|
- stakeholder institution
-
The term 'stakeholder' is often loosely applied
and may include a range of parties whose stakes
differ considerably in scale. For this reason
it is essential to distinguish between various
degrees of stakeholders and to base decisions
on the magnitude of the 'stake' which each party
brings to the table.
A more detailed definition of the stakeholder
categories can be found in the section on buffalo.
The primary stakeholders affected by the
occurrence, abundance or absence of reedbuck,
waterbuck, lechwe and puku in Namibia are landholders,
including the State, private sector and those
with traditional landholdings.
Secondary stakeholders are those who have
a direct financial investment in the land and
the wildlife industry.
Tertiary stakeholders are those who have
an interest in the conservation of wetland grazers
do not contribute financially to the process.
In considering the natural range of reedbuck,
waterbuck, lechwe and puku, all of the primary
stakeholders are located in the Caprivi, with
the range for reedbuck extending slightly into
the main body of the country in Khaudum National
Park and Nyae Nyae Conservancy.
The
largest populations of reedbuck, waterbuck, and
lechwe in Namibia may now be on commercial farms,
albeit that many of these populations are in less
than optimum locations. However, the emphasis
is on the naturally-occurring populations of these
species in the Caprivi.
Stakeholder Institutions
- Present and Future
Conservation of the wetland grazers in the Caprivi
presents a very different set of problems from
those affecting the species which were the focus
of the first two management plans in this series.
The habitats for reedbuck, waterbuck, lechwe and
puku are restricted to a set of narrow bands along
rivers (Figure
9)
|
Figure 9: Habitats suitable for the Wetland
Grazers in the Caprivi
|
and these areas are the focus for conflict between
wildlife management and people, domestic livestock
and cultivation.
The
total area of the remaining habitats still potentially
suitable for the wetland grazers is about 3,000km2
- of which only about 500km2 lies within protected
areas. If any meaningful effort is going to
be made to extend conservation beyond the protected
areas, it will require the development of stakeholder
institutions capable of co-managing the floodplain
habitats.
The only way in which the current settlement
and cattle grazing practices might be altered
is through the formation of a joint stakeholder
association whose objective is to improve floodplain
management (Martin 2004).
This co-management institution might have to
begin in limited way with partnerships between
Mamili and Mudumu national parks, the neighbouring
conservancies and those portions of communal land
which are not conservancies but border onto the
Kwando River.
The State's interest would be to preserve a continuous
belt of floodplain along the Kwando River ensuring
that the wetland grazer populations in Mamili,
Mudumu and the 'Golden Triangle' are not isolated.
This might be followed with linkages through the
communal land to Salambala conservancy.
Typical measures to be addressed under co-management
are e.g.
- zoning along rivers to preserve portions of
the original floodplain,
- restricted areas for cattle grazing or seasonal
use of grazing,
- fire control
- illegal hunting.
A vital part of this comanagement institution must
be a circumscribed rôle for government - it will
not work if local stakeholders feel they are being
co-opted by government to fulfil some conservation
objective which is in the State's interests. For
the institution to be effective there must be a
common appreciation by all stakeholders that there
is a valid case for attempting to improve floodplain
conservation and that it is within the stakeholders'
powers to take and implement decisions which will
bring about the changes (Ruitenbeek and Cartier
2001).
Protected Areas
The present mosaic of small parks and small conservancies
is not up to the challenge. Institutions need
to be developed which focus on managing the floodplain
habitats to favour wetland grazers over extensive
areas. Inevitably this means co-management between
the State, neighbouring conservancies and areas
which are not yet formed into conservancies. The
nature of this co-management cannot be one in
which the State plays a central rôle and the other
players are co-opted as unwilling partners: it
has to be one where the geographic boundaries
are identified and the stakeholders within that
zone jointly grapple with the problems on an equal
footing and with equal status (Ruitenbeek and
Cartier 2001).
Namibia has made progress in developing policies
and legislation which empower landholders to manage
their wildlife resources both on commercial farms
and in communal lands.
Martin 2003 points out that the stae must provide
greater
incentives to commercial farmers. Similarly
Corbett and Jones (2000) disclose shortcomings
in the Namibian conservancy legal construct.
Co-management presents a new challenge and, given
the impressive record of development of the wildlife
industry and the positive spirit of co-operation
amongst the State, NGOs and private sector towards
larger goals, there is no reason why Namibia should
not lead the way in developing these new forms
of institutions.
Towards
Trans-Boundary Institutions
Back to top
|
