be seen as reliable development partners while donor funding lasts, while tourism can only be viable as long as the global economy or the host country’s political and socio-economic conditions are stable.   Self-mobilized local participation is the center piece of the Namibian communal conservancies. However, my study argues that local participation can be self-mobilized and meaningful to bring the desired outcomes particularly empowerment and equity when it is integrated with appropriate capacity development interventions. Capacity development in this context is expected to enhance the ability of communities in terms of their skills, knowledge, and attitudinal changes allowing them to mobilize their resources, establish their own organizations and institutions, and gain consistent and equitable resource-related benefits in order to promote  156 sustainable resource management. The success and sustainability of capacity development in turn is dependent upon the planning processes and tools, the capacity products, as well as their performance, and permanence. Nevertheless, this study also reveals that local autonomy and self- mobilization for meaningful participation are possible not only from developing locals’ capacity to establish their own organizations and institutions that can respond to their needs and aspirations, but also when such capacities are complemented by strong support from transparent government policies, quality-driven NGO support, and genuine and long term donor commitments.   Moreover, this research confirms that ownership of the capacity development process by the capacity users is essential to create the appropriate sustainable endogenous capacities. Ownership-based capacity is achieved when the capacity development process is based on tapping local knowledge and aspirations instead of promoting externally-imposed foreign models of modernization. Such ownership necessitates the involvement of the capacity users in the CD process and is further enhanced when it is holistic enough to address individual, organizational, and systemic level capacity needs. Systemic level capacity development is especially important for sustainability and can be achieved when there are mechanisms and incentives for individuals to transfer their new capacities and knowledge to the bigger system. If the capacity users are involved in the capacity needs assessment, CD tools development, and CD monitoring and evaluation, the process can achieve dual objectives of creating user-focused capacities and the ability to transfer knowledge to the wider segment of society. This means that there is a need for new ways of inquiries  to not only understand capacity users’ goals and aspirations but also what type of successes they would like to achieve, and what they also mean by success.   Additionally, ownership of the capacity development process is further strengthened when non-hierarchical, complimentary, and genuine partnership exists between CD stakeholders. However, as evidenced in this research, such theories of partnership are hard to translate into realities in the face of clear power differences. The relationship between the service providers and capacity users in this case study is characterized with cooperation and contention where the service providers regarded themselves as supporters of capacity users, while capacity users considered themselves either as partners or subordinates of service providers. This is in addition to the capacity users who deemed NGOs and donors as more powerful than government since they possess stronger material and financial assets. When the CD relationship is based on such  157 power hierarchies, it will have two disadvantages: it first limits the capacity users from making valuable contributions to the process and coerces them to rely heavily on the service providers which in turn threaten the capacity users’ autonomy and sustainability. Furthermore, such process defies the top-down concept of local participation and devolution as the capacity users tend to report upwards to those they consider as more resourceful and powerful, leaving behind their own constituents, while NGOs  and government focus more on aligning themselves to donor needs and interests instead of serving the needs of their own societies. The power imbalance is further exacerbated when the capacity development process is based on service providers’ pre-determined objectives or specific donor timeframe and budget. Such oversimplified process tends to conform capacity products and their outcomes particularly those related to human knowledge, skills, and behaviors into quantifiable measurements of time and money without adequate consideration of how such capacities assimilate within the livelihoods and socio-economic complexities of rural societies.  Hence, to replace the traditional values of “capacity building” into equitable “capacity development”, and to make genuine top-down local participation a reality, new ways of power sharing arrangements and interactive and democratic deliberation and dialogues need to be incorporated into the process.    Capacity development, as clearly shown in this case study, is a means of gaining knowledge and information at individual and collective levels in order to achieve self-reliance, better standard of living, and independence as end products. Social and psychological empowerment helped individuals to secure material assets and new capabilities of positive well- being in the forms of self-confidence and sense of worth. On the other hand, when such individual empowerment is not complemented with checks and balance mechanisms set by conscious and aware community members, it can be diverted to manipulation, corruption, and patronage politics. Moreover, focusing capacity development on producing few local experts especially in rural settings where there are severe shortages of skilled man power or financial resources is disadvantageous and unsustainable because of two reasons. The first reason has to do with the community organization itself that is highly dependent on these few individuals overburdened with many responsibilities without proper compensations or incentives which can reduce their motivation and productivity. The second reason has to do with professional labor mobility. Those few well-trained individuals will end up having highly marketable skills that they can “sell” in the professional labor market outside their immediate surroundings. Hence  158 they will leave their homes and migrate to cities to find more lucrative opportunities causing further brain drain in rural settings.   When new capacities are translated into organizational performance, this study shows that it is important to understand if and how such capacities were able to meet the objectives of the organization in an efficient and effective manner, and respond to the needs and aspirations of its constituents.  For instance, when organizational capacity is translated into setting up democratic elections or benefit sharing plans, we can see that it induces political empowerment, trust, confidence, strong social capital, as well as positive attitude towards wildlife. However, if such positive outcomes are only experienced by those who have gained higher benefits while participating at lower costs, and if those who had to bear higher costs for participating are marginalized from receiving benefits, the results will change to dissatisfaction, disinterest, and frustration. This means that the new capacities were not able to produce sustainable results. Hence, capacity development should move away from teaching technicalities and focus on enabling capacity users to create innovative, adaptable, and applicable strategies that can bring sustainable outcomes.  7.1. Future Research Topics   With its fledgling democracy and a relatively-recent independent bureaucracy, Namibia is grappling with complex political, social and economic problems through its long history of pre and post colonial legacies. Although, it has achieved its independence, it is still influenced by various global powers and ideologies while struggling to find its own national identity in an increasingly globalized world.  The anecdote that a colleague used to describe Namibia clearly indicates these challenges:  “Namibia got its independence 16 years ago, so it acts like a 16 year old teenager who is just starting to learn about life through so many of his own trials and errors while trying to find his directions.” (Colleague from UNAM/MRC)   Given the exogenous and endogenous factors and actors that influence the country’s efforts to achieve rural development and sustainable resource management in an integrated manner, one interesting query can look at the appropriateness of devolution of power in the Namibian context. Since the Namibian government bureaucracy is relatively new, and the growth of civil society is  159 taking a slow pace, it is important to question if it is even feasible to devolve power to local administrative units without undermining the relevance of the newly set up national state structure altogether. Another interesting research could delve into the role of informal institutions in CBNRM related capacity development since they are legitimized by both government and their local constituents as custodians of natural resource management. Questions that might arise are: how does the capacity development process in Namibia get informed and shaped by the country’s traditional institutions and culture? Or what kinds of capacity development modifications have taken place to accommodate such informal institutions and their needs? To what extent will they effectively help to elaborate the role of capacity development efforts in informal institutions and vice versa?  The third possible inquiry can look at the unique governance system that Namibia has set up by bringing together both formal and informal institutions. This line of inquiry can address questions such as how modern bureaucracies of the state, regional councils, conservancies, or NGOs that are mandated through formal constitutions, policies, and legislations amalgamate their governance with traditional institutions that are based on customary laws that are orally passed down to different generations will offer relevant insight to the opportunities and challenges associated with devolution based governance.    160 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abers, Rebecca, ed. 2000. Inventing local democracy: Grassroots politics in Brazil. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers Inc. Abugre, Charles. 1999. Partners, collaborators or patron-clients: Defining relationships in the aid industry: A survey of the issues. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian Partnership Branch of Canadian International Development Agency. Adam, Martin E., and Paul Devitt. 1990. Grappling with land reform in pastoral Namibia. Pastoral Development Network No. 32. Agarawal, Arun and Clark Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and Disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27: 629-50. Agrawal, Arun and Krishna Gupta. 2005. Decentralization and participation: The governance of common pool resources in Nepal’s Terai. World Development 33: 1101-14. Agarawal, Bina. 2001. Participatory exclusions, community forestry and gender: An analysis for Southeast Asia and a conceptual framework. World Development 29: 10. Agrawal, Arun. 2003. Sustainable governance of common-pool resources: Contexts, methods and politics. Annual Review Anthropology 32: 243-62. Alcorn, Janice. 2005. Dances around the fire: Conservation organizations and community-based natural resource management. In Communities and conservation: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management. eds. Peter Brosius J., Anna Tsing L. and Charles Zerner, 37-68. Walnut Oak, California: Alta Mira Press. 2006. Namibia News: Tourism for economic growth. Amartya, Sen K., ed. 1999. Development as freedom. New York, New York: Knopf Press. ———. 1985a. Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam, Holland: Elsevier. Angeles, Leonora and Penny Gurstein. 2000. Planning for participatory capacity development: The challenges of participation and north-south partnership in capacity building projects. Canadian Journal of Development Studies 21: 31-62. Apffel-Marglin, Frédérique. 1996. Introduction: Rationality and the world. In Decolonizing knowledge: From development to dialogue. eds. Frédérique Apffel-Marglin, Stephen A. Marglin, 1-41. Oxford, UK: Claredon Press.  161 Ashley, Caroline. 2002. Tourism, communities, and national policy: Namibia’s experience. Development Policy Review 16: 323-52. ———. 1998. Intangibles matter: Non-financial dividends of community based natural resource management in Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: World Wildlife Fund (US) LIFE Program. Aubel, Judy. 1999. Participatory program evaluation manual – involving program stakeholders in the evaluation process. Calverton, Maryland: Catholic Relief Services, child survival and technical support project. Baaz, Maria, ed. 2005. The paternalism of partnership: A postcolonial reading of identity in development Aid. London, UK: Zedbooks. Bachrach, Peter and Aryeh Botwinick, eds. 1992. Power and empowerment: A radical theory of participatory democracy. Philadelphia, USA: Temple University Press. Bandyopadhyay, Sushenjit, Michael Humavindu N., Priya Shyamsundar, and Limin Wang. 2004. Do households gain from community-based natural resource management? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper (3337). Barnard, Phoebe, Christopher Brown J., Alice Jarvis M., and Antony Robertson. 1998. Extending the Namibian protected area network to safeguard hotspots of endemism and diversity. Biodiversity and Conservation 7: 531-47. Bar-on, Arnon. 2006. On elephants, giraffes, and social development. Community Development Journal 41: 367-80. Batliwala, Srliatha. 1993. Empowerment of women in south Asia: Concepts and practices. New Delhi, India: FAO, FFHC/AD. Bause, Tanja. 2005. Grootberg Lodge breaks new ground. The Namibian, May 16th, 2005. Benello, C. George. 2005. Group organization and socio-political structure In Participatory democracy: prospects for democratizing democracy, eds. Dimitrios Roussopoulos and C. George Benello, 34-49. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Bernard, Penny and Kumalo Sibongiseni. 2004. Community-based natural resource management, traditional governance and spiritual ecology in southern Africa: The case of chiefs, diviners and spirit mediums. In Rights, resources and rural development: Community-based natural resource management in southern Africa, eds. Christo Fabricius, Eddie Koch, Hector Magome and Stephen Turner, 115-127. Sterling, VA: Earthscan.  162 Bessette, Guy and Roonie Vernooy. 2005. Strengthening individual and organizational capacities for CBNRM: Towards CBNRM centers of excellence. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC. Blaikie, Piers. 2005. Is small really beautiful? Community based natural resource management in Malawi and Botswana. World Development 34: 1942-57. Blaikie, Piers and Sally Jeanrenaud. 1996. Biodiversity and human welfare. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Blaikie, Rob. 2000. Government policies on sustainable development in Namibia. In Population- development-environment in Namibia background readings, eds. Ben Fuller, Isolde Prommer, 135-150. Luxenburg: International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Blair, Harry. 2000. Participation and accountability at the periphery: Democratic local governance in six countries. World Development 28, (1). Boggs, Lesley P. 2004. Community-based natural resource management in the Okavango Delta. In Rights, resources and rural development: Community-based natural resource management in southern Africa, eds. Christo Fabricius, Eddie Koch, Hector Magome and Stephen Turner, 147-160. Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Bookbinder, Marnie, P., Eric Dinerstein, Arun Rijal, Hank Cauley, and Arun Rajouria. 1998. Ecotourism's support of biodiversity conservation. Conservation Biology 12: 1399-1404. Borón, Atilio. 1999. State decay and democratic decadence in Latin America. Socialist Register: Vol. 35, 210-226. Borrini-Feyerabend, Grazia and Christopher B. Tarnowski. 2005. Participatory democracy in natural resource management: A “Columbus’s egg”? In Communities and conservation: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management, eds. Peter Brosius J., Anna L. Tsing and Charles Zerner, 69-91. California: Alta Mira Press. Bower, C. A. 2005. Afterword. In Rethinking Freire: Globalization and the environmental crisis, eds. C. A. Bower, Frederique Apffel-Marglin, 151-191. Mahwah and London: Routledge. Brown, Deryck, R. 1998. Evaluating institutional sustainability in development programmes: Beyond dollars and cents. Journal of International Development 10, (1). Brown, Michael B., ed. 1995. Africa's choices: After 30 years of World Bank. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.  163 Calhoun, Don. 2005. The human material In Participatory democracy: prospects for democratizing democracy, eds. Dimitrios Roussopoulos and C. George Benello, 25-33. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Castells, Manuel, ed. 1983. The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. Berkley, California: University of California Press. Cater, Erlet. 1994. Environmental contradictions in sustainable tourism. The Geographical Journal 161, (1). Chau, Lilian L. 2005. Community-based natural resource management program (CBNRM) in Botswana: Myth or reality?: Stories of participation, community and governance from the Khwai development trust. Masters of Planning, University of British Columbia. Cheru, Fantu, ed. 2002. African renaissance: Roadmaps to the challenges of globalization. South Africa: Zedbooks. Chickering, Arthur, W. 2005. How many make too many? In Participatory democracy: prospects for democratizing democracy, eds. Dimitrios Roussopoulos and C. George Benello, 187-198. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Child, Brian, K. Page, G. Taylor, B. Winterbottom, K. Awarab, P. Bartel, and C. Grimem. 2001. Mid-term review of LIFE-II and assessment of the Namibia national CBNRM programme. Windhoek, Namibia: USAID/Namibia, Draft Final Report. Cleaver, Francis. 2001. Institutions, agency and the limitations of participatory approaches to development. In Participation: The new tyranny?, eds. Bill Cooke, Uma Kothari, 36-55. London, UK: Zedbooks. Conyers, Diana. 2002. Decentralisation and development: A framework for analysis. Community Development Journal 21, (2). Cooke, Bill and Uma Kothari. 2001. The case for participation as tyranny. In Participation: The new tyranny?, eds. Bill Cooke, Uma Kothari,  1-15 . London, UK: Zedbooks. Corbett, Andrew and Jones, Brian, T. B. 2000. The legal aspects of governance in CBNRM in Namibia. Capetown, South Africa: University of the Western Cape. Dagnino, Evelina. 1994. Os anos 90: Política e sociedade no Brasil / 90's: Politic and society in Brazil. Säo Paulo, Brasiliense. Dalal-Clayton, Barry, David Dent, and Olivier Dubois. 2000. Rural planning in the developing world with a special focus on natural resources: Lessons learned and potential  164 contributions to sustainable livelihoods. London, UK: UK Department for International Development, Environmental Planning Issues No. 20. Diener, Ed and Robert Biswas-Diener. 2005. Psychological empowerment and subjective well- being. In Measuring empowerment cross-disciplinary perspectives, ed. Deepa Narayan, 125-140. Washington DC: The World Bank. Dietz, Thomas, Elinor Ostrom, and Paul Stern. 2003. The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302, (5652). Dinerstein, Eric. 2002. Does privately-owned ecotourism support conservation of christmatic large mammals? In The return of the unicorns: The natural history and conservation of the greater one-horned rhinoceros, ed. Eric Dinerstein, 181-192. New York, New York: Columbia University Press. Edwards, Michael. 2002. Organizational learning in non-governmental organizations. In The earthscan reader on NGO management, eds. Michael Edwards, Alan Fowler, 331-363. London, UK: Earthscan. Escobar, Arturo. 1997. The making and unmaking of the third world through development. In The post-development reader, eds. Rahnema Majid, Bawtree Victoria, 85-93. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Fabricius, Christo. 2004. The fundamentals of community-based natural resource management. In Rights, resources and rural development, eds. Christo Fabricius, Eddie Koch, Hector Magome and Stephen Turner, 3-43. Sterling VA: Earthscan. Ferraro, Paul, J. 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity conservation investments. PLoS Biology 4, (4). Fisher, Robert, J. 1989. Indigenous systems of common property forest management in Nepal. Honolulu, Hawaii: East West Center, Working Number #18. Fosse, Leif, J. 1997. Negotiating the nation: Ethnicity, nationalism and nation-building in independent Namibia. Nations and Nationalism 3. Fowler, Alan. 2002. Organizing non-profits for development. In The earthscan reader on NGO management, eds. Michael Edwards, Alan Fowler, 74-86. London, UK: Earthscan. Francis, Paul. 2001. Participatory development at the World Bank: The primacy of process. In Participation the new tyranny?, eds. Bill Cooke, Uma Kothari, 72-87. London, UK: Zedbooks.  165 Friedmann, John, ed. 1992. Empowerment: The politics of alternative development. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell. Friere, Paulo, ed. 2000. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, New York: The Continuum International Publishing Group. Fukuda-Parr, Sakiko, Carlos Lopes, and Khalid Malik. 2002. Institutional innovations for capacity development. In Capacity for development: New solutions to old problems, eds. Fukuda-Parr, Lopes Sakiko Carlos and Khalid Malik, 1-23. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Gibbons, Michael, Camille Limoges, Helga Nouotny, Simon Schwartzman, and Peter Scott. 1994. Some attributes of knowledge production. In The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies, eds. Michael Gibbons, Camille Limoges, Helga Nouotny, Simon Schwartzman and Peter Scott, 3-11. London, UK: Sage. González, Elsa, G., and Yvonna S. Lincoln. 2006. Decolonizing qualitative research: Non- traditional reporting forms in the academy. Forum qualitative social research. Gordon, Sallie, E., ed. 1994. Systemic training program design: Maximizing effectiveness and minimizing liability. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Goulet, Denis. 1989. Participation in development: New avenues. World Development 17: 165- 78. Hagey, Rebecca, S. 1997. Guest editorial: The use and abuse of participatory action research. Volume 18, Chronic Diseases in Canada 18, (N0. 1). Hall, Andy. 2005. Capacity development for agricultural biotechnology in developing countries: An innovation systems view of what it is and how to develop it. Journal of International Development 17, (5). Hardin, Garrett. 1968. Tragedy of the commons. Science 162: 1243-8. Harrison, Elizabeth. 2002. The problem with the locals: Partnership and participation in Ethiopia. Development and Change 33: 587-610. Hartley, Jean, F. 1994. Case studies in organizational research. In Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide, eds. Catherinel Cassell, Gillian Symon, 209- 229. London, UK: Sage.  166 Harvey, Paul. 1998. Rehabilitation in complex political emergencies: Is rebuilding civil society the answer? Disasters 22, (3). Horton, Douglas, Anastasia Alexaki, Samuel Bennett-Lartey, Kim Noële Brice, Dindo Campilan, Fred Carden, José S. Souza. 2003. Evaluating capacity development: Experiences from research and development organizations around the world. The Netherlands: International Service for National Agricultural Research (ISNAR); Canada: International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the Netherlands: ACP-EU Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation (CTA). Horton, Douglas, Ronald Mackay, Anders Andersen, and Luis Dupleich. 2000. Evaluating capacity development in planning, monitoring, and evaluation: A case from agricultural research. The Hague: International Service for National Agricultural Research, Research Report No. 17. Hulme, David and Marshall Murphree. 2001. Community conservation as policy promise and performance. In African wildlife and livelihoods: The promise and performance of community conservation, eds. David Hulme, Marshall Murphree, 280-297. Oxford, UK: James Currey Ltd. Iles, Paul and Christopher Mabey. 1993. Managerial career development programmes: Effectiveness, availability and acceptability. British Journal of Management 4, (2). Inambao, Chrispin. 2000. 10 lodges close in north-east. The Namibian, February 15th, 2000. Inambao, Chrispin. 1999. Caprivi attack “will have lasting effect on tourism. The Namibian, August 12th, 1999. Institute for Security Studies. 2006. Profile of Namibia. Pretoria, South Africa: Institute for Security Studies. Http:// Jacobsohn, Margaret and Owen-smith Garth. 2003. Integrating conservation and development: A Namibian case study. Nomadic Peoples 7, (1): 92-109. Janzen, Daniel, H. 2001. Lumpy integration of tropical wild biodiversity with its society. In A new century of biology, eds. John Kress W., Gary Barrett W., 133-148. Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Jean-Marie, Baland and Jean-phillip Platteau. 1996. Co-management as a new approach to regulation of common property resources. In Halting degradation of natural resources: Is there a role for rural communities? eds. Baland Jean-Marie, Jean-phillip Platteau, 44-48. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.  167 Joe, Bolger. 2000. Capacity development: Why, what and how? Capacity Development Occasional Series 1: 1-9. Jones, Brian T. B. 2003b. Lessons learned from the philosophy and practice of CBNRM in southern Africa. Southern African workshop in preparation for the world parks congress ———. 2003a. Policy, institutions and practice: Impact of Namibian CBNRM policy and legislation on rural livelihoods. Wildlife Integration for Livelihood Diversification (WILD) Project Working Paper 25. ———. 2004. CBNRM, poverty reduction and sustainable livelihoods: Developing criteria for evaluating the contribution of CBNRM to poverty reduction and alleviation in southern Africa. Commons Southern Africa Occasional Paper Series no. 7. ———. 2001. The evolution of policy on community conservation in namibia and zimbabwe. In  African widlife and livelihoods: The promise and performance of community conservation, eds. David Hulme, Marshall Murphee, 38-58. Oxford, UK: James Currey Ltd. ———. 1999b. #Khoadi //Hôas conservancy social baseline study and needs assessment. Consulting Report, ed. WWF-LIFE Program, Windhoek, Namibia. ———. 1999a. Policy lessons from the evolution of a community-based approach to wildlife management, Kunene region, Namibia. Journal of International Development 11, (2). ———. 1998. Namibia's approach to community-based natural resource management (CBNRM): Towards sustainable development in communal areas. Denmark: Scandinavian Seminar College: African Perspectives of Policies and Perspectives Supporting Sustainable Development in Sub-Saharan Africa. Jones, Brian, T. B. and Sima Luipert. 2002. Lessons learned in the southern African region on the formation, structure, funding and functioning of national associations to represent community-based CBOs working on common-property natural resource management. Consultancy Report ed. Namibian Association of Community Based Natural Resource Management Support Organisations (NACSO). #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy. 2002. #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy benefit distribution plan. Conservancy management plan. ———. 1996. #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy Constitution. Conservancy policy document. Kabeer, Naila. 1999. Resources, agency, achievements: Reflections on the measurement of women's empowerment. Development and Change 30: 435-64.  168 Kanter, Rosabeth, M. 2005. Some social issues in the Community Development Corporation proposal In Participatory democracy: prospects for democratizing democracy, eds. Dimitrios Roussopoulos and C. George Benello, 57-63. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Kepe, Thembela and Ian Scoones. 1999. Creating grasslands: Social institutions and environmental change in Mkambati area, South Africa. Human Ecology 27: 29-54. Kirkpatrick, Donald, L., ed. 1994. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koheler Publishers. Kiss, Agnes. 2004. Is community-based ecotourism a good use of biodiversity conservation funds? Trends in Ecology and Conservation 19: 5. Kjæret, Kristin and Kristian Stokke. Rehoboth Baster, Namibian or Namibian Baster? An analysis of national discourses in Rehoboth, Namibia. Nations and Nationalism 9: 579-600. Kruger, Bertus. 2003. Putting communities at the center of their own development process: A case study in the establishment of FIRM, based on the NAPCOD  experience. Windhoek, Namibia: Desert Research Foundation of Namibia and SADC. Laird, Dugan, Sharon Naquin S., and Ed Holton. 2003. Learning objectives. In Approaches to training and development, 115-125. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishings. Larsen, Ann. 2003. Decentralization in Namibia: A case study of Erongo region. The Interdisciplinary Journal of International Studies 1 : 1-16. Leach, Melissa, Robin Mearns, and Ian Scoones. 1999. Environmental entitlements: Dynamics and institutions in community-based natural resource management. World Development 27 (2): 225-47. Oxenham, John and Robert Chambers. 1986. In Organizing education and training for rural development: Problems and challenges, ed. Lecomte, Bernard, J., 45. Paris, France: Development Centre for Economic Cooperation and Development. Long, Andrew, S. 2004. Livelihoods and CBNRM in Namibia: The findings of the WILD project, final technical report of the wildlife integration for livelihood diversification project (WILD), prepared for the Directorates of Environmental Affairs and Parks and Wildlife Management, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism, the Government of the Republic of Namibia. Windhoek, Namibia: Solitaire Press and Savage Words Lopes, Carlos and Thomas Theisohn. 2003. Capacity development in practice: Issues, potentials and critical considerations. In Ownership, leadership and transformation: Can we do better for capacity development?, eds. Carlos Lopes, Thomas Theisohn, 21-48. London, UK: Earthscan.  169 Lusthaus, Charles. 1995. Institutional assessment: A framework for strengthening organizational capacity for IDRC's research partners. Ottawa, Canada: IDRC. Lusthaus, Charles, Adrien Marie-Hèlène, and Mark Perstinger. 1999. Capacity development: Definitions, issues and implications for planning, monitoring and evaluation. Universalia Occasional Paper No. 35: 1-21. Mahanty, Sango, Jefferson Fox, Leslie McLees, Michael Nurse, and Peter Stephen. 2006. Introduction: Equity in community-based resource management. In Hanging in the balance: Equity in community-based natural resource management in Asia, eds. Sango Mahanty, Jefferson Fox, Michael Nurse, Peter Stephen and Leslie McLees, 1-14. Honolulu, Hawaii: Bangkok RECOFTC (Regional Community Forestry Training Center for Asia and the Pacific), East-West Center. Mansbridge, Jane, J. The rise and fall of self interest in the explanation of political life. In Beyond self interest, ed. Jane Mansbridge J., 3-25. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press. Mansuri, Ghazala and Vijayendra Rao. 2004. Community-based and-driven development: A critical review. The World Bank Research Observer 19, (1). Massyn, Peter, J. 2007. Communal land reform and tourism investment in Namibia's communal areas: A question of unfinished business? Development Southern Africa 24, (3). McAllister, Karen, and Ronnie Vernooy. 1999. Who monitors and evaluates? In Action and reflection: A guide for monitoring and evaluating participatory research, eds. Karen McAllister, Ronnie Vernooy, 65-67. Ontario, Canada: IDRC, CBNRM Programs Branch McEwan, John, D. 2005. The cybernetics of self-organizing systems In Participatory democracy: prospects for democratizing democracy, eds. Dimitrios Roussopoulos and C. George Benello, 157-170. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Melber, Henning. 2003. From controlled change to changed control: The case of Namibia. Journal of Contemporary African Studies 21, (2). ———. 2002. Contested territory: Land in southern Africa. The case of Namibia. Journal of the Namibia Scientific Society 50. Midgley, James. 1986. Community participation: History, concepts and controversies. In Community participation, social development and the state., eds. James Midgley, Anthony Hall, Margaret Hardiman and Dhanapaul Naraine, 13-45. New York, New York: Methuen and Co.  170 Mizrahi, Yemil. 2004. Capacity Enhancement Indicators: Review of the Literature.  Washington, DC: World Bank. Mkandawire, Thandika. 2002. Incentives, governance and capacity development in Africa. In Capacity for development: New solutions to old problems, eds. Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Carlos Lopes and Khalid Malik, 147-168. Sterling, VA: Earthscan Publications Ltd. Morgan, Peter. 1999b. Capacity-building supported by the United Nations: Some observations and lessons on capacity building. Published by UNDP. ———. 1999. An update on the performance monitoring of capacity development programs: What are we learning?”. Ontario, Canada: Prepared for the Policy Branch of CIDA. ———. 1998. Capacity and capacity development: Some strategies. Ontario, Canada: Hull: CIDA. ———. 1997. The design and use of capacity development indicators. Ontario, Canada: Paper Prepared for the Policy Branch of CIDA. Mosse, David. 2001. People’s knowledge: Participation and patronage: Operations and representations in rural development. In Participation: The new tyranny?, eds. Bill Cooke, Uma Kothari, 16-35. London, UK: Zedbooks. Murphree, Marshall W. 1997. Articulating voices from the commons, interpretations, translation and facilitation: Roles and modes for common property scholarship. Society and Natural Resources 10 : 415-7. ———. 1993. Communities as resource management institutions. Sustainable agriculture programme. Gatekeeper Series No. 36. NACSO. 2004. Namibia’s communal conservancies: A review of progress and challenges. Windhoek, Namibia: NACSO. Namibia Nature Foundation. 2006. Hands on guide to financial management, ed. Namibia Nature Foundation. Training hand book. ———. 2006. Namibia’s communal conservancies. A review of progress in 2006. Windhoek, Namibia. Narayan, Deepa. 2002. What is empowerment? Social capital, civil society, demand accountability. In Empowerment and poverty reduction: A source book, ed. Deepa Narayan, 13-31. Washington DC: The World Bank.  171 Narayan-Parker, Deepa, ed. 2005. Measuring empowerment: Cross-disciplinary perspectives. Washington DC: World Bank. Ndegwa, Stephen N. 2002. Decentralization in Africa: A stocktaking survey. Africa Region Working Paper Series No. 40: 1-36. Nelson, Robert, H. 2003. Environmental colonialism:“Saving” Africa from Africans. The Independent Review 8, (1). Neumann, Roderick, P. 1998a. Conservation versus custom: State seizure of natural resource control. In Imposing wilderness: Struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa, ed. Roderick P. Neumann, 97-122. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California. ———.1998b. Protecting the fauna of the empire: The evolution of national parks in Tanzania. In Imposing wilderness: Struggles over livelihood and nature preservation in Africa, ed. Roderick P. Neumann, 122-157. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California. Neumann, Roderick, P. 2005. Model, panacea, or exception? Contextualizing CAMPFIRE and related programs in Africa. In Communities and conservation: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management, eds. Peter Brosius J., Anna Tsing L. and Charles Zerner, 177-195. Walnut Oak, California: Alta Mira Press. Nott, Colin and Margaret Jacobsohn. 2004. Key issues in Namibia’s communal conservancy movement. In Rights, resources and rural development: Community-based natural resource management in southern Africa., eds. Christo Fabricius, Eddie Koch, Hector Magome and Stephen Turner, 194-199. Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Novelli, Marina and Kathrin Gebhardt. 2007. Community-based tourism in Namibia: Reality show or window dressing? Current Issues in Tourism 10, (5): 443-79. Nylen, William, R., ed. 2003. Participatory democracy versus elitist democracy: Lessons from Brazil. New York, USA: Palgrave Macmillan. Ogbaharya, Daniel, G. 2006. A capability theory of CBNRM: The case of Namibia’s communal conservancy program. Groningen, The Netherlands: Paper Presented at International Conference of the Human Development and Capability Association. Oldfield, Sara. 1988. Buffer zone management in tropical moist forests: Case studies and guidelines. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN, The World Conservation Union.  172 Olson, Mancur, ed. 1973. The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2002. African economic outlook: Namibia. Paris, France: OECD Publications. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. An institution approach to the study of self-organization and self- governance in CPR situations. In Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action, 58-101. New York, New York: Cambridge University Press. Park, Peter. 1993. What is participatory research? A theoretical and methodological perspective. In Voices of change: Participatory research in the United states and Canada., eds. Mary Brydon-Miller, Bud Hall, Ted Jackson and Peter Park, 1-20. West Port, Connecticut: Bergin and Garvey. Parpart, Jane and Henry Veltmeyer. 2004. Development Theory and Practice: A Review of its Shifting Dynamics. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, XXV (1), Special Issue. Pateman, Carole. 1970. Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and G. D. H. Cole: A participatory theory of democracy. In Participation and democratic theory, ed. Carole Pateman, 22-44. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University. Patton, Michael, Q., ed. 1997. Utilization-focused evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Pennock, Ronald, J., ed. 1979. Democratic political theory. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Pimbert, Michael, P. and Jules N. Pretty. 1997. Parks, people and professionals: Putting participation into protected area management. In Social change and conservation, eds. Krishna Ghimire, Michael Pimbert P., 297-330. London, UK: Earthscan. Poteete, Amy, R. 2004. Is decentralization a reliable means of increasing equity? Oaxaca, Mexico: Presented for the Tenth Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property. Pretty, Jules, N. 1995. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Development 23, (8). Putnam, Robert, ed. 1993. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.  173 Rahman, Muhammad, A. 1995. Participatory development: Toward liberation or co-optation? In Community empowerment: A reader in participation and development, eds. Gary Craig, Mayo Marjorie, 24-32. London, UK: Zedbooks. Roussopoulos, Dimitrios and C. George Benello. 2005. Introduction In Participatory democracy: prospects for democratizing democracy, eds., Roussopoulos, Dimitrios and C. George Benello, 3-10. Montreal: Black Rose Books. Ribot. Jesse, C., and Anne Larson M. 2005. Democratic decentralization through a natural resource lense: An introduction. In Democratic decentralization through a natural resource lens, eds. C. Ribot. Jesse, Anne Larson M., 1-25. New York, New York: Routledge. Saravanamuttu, Paikiasothy. 1998. Sri lanka: Civil society, the nation and the state building challenge. In Civil society and the aid industry: The politics and promise, ed. Alison Van Rooy, 104-133. London, UK: Earthscan. Schiffer, Eva. 2004. Community based natural resource management in Namibia: How does it influence local governance? Ph. D. Dissertation, Universität Bochum, Germany. Schoeman, A. 1996. Conservation in Namibia: Laying the foundation. Namibia Environment 1: 6-13. Schroeder, Richard, A. 1999. Geographies of environmental intervention in Africa. Progress in Human Georgraphy 23: 359-78. Shackleton, Sheona. 2000. Generic criteria and indicators for assessing the sustainability of common property /Community-based natural resource management systems. Pretoria, South Africa: CSIR, Report ENV-P-1-2000-042. Sibanda, Backson. 2004. Community wildlife management in Zimbabwe: The case of CAMPFIRE in the Zambezi valley. In Rights, resources and rural development: Community-based natural resource management in southern Africa., eds. Christo Fabricius, Eddie Koch, Hector Magome and Stephen Turner, 248-258. Sterling, VA: Earthscan. Singer, Peter. 1993. Equality for animals? In Practical ethics, ed. Peter Singer. second ed., 55- 83. Skyer, Patricia. 2003. Community conservancies in Namibia: An effective institutional model in achieving equitable and sustainable common property resource management? Windhoek, Namibia: NACSO. Smillie, Ian. 2001. Capacity building and the humanitarian enterprise. In Local capacity building in humanitarian crisis: Patronage or partnerships, 7-25. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press.  174 Steiner, A. and Rehoy, E. 1995. The commons without a tragedy? Strategies for community based natural resource management in Southern Africa: A review of lessons and experiences from natural resources management programmes in Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe. SADC-Wildlife Technical Coordinating Unit.  Stiglitz, Joseph. 1999. Scan globally, reinvent locally: Knowledge infrastructure and the localization of knowledge. Keynote address, First Global Development Network Conference, Bonn, December. Sullivan, Sian. 2002. How sustainable is the communalizing discourse of "new" conservation: The masking of difference, inequality and aspiration in the fledgling "conservancies" of Namibia. In Conservation and mobile indigenous peoples, eds. Dawn Chatty, Marcus Colchester, 158-188. New York and Oxford: Berghahn Books. Taye, Meseret, Bernard Guibeb, and Helga /Howoses. Using the past and present as Tomorrow’s guide: Evaluating change of capacities of #Khoadi //Hôas conservancy. Draft Focus Group Report. The Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism. 1996. Communal area conservancy toolbox: Wildlife management utilization and tourism on communal land. Training Material. ———. 1995b. Promotion of community based tourism. Republic of Namibia. Policy Document #9. ———. 1995a. Wildlife management, utilization and tourism in communal areas. Republic of Namibia. Policy Document. The Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism and National Botanical Research Institute. 2005. Living Namibia: Namibian biodiversity database. Http:// Tötemeyer, Gerhard K. H. 2000. Decentralisation for empowerment of local units of governance and society - A critical analysis of the Namibia case. Regional Development Dialogue 21, (1): 95-118. Tsing, Anna L., Peter Brosius J., and Charles Zerner. 2005. Introduction. Raising questions about communities and conservation. In Communities and conservation: Histories and politics of community-based natural resource management, eds. Peter Brosius J., Anna Tsing L., and Charles Zerner, 37-68. Walnut Creek, California: Alta Mira Press. Turner, Stephen. 1996. Conservancies in Namibia: A model for successful common property resource management? Windhoek, Namibia: Social Sciences Division, Multi-disciplinary Research Center, University of Namibia, 13.  175 UNDP. 1997. Capacity development. New York, New York: UNDP, Management Development and Governance Division, 2. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 1999. Agenda 21 principles: Report of the United Nations conference on environment and development. Http:// University of Namibia. 2005. Agreement of affiliation between Researchers/Students and the Multi-disciplinary Research Center. Windhoek, Namibia: Multi-Disciplinary Research Center. Uphoff, Norman. 2000. Understanding social capital: learning from the analysis and experience  of participation. In Social capital: a  multifaceted perspective, eds. Partha Dasgupta and  Ismail Serageldin, 215-249. Washington DC: World Bank. Uvin, Peter. 2001. Aiding violence: The development enterprise in Rwanda. Kumarian Press. Human Rights Review 2, (3): 169-72. Vaughn, Christopher and John Katjiua, B. 2002. An overview of community based natural resource management and rural livelihoods in #Khoadi ||Hôas conservancy-Kunene region. Windhoek, Namibia: MET and DfID, WILD Project Working Paper No. 5. Yin, Robert, K. 1989. Case study research design and method: Applied Social Science Research Methods Series, Volume 5.  Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications. Wade, Robert. 2002. The management of common property resources: Finding a cooperative solution. The World Bank Research Observer 2, (2). Werner, Wolfgang. 2003. Land reform in Namibia: Motor or obstacle of democratic development. ———. 2000. Agriculture and land. In Namibia – A decade of independence 1990-2000, ed. Henning Melber, 39-46. Windhoek, Namibia: The Namibian Economic Policy Research Unit (NEPRU). Wheat, S. 2002. Sold out: A rapid growth in ecotourism has been at the expense of indigenous peoples. The Guardian. Wednesday, May 22, 2002. Woodcock, George. 2005. Democracy, heretical and radical In Participatory democracy: prospects for democratizing democracy, eds. Dimitrios Roussopoulos and C. George Benello, 11-24. Montreal: Black Rose Books.  176 World Bank, ed. 2001. World development report 2000/2001: Attacking poverty. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wunder, Sven. 2000. Ecotourism and economic Incentives—an empirical approach. Ecological Economics 32: 465-78.   177 APPENDICES Appendix A  Interview Questions to Conservancy Management Committee (CMC) Representatives and Conservancy Staff Members  1, Could you please tell me about yourself and your position at the conservancy?  2, Could you please tell me the story of how you got involved in the conservancy and why?  3, What changes in your life did you notice as a result of your involvement in the conservancy?—specifics such as financial, material etc.  4, Have you attended any conservancy-related training, workshops or awareness campaigns that used the term capacity building frequently? If so, how many have you attended? how do you understand capacity building?  5, What types of capacities do you think your community needs to develop to run the conservancy well? Whose capacity should be developed in order to run the conservancy well? Who do you think should develop these capacities?  6, Who are the outside experts developing the capacity of your conservancy? Do outside experts consult with you prior to any capacity development so they know the areas you need help with? How do they do this? How did you find the consultation process?  7, How do outsiders train you?  What kind of setting do they use? What type of approaches do they use? Do they use any other approaches other than training? If yes, what are they?  8, How do the experts interact with you? What materials do they use during the training? Are these materials easy to understand?  9, Are the issues you discuss in training familiar to you in terms of your culture or background? How so? Are the training and materials in your local languages? Are you encouraged to bring in your own experiences in the process? How so?  10, What kind of examples do the experts use to integrate the theory with practice? Do you understand the examples given? Can you discuss conservancy issues and problems that you have faced during capacity development sessions?  11, Do you give feedback on the capacity development program itself? How do you do that? Have you been given the opportunity to monitor or evaluate the capacity development process with outside experts? How did that process go?  12, Did you have to call experts to assist you when drafting your constitution, designing a management plan, land use or business plan, tourism plan, and joint venture agreements?  What kind of assistance did the experts provide you?    178 13. Are you capable to write constitutions and plans on your own without outside expert assistance if you have to re-create them or make any amendments? How do you go about doing these things on your own if you have to do them again? If the response is that he/she can’t do it on his/her own, why not?   14, Have you taken training in office administration, financial management, or any other governance issues? What were the main issues covered? How did what you learned help you when you are dealing with conservancy office administration, financial and program management, and governance issues? What are some of the problems that you are still facing in administration, management, and governance issues?  14, Have you taken training in natural resource management? What were the main issues covered? How did that help you in managing the natural resources of the conservancy? What are some of the problems that you are still facing in natural resource management?  15, What were the most effective capacity development approaches that you liked best? Why do you think it is the best?  16, Have you participated in capacity development programs where illiterate people were present? How were they accommodated? How do you think that worked?  17, How do you use your new capacity in your daily life or in your communication with your community? Do you think the training or awareness has changed your views or behavior? How so?  18, Which new skills and knowledge do you use in a daily basis in the conservancy? Have you customized and modified what you learned after the training in order to make it more suitable to the needs of your conservancy work? How so? Please give me an example where you have modified what you learned?  19, Did you share your knowledge and information with the community? How did you transfer your knowledge to the community? Do you think this process helped raise interest in the community about the conservancy? How so?  20, What kind of changes have you seen in your community because of the capacity development the conservancy received? What are some of the new capacities or skills developed locally as a result of the capacity development provided to the conservancy? Are there any local experts that emerged as a result of the capacity development in the conservancy work? Where are they now, and what are they doing?  21, What are some of the positive changes that you noticed on individuals within the conservancy after any capacity development programs?  Why do you think they are positive? What are the negative changes that you noticed after any capacity development programs? Why do you think they are negative?  22, What are the strengths of the conservancy created by the capacity development programs? What are the weaknesses and challenges of the conservancy that still need capacity development interventions?   179  23, Do you think community participation in conservancy is important? Why or why not? Are there community wide capacity development programs? Do you think capacity development has any influence on locals interest and participation in the conservancy?  How so?  24, Are local communities satisfactorily participating and represented in the conservancy? Depending on the response, why or why not? Are there enough registered men, women, youth, elder, and ethnic groups represented in the conservancy? Are there any mechanisms to make sure that there is a gender and age diversity in the conservancy management committee? How is that done?  25, Are you still getting technical support and capacity development from outside experts? What kind of support are you getting?  26, Have you ever had the opportunity to monitor or evaluate the performance of your conservancy? How did you do the monitoring and evaluation?  How often is it done? If you have not done it, would you like to do it? What aspects of the conservancy would you want to evaluate? Why?  Who would use the evaluation results?    180 Appendix B  Participatory Self Assessment Focus Group Framework and Evaluation Questions  The Focus Group Framework - Meseret will introduce herself and the general purpose of the focus group. - Participants will be paired and each person will be asked to introduce the other person and their positions in the conservancy. They will then think of a name for their team. - Facilitators will introduce the agenda and ask participants if there is anything that needs to be added.  Roles and Responsibilities: - Facilitation: Bob for men’s group and Helga for women’s group - Note taking roles: Meseret - Time keeping roles: Eben was chosen for men and Olga for women - Decision making styles: mostly done through consensus - Participants’ engagement: Lively discussions and high team spirit - Monitoring and Evaluation: 10 minute reflection time was used after each topic discussion and the whole exercise was evaluated at the end through few general questions. List of Attendants: • Men’s Focus Group   - Mr. Bob Guibeb—Conservancy Manager and facilitator of group discussions   - Mr. Gerson Aue-ibeb—Registered Conservancy Member/Farmer from Condor farmer’s league   - Mr. Eben Hoeb—Environmental Shepherd   - Mr. Nico Seibeb—Traditional Counselor and Conservancy Member   - Mr. Titus Gaohab—Current CMC Member   - Mr. Tulo 1Gomeb—Senior Traditional Leader & Former Environmental Shepherd   - Mr. Thaddeus Hoaeb—Founding member and President of Grootberg Farmer’s Association   - Mr. David Goagoseb—Founding member, Current Chief of Agricultural Extension Center (AEC)   - Ms. Meseret Taye—Student from University of British Columbia, Canada • Women’s Focus Group    - Ms. Helga /Howoses—Information Liaison Officer of Conservancy and facilitator    - Ms. Olga Uiras—Current CMC Member    - Ms. Landine Guim—Former Environmental Shepherd and Current Campsite Staff    - Ms. Mina Ndjitezeua—Former CMC Member    - Ms. Seliva Aebes—Registered Conservancy Member/Farmer from Anker Farmer’s league    - Ms. Meseret Taye—Student from University of British Columbia, Canada Framework for Evaluation  A. Purpose of Evaluation: Conservancy Governance and Service Delivery Capacity changes through time frames of Past (First five years of the conservancy), Present (the last four years until the date the evaluation exercise took place) and Future (what the participants envision for the conservancy’s future)  B. Principles: These are the rules set up for getting valid results from participants. - Honesty - Transparency - No personal attacks - Open for ideas and criticisms - Learning by doing - Reflection time   181 - Clarification: If you don’t understand anything, please ask!! - Punctuality:  Please be on time!! - Commitment: Please be there for both days!! - Please be confident and don’t be shy!! - Flexibility - Commitment to get the actions plans done by those who are responsible  C. Topics for Discussion: Day I: Conservancy Governance/Management Capacities - Election of Conservancy Management Committee (CMC) members - Roles and responsibilities of CMC members - Communication gap with conservancy members  Day II: Conservancy Service Giving Capacities - Community wide benefit sharing (meat, diesel, social, jobs etc.) - Education and awareness of conservancy members - Conservancy Office operation  D. Utilization of the Results: - Supporting NGOs and government (NNF, NACSO, NACOBTA, MET) - Firm stakeholders - Traditional authority - Conservancy staff - Conservancy Management Committee - Counselor of the Kunene Region - Focus Group participants - Conservancy registered members who are going to attend this year’s AGM  E. Dissemination of Results: - Presentation at the FIRM meeting to be done by Bob - Presentation at the AGM to be done by Bob - Copies of minutes, reports, and handouts to be distributed to focus group participants by Meseret. - Helga will send a copy of the report to regional council and the traditional authority  F. Type of Result Reports: - PowerPoint presentation and handouts - Summary Report of the two focus groups       -     Full Minutes  G. Responsibilities for Writing the Report: - Men’s focus group—(Meseret writes it and Bob comments on it) - Women’s focus group—(Meseret writes it and Helga comments on it)  H. Deadlines for the Report: - First draft to be reviewed by Bob and Helga –First week of October - Copy of final draft will be ready on the second week of October - First Presentation at the Stakeholders’ Workshop-end of second week of October - Second presentation will be at the AGM, which will take place at the end of November.    182 Evaluation Questions  Day One: Management Capacities of #Khoadi //HÔas Conservancy  Topic 1: Election of CMC members  Past: 1, How were the CMC elections done at the beginning of the conservancy? 2, Was the whole area represented? 3, Was it a democratic process? 4, Who is responsible for the election of CMC members? 5, Were stakeholders involved in the elections? 6, Were the traditional leaders allowed to serve on the CMC? Is that useful or not?  Present: 1, How is the election of CMC members done now? Is there any change from before? Why? 2, What does the constitution say about election of CMC members? 3, When and after how many years does the election take place?  Future: 1, What type of election would we like to see in the future? 2, Why do we want to see it that way? 3, How do you think we can get there?  Problems: 1, What type of problems are we facing in elections? 2, Why are we facing these problems?  Solutions and Recommendations: What type of solutions and recommendations do we have for election related problems? What do we have to do to get to our future goals on elections?  Action Plans and Indicators: 1, What actions will make the recommendations practical (who is doing what, when and how?) 2, What type of indicators show us that we have solved our election problems using the solutions above? 3, What indicators would we want to set up to make sure that we meet our goals for election in the future? 10 minutes Reflection What do you think of this discussion? What can we improve for the next session?  Topic 2: Performance of CMC members  These are general questions with no timeframe of past, present and future. 1, Are CMC members fulfilling their duties? Yes or no, why or why not? 2, Are CMC members available when they are needed? 3, Are their outside responsibilities (jobs etc.) conflicting with their roles? 4, Who is determining whether CMC members are fulfilling their duties? 5, What actions can be taken when CMC members are not fulfilling their duties? 6, When CMC members resign from their positions, what methods are used to replace them? 7, Are CMC members really needed? What about board members? 8, How many members are needed for quorum? How do we fill the gap when a member is not present?   183 9, What does the constitution say about the roles and responsibilities of CMC members? 10, How many CMC members are there and is that number of CMC members needed?  Problems: 1, What are the problems which we are facing with CMC members performance? 2, Why are these problems caused?  Solutions and Recommendations: 1, What are the solutions so CMC members can fulfill their duties? 2. What about the use of the board structure?  Actions Plans and Indicators: What actions should we take to make the recommendations practical, who is doing what, when and how? What are the indicators of how we know that CMC members are fulfilling their duties? 10 Minutes Reflection What do you think of this discussion? What can we improve for the next session?  Topic 3: Communication Gap with Conservancy Members  Past: 1, How was the communications done before? 2, How often was the communication done? 3, Who was responsible for communication? 4, How many league based meetings were done? 5, How were the people informed about the meetings? 6, What incentives if any were used at the meetings?  Present: 1, How do we communicate with members now? What has changed and why?  Future 1, How do you want us to communicate with you in the future? 2, What are the best ways to communicate with our members (communication channels)? 3, How do we reach each and every conservancy member in the future?  Problems: 1, What are the problems we are facing in communicating with conservancy members? Why?  Solutions and Recommendations: 1, What kinds of solutions and recommendations do we have to close the gap of communication? 2, How do we want our communication channels to be in the future?  Action Plans Indicators: 1, What are the actions to make the recommendations practical? Who is doing what, when, and how? 2, What are the indicators so we know that we have closed the communication gap? 3, What are the indicators so we know we have reached each and every conservancy member? 10 Minutes Reflection What do you think of this discussion? What can we improve for the next session?    184 Day Two: Service Giving Capacities of # // Conservancy Topic 1: Community wide Benefit Sharing  Past: 1, What types of benefits were distributed in the past? 2, Who decides what benefits to distribute? 3, Who oversaw the benefit sharing process? 4, Were the benefits distributed fairly, if not, why not? 5, What were the criteria for benefit sharing?  Present: 1, What types of benefits are you receiving from the conservancy at the current time? What has changed from the past and why? 2, Are you satisfied with the benefits that you received?  Future: 1, How do we make sure that we distribute benefits equitably in the future? 2, What does equitability mean to you?  Problems: 1, What are the problems we are facing in our benefit sharing?  Solutions and Recommendations: 1, How do you want the benefits to be distributed in the future?  Action Plans and Indicators: 1, What actions will make the recommendations practical, who is doing what, when and how? 2, What are the indicators that we solved our problems of benefit sharing? 3, What are the indicators to show us that we have distributed benefits equitably?  10 Minutes Reflection: What do you think of this discussion? What can we improve for the next session? Topic 2: Community wide Education and Awareness Past 1, Was there any community wide education and training in the past? Present 1, Is there a community wide education now?  Future: 1, What type of training and education do we want for the community? Why? 2, Who is responsible to train the community? 3, Who will be trained to train the community? 4, Does the conservancy have the capacity to give community wide training? 5, Who should we partner with to give the training?  Action Plans and Indicators: 1, What actions would make the recommendations practical and who is doing what, when and how? 2, What are the indicators that community wide training and education is facilitated successfully?   185 10 minutes Reflection What do you think of this discussion? What can we improve for the next session? Topic 3: Conservancy Office Operation  Past: 1, Has the office been accessible for everyone in the past? How? 2, What type of services were given from the office in the past? 3, The conservancy is using the space from MET at the current time. Is that sustainable?  Present: 1, Is the office open for members who need services now? What has changed and why? 2, Are the people provided with proper service? 3, Are members and other people visiting the office now? for what reasons? 4, How is the staff behavior in dealing with guests? 5, Are the staff members trained to deal with guests?  Future: 1, What type of services would the office like to give in the future? 2, How can we make the office accessible to anyone? 3, Is it possible to create satellite offices?  Problems: What type of problems are we facing to give office services?  Solutions and Recommendations: What are the solutions to the problems of giving office services? What should we do to ensure that we provide the types of services brainstormed above?  Action Plans and Indicators: 1, What actions should we take to fulfill the recommendations and who is doing what, when and how 2, What are the indicators that we have resolved our office service giving problems? 3, What are the indicators that we are giving proper service to conservancy members and guests?  10 minutes Reflection: What do you think of this discussion? What can we improve for the next session? Evaluation Questions for the Overall Self-Assessment Exercise 1, What did you learn from the two day exercises about the conservancy? 2, What do you think of this exercise and why? Should we do it again or not? 3, What are the strengths and weaknesses of this exercise? 4, What can we improve for the future?  Participants are thanked for their participation and dinner is served to end the day.   186 Appendix C  Interview Questions to Conservancy Registered Farmers  1, Could you tell me about yourself and your position in the conservancy?  2, How did you get involved in the conservancy and why? Who told you about the conservancy for the first time and what did they say to you about it?  3, What changes in your life did you notice as a result of your involvement with the conservancy? Financial, social etc.  4, Do you know that the conservancy has a constitution? What are some of the things that you are allowed to do according to the constitution of the conservancy? What are some of the things that you are not allowed to do according to the constitution?  5, Do you agree with the rules (things that you can and can not do) of the constitution?  Are you willing to respect these rules as a registered member? Has anyone asked you if you agree or disagree with these rules?  6, Do you think the people in your community need to get involved in the conservancy? Why or why not? If yes, how do you think they should get involved?  7, Do you think there are enough men, women, elders, youth, and diverse ethnic groups in the conservancy management? Yes or no, if no, why do you think there isn’t diversity in the group? Do you think that enough of each group should be in the conservancy? Why or why not? Who do you think is responsible for making sure that there is diversity in the conservancy? What do you think should be done to make sure that all members are represented?  8, Does the conservancy management ask you for advice? Did they talk to you when they created the land use plan, benefit-sharing plan, or management plan etc.? How did they ask you for your advice?  9, Have you been to any of the conservancy meetings? If not, why not? How many times have you attended the Annual General Meeting (AGM)? What other activities did you attend that were been organized by the conservancy??  10, How do you know when the AGM is taking place? Can you estimate how many people in average attend the AGMs? Do you think all registered members come to the AGM? If answer is no, why do you think that people don’t come to the AGM?  11. Do you know the rules for nominating and electing CMC members? How are people nominated? How do elections happen? Have you nominated or elected a person on an AGM? Why did you elect the person you elected? do you think the nomination and election is done in a fair way? Why or why not?  12, What kind of reports do conservancy staff and management committee members present to you at the AGM? Can you understand these reports? Are they in your local language or Afrikaans? Are you given a chance to ask questions if there are things that are not clear? How do   187 the staff and management committee members respond back to the questions? What type of things did you learn from the last AGM?  13, Do people get a chance to present any complaints, issues and problems at the AGM? can you remember issues and problems presented at the last AGM? how do you think conservancy staff responded back to the problems? Have you ever asked for any clarification or complained about a specific issue? Are you satisfied with the response you received from the conservancy?  14, Do you get updates and feedback about the conservancy before the AGM? Who gives you this information and how?  15, How many times did you receiv meat from the conservancy? Do you think the meat is distributed to everyone in the conservancy fairly? Yes or no? If not, why not?  16, Have you received other benefits such as diesel oil sale for live stock, elephant damage compensation, soup, vaccination for livestock, or employment opportunities? Do you know if these are distributed in a fair manner throughout the conservancy? Yes or no? If not, why not?  17, Do you like to be asked for an advice on any conservancy manner? What type of issues do you want to give advice on? Are you confident your advices are used by the conservancy management committee members? If not, why not?  18, What kind of positive changes did you see in your community since the conservancy started? What type of things did the conservancy bring that you didn’t have before in your community? How about negative changes in your community created because of the conservancy?  19, Has the conservancy given you any training? What type of training did you receive from the conservancy? How was the training done?  Who did it and when was it done?  How did you find the training? Are you satisfied with it?  20, How did the training help you? How do you think the training helped the community? Do you think the conservancy should give more training? What issues can the conservancy give you training on?  21, When you see the 9 years that the conservancy has existed, what are the biggest strengths of the conservancy that needs to be praised and commended? What are the biggest weaknesses that you think need to be dealt with right away? how do you think these problems can be solved? Who should solve them?   188 Appendix D  Interview Questions to CD Experts  1, Could you please tell me a little bit about yourself especially your academic and/or professional background that led you to doing capacity development work? How long have you worked at this capacity? What is your official title?  2, How do you understand capacity development? Do you consider capacity development to be important component of a conservancy work? Why or why not?  3, What areas or types of capacities do you think local communities should have to efficiently and effectively run their conservancies? Who do you think should develop these capacities?  4, How are capacity development programs in your institution designed to assist communities in building and running their conservancy? Are there any philosophies that you follow when you design the capacity development program?  5, When you design the capacity development program, do you consult with the communities to find out what their needs are? How do you assess the existing capacities as well as local knowledge of the communities and their needs?  6, How do you integrate theory and practice in your capacity development work? What type of examples do you give to participants to make the concept clear? Are the materials you use easily accessible by local communities such as in their local languages? How do you modify the processes and tools to make them fit local norms and cultures of the people?  7, Are the sessions transparent enough so community members can bring their problems and issues and criticize the conservancy work in capacity development sessions?  8, When you build capacities in #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy, how is your interaction? How do you see your relationship with conservancies?  9, How do you accommodate those who are illiterate and elderly in capacity development programs? Is there a gender and age balance in the capacity development programs? If not, why not? What kind of assistance do government/NGOs give to conservancies so there is gender and age balance in capacity development programs?  10, Is the capacity development implemented through a systematic way incrementally or is it done all at once at the initial stage of the conservancy formation? Do you pull out of conservancies or stop building capacity programs after some years of intervention? How do you determine that conservancies are running smoothly and no longer need the assistance of government and NGOs?  11, From your practice, what tools do you think worked best in terms of building the capacities of communities you worked with? What were the most effective CD tools you used that the community liked best? Why do you think these tools were successful?    189 12, Which capacity development tools do you use to build office administration, program management, and governance capacities of conservancies? How do you think the capacity development in the above issues helped the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy capacity?  13, Which capacity development tools do you use for benefit sharing and financial transparency? How do you think the capacity development in benefit sharing and financial transparency helped #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy?  14, Which capacity development tools do you use for natural resource management and conservation? Do you think these tools facilitated natural resource management effectively at #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy?  15, Out of the three (management and governance, benefit sharing, and natural resource management) capacities, which one do you think is the strongest in #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy? Why do you think that is?  16, Out of the three (management and governance, benefit sharing, and natural resource management) capacities, which one do you think is weakest in  #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy? Why do you think that is?  17, At what level is your capacity development intervention focused (conservancy staff, CMC members, conservancy registered farmers)? Why did you choose such an approach?  18, Are there any mechanisms so those who are trained can train others in their community?  If so, how is that done?  19, Are there any CD interventions at the community level? What topics are covered in these sessions?  How do you think these CD interventions at the community level helped community members?  20, Do you think community participation is important for conservancy work? Why or why not? How do you understand community participation? In what ways do you think locals can participate in conservancies?  What can community members gain from participating in conservancy work? Aside from financial benefits?  21, What new capacities do you think conservancies developed locally as a result of the implementation of the capacity development?  22, What are the positive outcomes of the new capacities and how are they changing the conservancy or community?  If the new capacities have brought harmful consequences what are they? Are there any mechanisms to tackle these harmful consequences?  23, What do you think are the biggest strengths and challenges of the capacity development that you experienced at the #Khoadi //Hôas Conservancy specifically? How about in all other conservancies in general? (General CD question)  24, Have you done any kind of monitoring and evaluation of the capacity development program? If so, how did you do this? What did you evaluate and how? What indicators or criteria did you   190 use in doing the evaluation? What evaluation tools did you use in these evaluations? Were these tools effective?  25, If you were to do/redo the evaluation of the capacity development, how would you do it? Are there principles you’d like to incorporate in the evaluation and what would these be?   191 Appendix E  Some Sections of the Participatory Self-Assessment Focus Group Report 2006 (Pgs. 7-11)  II. Governance Capacities Governance capacities are comprised of the organizational structure and institutional framework that enable the conservancy to perform its core functions and meet its objectives.  Governance Capacity #1: Elections of CMC Members   The first election of CMC members took place in 1998. The community members were invited to the GFU’s AGM. On the initial meeting, 20 people were nominated and 17 of them were elected to serve as members of the CMC. The 17 members gave each other the portfolios (positions) of the CMC. Partner government and NGOs such as MET, WWF-LIFE and DRFN have monitored the election process.   Nominations and elections of CMC members happen at the AGM. There were two elections since the conservancy was established. A person raises his/her hand and calls out the name of the individual that she/he wants to nominate. The people who are nominated are asked if they would like to take the position in the committee and if they agree, they will be asked leave the conference hall. The nominees will then be presented back to the AGM attendees and those who are seconded by most votes by showing of hands are officially elected. There is no change of election procedures from past to present but the number of female elected CMC members increased from 5 to 9.  Challenges: o The CMC members do not represent the whole conservancy due to a problem of favoritism during elections. Although there is an effort to elect people from different farmers’ associations44, majority of the members who are attending the AGM are from Anker and Erwee Associations, and they tend to favor nominees from their own areas. Most members who live further away  44 There are eight farmers’ leagues in the area that are created by the Grootberg Farmers Union (GFU). These leagues are currently called associations. During the discussions people were using the terms leagues and associations interchangeably.   192 from the conservancy office do not attend the AGM because of lack of transportation so they don’t have the capacity to mobilize themselves and elect their own representatives.  o The constitution has general requirements that members must be eighteen or older, are registered members of the conservancy, and should be full time residents of the area to be nominated for the CMC positions. However there are no other qualifications established for nominating or electing CMC members. Members’ limited knowledge of what the CMC membership position entails resulted to election of individuals who can’t fulfill their duties or are not able to attend meetings.  o The constitution states that 2/3 majority of the conservancy members are needed to elect the CMC members but the number of people who attend the AGM is often less than 2/3 of the conservancy registered members.  Recommendations: 1. Each of the eight farmers’ associations must be represented on the CMC by a single representative.  2.  The actual nomination and election of CMC members should take place at the associations’ level instead of at the AGM. These   elections should happen three months in advance of the AGM. Two candidates (male and female) should be nominated from each of the farmers’ associations before elections to reach gender balance. The outgoing CMC members, the conservancy staff along with the traditional authority should monitor election processes at the ground level. Having the elections at the associations’ level will help to prevent favoritism-based elections at the AGM as seen previously. In addition, each of the associations should also nominate one person and send him/her to the AGM. This person will compete with nominees from other associations for the chairperson’s position at an election that takes place at the AGM.  3. Reducing the number of CMC members from 17 to 9 will be more effective because currently only 8-9 members are actively participating while the rest have resigned. The six executive positions can remain as they are and there should be only three additional member positions.  4. Clear criteria for who should be elected for the CMC membership should also be established and it needs to be communicated to members ahead of elections. For instance, CMC members especially those at the executive level should not have full time jobs. This is because previous experiences demonstrated that those members with jobs are not able to fulfill their duties as   193 expected of them.  Unemployed youth with Grade 12 education can fill in the executive positions, and with the appropriate amount of incentives and training they can dedicate their time to fulfill the CMC duties.  5. The constitution should be amended so that 2/3 majority of those who come to the AGM can elect the chairperson instead of 2/3 majority of the registered conservancy members.  6. Radio talk show discussions should be carried out regularly on issues involving elections. This will help the members to be aware of the procedures and the qualifications for CMC membership so they are able to elect someone who can represent them well on the CMC.   194 Governance Capacity: Election of CMC Members Action Plans and Indicators Action Plans Purpose of Action Plans Strategy Who When and Where Amending the election clause ( Chapter 4, Clause 12) on the constitution - To reduce the number of CMC members from 17 to 9  - To have representation of the eight associations  - To nominate and elect CMC members at the farmers’ associations level  - To ensure that the chairperson’s election occurs at the AGM by having eight nominees from each association - Bob will present the amendment details to the CMC and stakeholders  - If approved by the workshop participants, it will be presented to the AGM for approval and the amended constitution will be sent to MET for record keeping purposes. Bob - At the Constitution Amendment Workshop which will be held on October 6th-7th, 2006  - If approved, it goes to the AGM scheduled to occur on October 27- 29th, 2006 Establishing basic qualifications for CMC membership - To give guidance and knowledge to members on electing the right representatives for their area  - To elect capable individuals who can commit their time and resources to the CMC  - To prevent election of members just by favoritism and encourage election of members by their capacity - Helga will introduce the idea to CMC members on the upcoming CMC and AGM meetings.  - If approved, the qualifications will be established on a “Roles and Responsibilities of CMC Members” workshop where outgoing CMC members and other stakeholders participate. Bob, Helga and CMC members - Workshop on “Roles and Responsibilities of CMC members” to be carried out 2-3 months before nominations and elections of CMC members for 2007.  - The qualifications will be communicated to members through the radio regularly. Indicators: The #Khoadi //Hoas Conservancy registered members will be able to elect 9 capable CMC members (6 executive and 3 additional) from the 8 farmers’ associations using the clear qualifications set by the “CMC Roles and Responsibilities” Workshop as a guide in 2007.         195 Appendix F  


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items