Very little funding is required to implement this management plan. The main costs will lie in co-ordination (liaison in setting up co-management institutions) and implementation of any management activities that arise from comanagement decisions (problem animal control and population reductions). The potential income from elephant management is substantial and should more than cover these costs. The State or primary stakeholders may have to advance funds for certain activities to take place and it is strongly recommended that this is the financial mechanism used. Because of the controversial nature of elephant management it would be wise not to compromise any decisions taken between the Ministry and primary stakeholders by seeking either international donor funding or local NGO funding to support implementation.

The current project to strengthen the system of national protected areas (UNDP 2005) should provide the necessary funding and capacity for MET to carry out its normal functions, including law enforcement. The close alignment between the UNDP project and the management plan for elephant bodes well for forming co-management institutions. Under the project, northern Namibia would be managed under two main divisions: the north-west (which includes Etosha) and the north-east (which includes the Caprivi, Khaudum and the Waterberg).

The income from elephants would be unable to contribute much to the Government budgets for the north-west. There is no sport hunting of elephants in the State protected areas and no management interventions are proposed. Outside the State protected areas, income earned from trophy hunting accrues to conservancies rather than the State.

In the north-east, elephant could play a significant rôle in meeting conservation costs. The potential earnings from an elephant population managed for trophy hunting whilst keeping numbers constant are given in Table 1. The extent to which this revenue would contribute to park conservation costs is shown in Table 2. It would more or less meet the present budget allocations for the north-east and would meet at least two-thirds of the budgets proposed under UNDP (2005). Even if the full value of ivory and elephant skin is not achieved, the revenue from sport hunting will provide some 75 % of the amounts given in the table.

Over and above the revenue which would accrue to State protected areas (N$8.7/ha), an additional N$9.7/ha would be earned by safari operators. This figure is dependent on the assumed proportion of gross income that safari operators would pay the landholder (MET or local community) for the 'rental' of the trophy hunting including trophy fees. If a rental higher than 25% can be secured, the primary stakeholders would achieve a larger part of the total net income (N$18.4 per hectare) from this elephant management regime.

Over and above the costs assumed in Appendix 1, additional costs could arise for such items as the annual aerial census of elephant populations, provision of artificial water and control of fire. However, in previous species management plans (Martin 2002, 2003, 2004) detailed budgets have been prepared for these items and it would be duplication to resubmit them here. Moreover, to put forward budgets for management activities which are the prerogative of co-management institutions yet to be established would be premature.