This article was downloaded by: [UQ Library]On: 16 November 2014, At: 15:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Current Issues in TourismPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcit20

The Grootberg lodge partnership inNamibia: towards poverty alleviationand empowerment for long-termsustainability?Renaud Lapeyre aa School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies ,University of the Witwatersrand , Johannesburg, South AfricaPublished online: 11 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Renaud Lapeyre (2011) The Grootberg lodge partnership in Namibia: towardspoverty alleviation and empowerment for long-term sustainability?, Current Issues in Tourism, 14:3,221-234, DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2011.555521

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2011.555521

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

The Grootberg lodge partnership in Namibia: towards povertyalleviation and empowerment for long-term sustainability?

Renaud Lapeyre∗

School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, University of the Witwatersrand,Johannesburg, South Africa

(Received 12 October 2009; final version received 6 October 2010)

This paper analyses socio-economic impacts of a tourism community–public–privatepartnership in a rural area in Namibia and its contribution to achieving some of theMillennium Development Goals. Building on an institutional analysis as well as anapplied sustainable livelihoods approach, it is argued that the Grootberg lodgepartnership contributes to nature conservation, poverty alleviation as well as capacity-building and empowerment at both the individual and collective levels (the triplebottom line). Indeed, empirical data gathered in 2006 and 2007 show that theGrootberg lodge has helped to improve the livelihoods of some rural households bydistributing to them secure wage revenues, building their financial and physical assetsand reducing their vulnerability; it has further provided employees with essentialtraining sessions (human capital) and has involved community members in some ofthe tourism management decisions. These results, however, remain context relatedand dependent on some important unpredictable and intangible variables (trust andopenness); as a result, further systematic livelihood studies in other contexts arecalled for in order to better inform policy-makers on the future promotion anddevelopment of tourism partnerships both in Namibia and worldwide.

Keywords: tourism partnerships; sustainable livelihoods analysis; poverty alleviation;empowerment; Namibia

1. Introduction

Increasingly, donor agencies and implementing NGOs tend to regard the sustainable use ofnatural resources as a creative way to simultaneously promote rural poverty alleviation andnature conservation in resource-rich developing countries. In the meantime, this priorityalso embraces the new donor agenda to achieve some crucial Millennium DevelopmentGoals (MDGs) by 2015.

Namibia is no exception to this trend: the government signed several internationalconventions, including the 2000 United Nations Millennium Declaration (UnitedNations, 2000) setting eight MDGs, and consequently adopted different policy documentsat the national level in order to foster sustainable development.

Within this context, promoting socially and environmentally sustainable tourism is con-sidered a potentially successful strategy to help achieve MDG 1 (end poverty and hunger)

ISSN 1368-3500 print/ISSN 1747-7603 online

# 2011 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/13683500.2011.555521

http://www.informaworld.com

∗Email: renaudlapeyre@hotmail.com

Current Issues in TourismVol. 14, No. 3, April 2011, 221–234

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

and MDG 7 (environmental sustainability). In the document ‘Vision 2030’, the NamibianState recognises that ‘sustainable, low-impact, consumptive and non-consumptive tourism’should contribute to maintain ‘the integrity of (. . .) natural habitats and wildlife populations(. . .) whilst significantly supporting national socio-economic development’ (Section 5).More specifically, the 1995 Policy on Wildlife Management, Utilisation and Tourism inCommunal Areas, the 1995 Policy on Community-Based Tourism Development as wellas the 1996 Nature Conservation Ordinance Amendment Act and the 2002 CommunalLand Reform Act have altogether contributed to provide impoverished rural communitieswith new economic rights over lucrative tourism resources and assets on their land.Through the Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBRNM) programme,local populations registered as a ‘conservancy’, a territorial unit whose natural resources(wildlife) are officially to be owned and managed locally, and are then encouraged andsupported to operate tourism ventures.

Most often, however, rural communities lack the necessary financial capital, businessexpertise and marketing channels to efficiently manage tourism enterprises themselves;as a result, genuine community-based tourism is frequently shown to deliver only fewbenefits to rural dwellers (Goodwin & Santilli, 2009; Lapeyre, forthcoming; Novelli &Gebhardt, 2007). In order to remove these barriers and unlock tourism opportunities for‘previously disadvantaged Namibians’, the donor community has lobbied for the promotionof community–private sector partnerships (called ‘joint ventures’ in Namibia-JV), wherebya local community transfers its right over a natural site (devolved under the new legislationframework) to a skilled private operator that builds and operates tourism infrastructure, andfinancially compensates the community. More recently even, community–public–privatepartnerships (CPPPs) have been promoted. In this model, a donor agency funds the buildingof the lodge infrastructure and transfers its full ownership to the community. At the sametime, the operation of the lodge is sourced out to a better skilled private managingcompany that operates the project on behalf of the community. Promoting this new insti-tutional set-up, donors hope to more surely involve rural communities in tourism anddeliver benefits allegedly associated with joint ventures.

This paper is aimed at evaluating such CPPP arrangement in the case of a mid-markettourism lodge in the northwestern region of Namibia.

First, the theoretical approach that underlines the study is presented: evidence already gath-ered on tourism partnerships is discussed, and it is proposed that we use the sustainable liveli-hoods approach (SLA) in order to better analyse environmental and socio-economic benefitsof a tourism partnership in one conservancy in Namibia. Second, the study site and insti-tutional arrangement is described and the study method is presented. Thereafter, Sections 4and 5 will display research findings and analyse the partnership’s impacts on livelihoodsobserved, respectively, at the community and household levels. Finally, the paper is concluded.

2. The theoretical framework

Many studies have discussed the positive as well as negative effects of ecotourism devel-opment on rural communities in less developed countries (Scheyvens, 1999; Simpson,2008; Spenceley, 2008; Weaver & Lawton, 2007), including the effects on poverty allevia-tion and nature conservation (MDGs 1 and 7).

Following the new paradigm, researchers have further focused their analysis on therelative socio-economic and environmental benefits specifically delivered by tourismpartnerships at the local level. In the literature, such agreements are broadly thought togenerate three essential types of benefits and help achieve the triple bottom line:

222 R. Lapeyre

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

(1) create full-time jobs as well as informal and part-time income opportunities andthus generate revenues for households in a poor and remote rural area (economicsustainability);

(2) foster local empowerment at the individual and collective levels, through training,career development and decision-making sharing (social sustainability); and

(3) generate income for the community as a whole so as to support conservation costs anddistribute some revenues to the broader community (environmental sustainability).

So far, socio-economic achievements of such partnership model have indeed beenobserved. In South America, Stronza (2010) showed that tourism partnerships between alocal community and a private company generated economic returns (employment forlocal people and income distributed to the community fund), strengthened communityorganisation and capacity and expanded network of support. In turn, this has largely con-tributed to create incentives to better manage the common-pool resources of the area.

Similarly in Kenya, Mburu (2002) evaluated the impacts of tourism partnerships inthe Maasai region and found out that both financial returns from the landowners’ perspectiveand economic returns from the society’s point of view are positive on a 25-year time spanwhen a partnership is crafted between the local community and a private tourism partner.In southern Africa, including Namibia, Massyn and Koch (2002), Ashley and Jones(2001) and Roe, Grieg-Gran and Schalken (2001) have assessed social and economicresults of different partnerships between rural communities and private tourism companies.In most cases, results drawn generally conclude that partnerships generate significant incomeat the local level and act as an efficient incentive for nature conservation.

Nevertheless, a large majority of these impact studies tend to only focus on financial andquantifiable benefits, as employment (number of employees, average salary and wage bill),the cash value of goods and services provided by local rural residents (procurement) and theincome paid to the community fund (rental and lease fees and distributed profits). Hence,these results remain mainly at the aggregate level and fail to evaluate impacts, both positiveand negative, at the very local and household levels, with some research about the experi-ences and perceptions of locals.

In this context, it is proposed that we use the SLA so as to better study tourism partner-ships’ socio-economic and environmental benefits at the household and individual levels.The SLA is people-centred and aims at analysing how a policy or a development pro-gramme is able to sustain people’s livelihoods. According to Chambers and Conway:

A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources)and activities required for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can copewith and recover from stresses and shocks maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets,while not undermining the natural resource base. (1992, cited in Scoones, 1998, p. 5)

Following the SLA (Ashley, 2000; DFID, 1999), it is thus suggested here that local actorsare using their assets (human, natural, financial, social and physical stocks of capital availablein the household) in order to adopt strategies and activities that help achieve livelihood out-comes (also analysed as household goals and priorities). In addition, households’ assets aswell as livelihood strategies are largely influenced by the vulnerability context (shocks,trends and seasonality) and policies and institutions; in return, policies and livelihood outcomescan influence these assets and the vulnerability context (households’ resilience to shocks).

Applying this approach empirically allows researchers to assess tourism impactsbeyond the sole direct and financially tangible benefits and rather evaluate a broader

Current Issues in Tourism 223

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

range of impacts, both direct and indirect, on livelihoods, including non-financial (thus non-monetary) benefits. Hence, such an SLA helps to evaluate (1) impacts on households’assets, (2) impacts on household strategies and (3) finally, impacts on household livelihoodgoals and outcomes (Ashley, 2000, p. 13).

While the SLA has been quite widely used in Namibia to assess benefits deliveredby community ventures as campsites and crafts (Murphy & Halstead, 2003; Murphy &Roe, 2004; Murphy & Suich, 2003), it was very seldom specifically applied to the analysisof tourism partnerships’ impacts. In this context, the purpose of this case study is to fillthat gap and use the SLA to examine how a tourism partnership, the Grootberg lodge,has so far contributed to local people’s livelihoods within the #Khoadi-//Hoas conservancy.

3. Study site and methods

The #Khoadi-//Hoas conservancy, situated in the northwestern corner of Namibia (Figure 1),consists of some 362,000 ha and is home to approximately 3500 people (around 650 house-holds). The semi-arid conditions (average 240 mm annual rainfall) make crop farming andstock rearing extremely difficult, and except from few government jobs, formal employmentopportunities are very scarce. As a result, the large majority of people only practise subsis-tence farming of goats, sheep and cattle, and in this context, the development of tourisminfrastructure and activities is now increasingly seen as a potential way to diversify andimprove local community members’ livelihoods.

In 2004, the European Union-funded Namibia Tourism Development Programme(NTDP) invested approximately N$4.5 million in the building of a 100% community-owned lodge on the western border of the conservancy (the Grootberg lodge, see Figure 1).Given its limited managerial capacity, the #Khoadi-//Hoas conservancy was willing toenter into a partnership with a private company to operate and manage efficiently thelodge on its behalf. Hence, in March 2004, a public ‘Request for expressions of interest’was launched in national newspapers so as to invite competitive proposals from privatecompanies interested in signing a ‘lodge management agreement’ with the conservancy.Along the process, all the different bidding companies had to withdraw unfortunately(due to financial constraints and other priorities), and the conservancy was finallyapproached by Ecolodgistix. The company presented a business plan, a forecastedbudget, a management plan, an environmental plan and a financial offer. As Ecolodgistixhad a solid experience in the tourism sector, its proposal was accepted in November2004 and the agreement was finally signed in the beginning of 2005. In the meantime,infrastructure was built and the lodge officially opened at the end of June 2005.

Institutionally, the Grootberg lodge CPPP agreement is a Manage–Operate–Transferback type of business contract. In the latter contract, the #Khoadi-//Hoas conservancyexclusively lets to Ecolodgistix the improvements, lodge site (10 ha) and the associatedtraversing rights over the exclusive area (11,400 ha) solely for the purpose of operatingthe lodge and conducting associated tourism activities. The agreement continues for arenewable period of five years; at termination, the company will transfer, at no cost, allimmoveable assets back to the conservancy, including all improvements made.

Financially, Ecolodgistix must pay 15% of the lodge net turnover to the conservancy(after VAT, NTB levy and tour operator commissions); in return, Ecolodgistix gets amanagement fee of 15% of the net turnover and 20% of the net profit (after tax), ifpositive. The remaining 80% of the net profit is then allocated to a contingency fund forrefurbishment and repairs of the lodge (outside the normal operator’s maintenance andrepairs budget).

224 R. Lapeyre

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

The agreement stipulates rights and duties of both parties. On the one hand, the conser-vancy is contractually compelled to control tourism activities in area as well as to excludeother tour operators and private individuals from operating tourism facilities and activitieswithin the exclusive area. On the other hand, the private company is bound to pay leasefees, maintain the lodge infrastructure and improvements, and similarly abide to both anenvironmental and an empowerment plan.

The empowerment plan includes binding commitments on staff recruitment, trainingand procurement of local goods and services from conservancy members. Practically,this first means that a total of 21 staff are to be recruited from within the conservancy, asfar as possible. Furthermore, in addition to an initial formal training period, staffmembers are to receive ongoing training. Ecolodgistix is also to identify suitable localstaff members to be trained and promoted to a management position by the end of thefifth year. Finally, Ecolodgistix ensures that the conservancy committee will be an integralpart of the decision-making process in respect of all human resources matters, staffdisciplinary action that may arise, and all new developments in and around the lodge, aswell as environmental and conservation issues.

Figure 1. The #Khoadi-//Hoas conservancy and the Grootberg lodge: geographical location.Source: Namibia Association for CBNRM Support Organisations (NACSO) website: http://www.nacso.org.na/SOC_profiles/conservancyprofile.php?ConsNum=14.

Current Issues in Tourism 225

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

In order to enforce such contractual obligations and monitor the relationship, a JointManagement Committee (JMC) was set up, consisting of three representatives of eachpartner, which meet at least once every quarter. It solves problems when they arise andnegotiates issues that could not be covered in the contract. Importantly, the JMC shouldpropose candidates for employment and facilitate the resolution of any employment orother lodge-related dispute.

Data about livelihood impacts of the Grootberg lodge partnership were collected duringtwo field research phases conducted, respectively, in 2006 and 2007. General backgrounddata about the lodge institutional arrangement and history were collected in September2006, and in-depth interviews with key informants were also done, including both lodge man-agers (the private company), the conservancy chairman, the conservancy coordinator, severalNGO staff members and two NTDP directors. Following this first phase, in August 2007, weadministered semi-structured livelihood questionnaires to staff members of the Grootberglodge (17 interviewed over 23 permanent employees, i.e. 74% response rate). Additionally,direct and participant observation during our 2007 long-term field work allowed us to getbetter insight on the reality of livelihood impacts and change, and secondary data ontourism development in Namibia and in the #Khoadi-//Hoas conservancy were collected in2006 and 2007. In 2009, a last field visit at the Grootberg lodge site finally allowed us todouble-check all past information gathered and fill research gaps and discrepancies.

4. Study results: impacts of the Grootberg lodge partnership at the community level

4.1 The financial and environmental impact at the community level: does it make adifference?

As a result of heavy fixed operating costs (including loans to repay) when compared withthe growing but still insufficient net turnover, no variable fee was distributed from July2005 to August 2007 either to Ecolodgistix (15% management fees) or to the conservancy(15% lease fees). The lodge thus owes money to the conservancy. This amounted toN$233,376 for the financial year that ended in February 2007, and to N$64,144 for the 8months of the financial year that ended in February 2006. In 2007, subsequently thelodge managers were advised to set aside a flat amount monthly and distribute it to the con-servancy trust fund. While this is not in accordance with the signed agreement (the latterdetermines only variable fees at 15% of the net turnover), the payment of this minimumflat fee was thought to mitigate rising conflicts and quieten the increasing community’sdiscontent down. As a result, N$60,000 was distributed to the conservancy in 2007.

Albeit limited, this money, together with other sources of funds (hunting contracts,NGOs’ grants, etc.), enables the conservancy to cover its natural resource management(NRM) costs and deliver some collective benefits to its members (donations to schools, dis-tribution of food to pensioners, etc.). Most importantly, this partly allows the conservancy tohire eight community game guards to look after the environment in the area and controlillegal activities such as poaching. Furthermore, the Grootberg lodge area was chosen bythe Ministry of Environment and Tourism to reintroduce two black rhinos. The goal was(and still is) to reintroduce endangered species in their original home range and allowlocal communities to benefit from photographic tourism activities based on these high-value species. In this regard, in July 2006, the lodge started to organise rhino-trackingexcursions to increase its net turnover and distribute part of the associated money to thecommunity; from July 2006 to June 2007, N$71,850 was thus generated through thisnew activity. However, up to now, the total of the lodge’s financial contribution to the

226 R. Lapeyre

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

#Khoadi-//Hoas conservancy has remained marginal and insufficient for the conservancyto reach its environment and development objectives.

4.2 Empowerment at the collective level: towards real community decision-makingand responsibility in tourism?

Unlike most cases of private lodges operated on communal land, the Grootberg partnershipstructure allows the community (via the conservancy committee) to gain some decision-making power and influence important decisions via the JMC.

In this regard, our survey results show evidence that this agreement potentially reducesemployees’ vulnerability as it avoids discretionary measures taken by the private party (thethreat of being fired without prior warning). Out of 17 employees interviewed, sevenrespondents (41.2%) said that they feel more secure because the conservancy is involvedin all employment matters and issues, and further 23.5% of staff declared that their jobwas more stable than in a private project (Table 1). First, as contractually agreed, theconservancy committee is rightfully involved in recruitment procedures. For instance,all workers hired in 2005 were candidates shortlisted and proposed by the conservancyitself. Interviews were done jointly by Ecolodgistix and the conservancy. This is confirmedby a 27-year-old male guide: ‘the group of people which is working here has been recruitedby the community. On the contrary, the Nawa Nawa lodge [an other lodge in the vicinity ofWindhoek] is private; so the private decided on its own’. Since then, when they need to fill aposition, lodge managers normally contact the conservancy to get a candidate. Second,disciplinary hearings, and eventually firing, are also carried out in coordination with theconservancy and the JMC. As summarised by a 25-year-old guide from the lodge,

[the] problem will be better solved in a community lodge, because we take problems to theconservancy committee and then to traditional authorities. After, the management of lodgewill take the decision. In a private lodge, your chances of getting fired are very highbecause they don’t have to consult anybody.

In such a co-management structure, where the community fully owns the lodge infra-structure, a stronger sense of responsibility and willingness to contribute to the projectdevelopment are also expected to be observed.

First, when asked about the feeling that they have for working for a community lodge,41.8% said that through their work, they were supporting the broader community. Thus,

Table 1. Employment relations in the Grootberg lodge partnership.

How are employment relations in this partnership, when comparedwith relations in a private project?

No. ofrespondents % (n ¼ 17)

Good because employment problems are dealt with through theconservancy

7 41.18

Good because we can discuss with the managers here, which is notthe case in private lodges

3 17.65

Good because the job is safer/less volatile than in private lodges 4 23.53There is nothing different 1 5.88n/a 4 23.53

Source: Author.Note: Several possible answers were allowed; thus, figures add to more than 100%.

Current Issues in Tourism 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

they felt that the community was looking at them (sense of responsibility). The respondentsclearly linked their efforts to community benefits, as illustrated by a young waitress(20 years old) who declared: ‘if the lodge makes more profits, the conservancy is providingpeople in need with money. For example, if elephants break dams, then conservancy [also]helps’. Indeed, this acts as peer pressure and spurs the staff to work harder. In the words of a42-year-old female chef ‘if you work, the community is looking to you, and they see you arethe community chef. The community looks on us to make the lodge more higher’.

Secondly, 70.6% of employees interviewed declared that they felt that it was their lodgeand thus they had to take care of it and develop it for the future (willingness to contribute).This proves that community ownership provides the staff and the broader community withpositive incentives by tying efforts and investment with rewards and benefits; indeed, theconservancy benefits in the present and in the future from jobs and revenues generatedby the lodge. The employees interviewed felt this strongly and were prone to better main-tain infrastructure and help to improve it. For example, a rhino tracker told us that he felt‘good because it’s community thing, that’s why [he] built the swimming pool withoutasking any extra money to the manager, because it’s a community thing’. As the lodge iscommunity owned, workers know that the conservancy (themselves as well as theirchildren) will capture the future stream of benefits from that ‘free’ effort. This profoundlycontrasts with an employment relationship in a strictly private project, as illustrated by theyoung security guard: ‘if I leave from here one day, my child can also get a job here’.

Unfortunately, some problems remain and the conservancy seems not to be fullyempowered in the Grootberg lodge partnership. Concerning employment procedures,several recent cases have been reported where employees were hired or fired without therecommendation, involvement and consent of the conservancy committee. As stated bythe conservancy chairman, ‘in the beginning it went well, [but] something has derailedrecently’. Similarly, partners are now seldom meeting in the JMC (not quarterly as stipu-lated in the contract), and unannounced absences on scheduled meetings are quitecommon. This was also summed up by the lodge manager, ‘relations are seating in greyarea now with the conservancy’.

While the situation is not irreversible yet, a continuing lack of communication andcooperation could in fine limit the community’s involvement in tourism operations andundermine the conservancy’s capacity to share some decision-making power and thus beempowered for the future.

5. Study results: livelihood impacts of the Grootberg lodge partnership at thehousehold and individual levels

5.1 Towards rural poverty alleviation? Building local residents’ assets and diversifyingstrategies for improved livelihood outcomes

According to our survey data, men represented 53% of our sample, while there were 47%female respondents. The average age of respondents was around 32 years and the averageeducation level was quite low, between grades 9 and 10 (only one employee went for adiploma at the university). Geographically, most employees at the lodge were from arural and farming background within the conservancy: 47% of the workers (eight respon-dents) were staying in Anker, a semi-urban settlement, but were tightly related to theirfamily farm where they stay for long periods; and further 47% of staff members livedpermanently in the farms within the conservancy. Based on these results, it is argued thatthe Grootberg lodge partnership improves livelihoods for poor, young and low-qualified

228 R. Lapeyre

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

rural residents, both male and female, and their respective households; in this regard, itcould be well characterised as being potentially pro-poor (Ashley & Goodwin, 2007;Goodwin, 2009).

First, following a life history methodology (Davis, 2006), the lodge employees’ liveli-hood trajectories were analysed as schematically displayed in Figure 2. Most strikingly, amajority of employees (52.9%) did not have any formal job before they were hired at theGrootberg lodge (period t 2 1 in Figure 2); most of them were thus solely taking care oflivestock at their family farm and could only casually earn some cash from small jobs(e.g. building houses, making kraals, tattooing animals, cleaning houses, etc.). In anycase, this income was neither formal and sufficient, nor regular. Moreover, out of thenine previously unemployed lodge employees, two were in this situation for a very longperiod or since they left school (period t 2 2 in Figure 2), and in two other cases(11.8%), this job was the first one just after completing school or university. In total, infour cases (23.5%), this job at the Grootberg lodge was the very first one.

When invited to recall even earlier periods (period t 2 2 in Figure 2), five employeesout of 17 (29.4%) declared that they were working in a lodge or had a job related to tourism(two respondents even contributed to build the Grootberg lodge). Conversally, fiverespondents (29.4%) were unemployed and staying at a farm, and a further 23.5% (fourout of 17) worked only casually and on a part-time basis for NGO or governmentprogrammes (literacy programme, Red Cross and elections’ commission). In both thelast cases cited, revenues were low and unstable at best, and inexistent at worst. In thiscontext, working at the lodge proves a real economic opportunity in such a remoteregion where few other employment possibilities exist.

Figure 2. Grootberg lodge employees’ life histories.Source: Author.

Current Issues in Tourism 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

From our sample, the 17 work positions filled were as follows: one security guard andone maintenance worker, three housekeeping staff, two waitresses, two chefs (kitchen),three rhino trackers, three tour guides and two assistant managers (acting also as barmanand waitress). Excluding food rations distributed, the average salary was estimated atN$832 (US$107.5 in October 2009). Wages ranged from N$590 for waitresses/waitersand housekeeping staff up to N$800 for rhino trackers, N$1200 for guides and finallyN$1500 for the local acting assistant manager. In total, this amounts to a monthly wagebill of N$19,150.

Importantly, employment at the lodge stands as the main source of revenue formost employees. Forty-one percent of the employees (seven respondents) declared thatthis salary was their sole source of income, and a further 23.5% of the respondents (fouremployees) said that they received some additional cash, but only from tips given bytourists at the lodge. In contrast, only 35% (six respondents) could generate limited extramoney from selling livestock or received remittances from family members.

In a context where ‘livelihoods (. . .) are becoming increasingly divorced from farmingand (. . .) land’ (Rigg, 2006, p.180), especially in arid and semi-arid areas, diversifyingsources of revenue towards non-farm economic activities is critical to managing risk andadopting successful livelihood strategies for households (Bryceson, 2002). It was indeedshown elsewhere that income diversification, including formal sector employment, consti-tutes a pathway to escape poverty (Krishna, 2009; Kristjanson, Mango, Krishna, Radeny, &Johnson, 2009). In this regard, such constant and secure tourism wages received at theGrootberg lodge allow employees to better sustain their livelihoods, reduce theirvulnerability to external shocks (accidents, funeral, loss of job, etc.) and open new oppor-tunities in the future. Hence, when asked about livelihood changes attributable to theirnew employment at the lodge, 47% cited the salary as the most important improvement,a further 18% declared that this mainly brought a material change, and finally, 29.5%were satisfied because they were not dependent on other people any more (Table 2).

On the one hand, employees could now buy personal items, but also could obtain andrepay loans in order to achieve consumption smoothing as well as to invest in durable goodsand equipment, such as furniture (bed) or DVD/CD players.

On the other hand, respondents declared that they were also using their wages to buildup their physical, financial and human capital. First, three staff members (17.65%) wereable to pay a herder to look after their livestock (when working at the lodge), one employee

Table 2. Significant changes brought by the Grootberg tourism partnership.

Which type of significant change did that job at the lodge bringto you?

No. ofrespondents % (n ¼ 17)

I get a salary at the end of the montha 8 47.06Financially/materially, it’s bettera 3 17.65I can support family members 7 41.18I am not dependent on other people any more 5 29.41I am learning/practicing 8 47.06It’s better: not specified/other reasonsb 5 29.41There was no change 2 11.76

Source: Author.Note: Several possible answers were allowed; thus, figures add to more than 100%.aAnswers in the two first rows are exclusive from each other.bReasons include (1) the fact that the work place is closer to home than the previous job (three occurrences) and (2)the fact that the manager is easier to work with than in previous job (one occurrence) and (3) it’s not specified.

230 R. Lapeyre

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

(5.88%) stated that she bought some diesel for the pump to water her livestock at farm andtwo respondents (11.76%) have managed to buy livestock from their salary. Second, 88%declared that they were trying each month to deposit and save some money at the bank.Finally, two respondents (11.76%) were using their wages to pass examinations and geta higher diploma from technical schools or the University of Namibia. In all cases, buildingtheir assets will eventually allow community members to better cope with the vulnerabilitycontext (e.g. selling livestock to pay for health costs) and adopt more efficient strategies inthe future, and thus achieve higher livelihood outcomes.

Thanks to these tourism revenues, 16 employees (out of 17 interviewed) could furthersupport one or more of their family dependents. This change was perceived as the mostimportant livelihood improvement by 41% of our sample (Table 2). In most cases, thissupport was provided either by directly giving cash to family members (94%), albeit notregularly, or by paying for food (47%) and clothes (41%). Most importantly even, 64.7%of the employees could use their revenue to cover fees for schools and hostels for theirchildren and their family members’ children. In total, it was found that each respondentsupported on average four other people, whether financially or in kind. As a result,taking our sample of 17 employees, the lodge delivers benefits for a total of 85 people(17 employees in the sample and 68 dependents). Taking the total number of employeesworking at the Grootberg lodge (23), it was thus estimated that the lodge contributes(both financially and non-financially) to the livelihoods of 115 rural people in the#Khoadi-//Hoas area (23 employees and 92 dependents).

5.2 Empowerment outcomes

Communities are not only concerned with financial revenues (lease fees), employmentopportunities and material livelihood changes derived from tourism partnerships with theprivate sector, but also value non-financial benefits, via training, capacity-building andinvolvement in decision-making, as proved by the number of empowerment obligationsincluded in the signed agreement. In this context, this partnership lodge model is thoughtto be better designed to successfully foster individual empowerment.

In our sample, 59% of the respondents attended at least one formal training session(10 out of 17): five employees (29.5%) were trained for six weeks in housekeeping andkitchen skills (chef) at the Desert Homestead Lodge, three employees were trained as‘rhino trackers’ by the NGO Save the Rhino Trust (SRT) and finally, three employeesattended a guide training session for two weeks with the well-renowned Wilderness SafarisNamibia (WSN) company. In addition, ongoing on-the-job training was also provided: onelady chef came for three months to the lodge to train kitchen employees and another ladycame from South Africa for two weeks to provide on-site housekeeping training.

In total, our data show the importance of training benefits for rural dwellers in the area.Eight respondents (47%) declared that this job has contributed to the improvement of theirlivelihoods because it provided them with training and learning opportunities and enhancedtheir skills and human capital (Table 2). The respondents cited English language knowledgeand communication as two important skills that they could gain through the job. Forinstance, the 42-year-old female chef told us:

Now I have more information to cook everything. That time, my English was not good. I couldnot speak. Now it’s coming better. It’s better for me now; I have got more info how to work withguests since I started working. My language is coming up. When I started here, everythingchanged.

Current Issues in Tourism 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

In another case, one employee was financially supported by the lodge to get his driver’slicence. Furthermore, the work enables employees with qualifications to practise and thusmaintain their human capital. As stated by a 27-year-old waitress/assistant manager, ‘whenyou don’t work, it’s waste of valuable knowledge you have. Now I use what I know,like computer. In the past, I was [just] lying around or invited to workshops’. In fine,improved skills are strongly associated with better livelihood opportunities and strategiesin the future.

As stated above, Ecolodgistix is also further required to promote a certain number oflocal staff to higher, middle or senior management positions. On this issue, our studyshows evidence that 35.3% of the sample had already been promoted to a higher positionsince they started at the lodge. Out of those promoted, two changed from housekeeping tocooking, one from rhino tracking to field guiding and one even changed from maintenanceto horse keeping and then to rhino tracking. In the remaining two cases, employees werepromoted from lower positions as barman and waitress to become assistant managers, ascontractually agreed. Benefiting from this career development strategy, a majority ofemployees who were interviewed said that their wage had been raised at least once sincethey had started at the lodge (11 respondents, i.e. 64.7%).

Results concerning the transfer of some decision-making power at the employees’ levelprove more mitigated. On the one side, 47% of the sample responded that in this partnershipmodel, where the conservancy is seemingly a strong stakeholder, they felt that they hadmore power to take autonomous decisions and make propositions to their managers.Hence, according to a 40-year-old rhino tracker, a partnership project is highly preferableto a strictly private one because, in his words, ‘in other lodges (. . .) with private companies,you don’t have much to say about that lodge’. On the other hand, however, around a third ofthe sample (29.4%) felt that they had de facto no greater power to decide on the lodge oper-ation, and four staff members could not answer this question. According to a 25-year-oldfemale chef, ‘it’s just a normal job’. Indeed, the agreement contractually provides for thetransfer of management rights and power to the private company; as a result, the privateoperator holds most decision-making power and responsibilities, as clearly explained bya newly hired tour guide: ‘due to the fact that management is outsourced, we don’t makedecisions. Due to that, we don’t feel 100% community lodge’.

6. Conclusion

In this paper, potential socio-economic as well as environmental results of a new CPPParrangement in tourism have been discussed, as illustrated by a case study in the#Khoadi-//Hoas conservancy. As massive tourism funding in Namibia is currentlyredirected towards the development of such partnerships in rural areas, careful researchis to be conducted so as to validate or, on the contrary, invalidate the reality of CPPPoutcomes as alleged by policy-makers and practitioners. In this regard, this paper originallycontributes to the growing body of tourism literature on partnerships’ impacts in lessdeveloped countries and thus is policy relevant.

First, it shows some evidence of positive environmental effects (contribution toMDG 7). The Grootberg lodge partnership has so far been found to help distributingsome money to the #Khoadi-//Hoas conservancy so as to partly cover its NRM costs.Strikingly also, the partnership has paved the way for the successful reintroduction oftwo black rhinos in the area; hence, at the end of 2009, the endangered black rhinopopulation in the conservancy had increased to seven and black-faced impalas were alsoto be reintroduced in the future.

232 R. Lapeyre

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Second, building on the SLA and applying it to an almost unique analysis of livelihoodchanges brought by a tourism partnership, this paper could draw results about the indirectand non-financial livelihood impacts for employees and their families. In particular,evidence has been shown that the partnership positively contributes to building localhouseholds’ assets, including human capital through training, fostering empowerment,decreasing farmers’ vulnerability and diversifying livelihood strategies in a risky environ-ment. In fine, this could efficiently help to tackle multi-dimensional aspects of rural povertyand achieve MDG 1 by 2015.

Nonetheless, it is acknowledged that the existence of such positive livelihood benefitsdelivered by this partnership is highly context related and depends on close relationshipsbetween partners. In other words, employees’ perceptions, empowerment and the transferof some decision-making power largely depend on trust between partners, responsiblebehaviour of community leaders and the degree of willingness and openness of theprivate operator. These elements are often empirically unpredictable and intangible, andcould explain most of the results observed on these grounds. As a result, this should callfor the systematic development of more case studies using the SLA to analyse partnerships’relative effects, including the non-financial aspects of these, in order to better design andmonitor this new institutional model and ensure its future sustainability.

ReferencesAshley, C. (2000). The impacts of tourism on rural livelihoods: Namibia’s experience (ODI Working

Paper, 128). London: Overseas Development Institute.Ashley, C., & Goodwin, H. (2007). ‘Pro poor tourism’ – what’s gone right and what’s gone wrong?

(Overseas Development Institute Opinion, 80) London: Overseas Development Institute.Ashley, C., & Jones, B. (2001). Joint ventures between communities and tourism investors:

Experience in southern Africa. International Journal of Tourism Research, 3(2), 407–423.Bryceson, D.F. (2002). The scramble in Africa: Reorienting rural livelihoods. World Development,

30(5), 725–739.Davis, P. (2006). Poverty in time: Exploring poverty dynamics from life history interviews in

Bangladesh (CPRC Working Paper, 69). Manchester: Chronic Poverty Research Centre.DFID. (1999). Sustainable livelihoods guidance sheets. London: Author.Goodwin, H. (2009). Reflections on 10 years of pro-poor tourism. Journal of Policy Research in

Tourism, Leisure and Events, 1(1), 90–94.Goodwin, H., & Santilli, R. (2009). Community-based tourism: A success? (ICRT Occasional Paper,

11. Leeds: The International Centre for Responsible Tourism (ICRT) & Deutsche Gesellschaftfur Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ).

Krishna, A. (2009). Subjective assessments, participatory methods, and poverty dynamics. Thestages of progress method. In T. Addison, D. Hulme, & R. Kanbur (Eds.), Poverty dynamics.Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 183–201). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kristjanson, P., Mango, N., Krishna, A., Radeny, M., & Johnson, N. (2009). Understanding povertydynamics in Kenya. Journal of International Development, 22(7), 978–996.

Lapeyre, R. forthcoming. For what stands the B in the CBT concept, community-based or community-biased tourism? [Special issue on Tourism in Africa]. Journal of Tourism Analysis: anInterdisciplinary Journal, 16(1&2).

Massyn, P.J., & Koch, E. (2002). African Safari lodges and rural incomes, an overview of case studiesin six countries of southern Africa. Johannesburg: MAFISA & the Ford Foundation.

Mburu, J. (2002, November). Challenges of partnerships in tourism projects: The case of Kimana andGolini-Mwaluganje Sanctuaries in Kenya. Paper presented at the seminar on eco-tourism andnature parks in east and southern Africa, African Studies centre, Leiden.

Murphy, C., & Halstead, L. (2003). ‘The person with the idea for the campsite is a hero’. Institutionalarrangements and livelihood change of community-owned tourism enterprises in Namibia(DEA Research Discussion Paper, 61). Windhoek: Directorate of Environmental Affairs,Ministry of Environment and Tourism.

Current Issues in Tourism 233

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014

Murphy, C., & Roe, D. (2004). Livelihoods and tourism in communal area conservancies. In S.A.Long (Ed.), Livelihoods and CBNRM in Namibia: The findings of the WILD project. FinalTechnical Report of the Wildlife Integration for the 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 (pp.119–138). Windhoek: Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism.

Murphy, C., & Suich, H. (2003). Mashi Craft Market – crafts and livelihoods in Caprivi (DEAResearch Discussion Paper, 57). Windhoek: Directorate of Environmental Affairs, Ministry ofEnvironment and Tourism.

Novelli, M., & Gebhardt, K. (2007). Community based tourism in Namibia: ‘Reality show’ or‘window dressing’? Current Issues in Tourism, 10(5), 443–479.

Rigg, J. (2006). Land, farming, livelihoods, and poverty: Rethinking the links in the rural South.World Development, 34(1), 180–202.

Roe, D., Grieg-Gran, M., & Schalken, W. (2001). Getting the lion’s share from tourism: Privatesector-community partnerships in Namibia volume 1. Background report and review ofexperience. Poverty, Inequality and Environment Series, 1. Windhoek: IIED in Associationwith NACOBTA.

Scheyvens, R. (1999). Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. TourismManagement, 20, 245–249.

Scoones, I. (1998). Sustainable rural livelihoods: A framework for analysis (IDS Working Papers,72). Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.

Simpson, M.C. (2008). Community benefit tourism initiatives – a conceptual oxymoron? TourismManagement, 29, 1–18.

Spenceley, A. (2008). Local impacts of community-based tourism in southern Africa. In A. Spenceley(Ed.), Responsible tourism: Critical issues for conservation and development (pp. 285–304).London: Earthscan.

Stronza, A. (2010). Commons management and ecotourism: Ethnographic evidence from theAmazon. International Journal of the Commons, 4(1), 56–77.

United Nations. (2000, September 8). United Nations Millennium Declaration. United NationsGeneral Assembly Resolution 2 Session 55, New York.

Weaver, D.B., & Lawton, L.J. (2007). Twenty years on: The state of contemporary ecotourismresearch. Tourism Management, 28, 1168–1179.

234 R. Lapeyre

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

UQ

Lib

rary

] at

15:

37 1

6 N

ovem

ber

2014