The Uibasen Twyfelfontein conservancy was declared a conservancy in 1999. The state devolved user rights of land, wildlife and natural resources to the Uibasen Twyfelfontein community to manage and benefit from the conservation of conservancy resources. However, the National Heritage Council of Namibia was also empowered to manage the country’s national heritage resources, including the Twyfelfontein World Heritage Site, situated within the boundary of the Uibasen Twyfelfontein Conservancy.
This study aimed at understanding the operations of the Uibasen Twyfelfontein Conservancy and the National Heritage Council of Namibia as two policy arrangements employed over the same area and community. The study used the policy arrangement approach elements (actors, rules, resources, discourses), to analyze how the two arrangements have shaped processes in the conservancy. In addition to the policy arrangement approach, the sustainable livelihood approach was used to show impacts of the arrangements on livelihood activities of the local Uibasen Twyfelfontein conservancy community. The analysis of data for this study was gathered through 24 interviews with key stakeholders, document reviews and observation.
The outcome of the study revealed that the two arrangements advocate for the sustainable utilization of resources and both arrangements use tourism as a conservation strategy, and depend on tourism for their sustainability. In terms of contribution to livelihoods, the arrangements have managed to enhanced livelihoods through employment creation for conservancy members, cash payments to individual conservancy members derived from tourism revenues and empowerment of members through trainings offered in the conservancy.
However, despite the benefits of the arrangements, there are several challenges in the deployment of the two policy arrangements. The arrangements are characterized by unequal power differences, which threaten the conservation of resources, while elites in the conservancy are acting in their own interest, by capturing the collective benefits that are meant for the community.
Even though the two arrangements reflect broader conservation of resources, they differ in the process and function of attaining their aims and objectives, aspects which threaten the internal congruency of the arrangements.
The incongruences of the arrangements can create institutional instability, jeopardize the conservation of resources and deny livelihood benefits to conservancy members.
Topics: Wildlife, Tourism, and Recreation , Topics: Community-Based Conservation , Topics: Policy and Legislation
