Treesleeper Eco-camp Changing dynamics and institutions in a community-based tourism project in Namibia Mariska Bijsterbosch MSc thesis Forest and Nature Conservation Wageningen University August 2016 Treesleeper Eco-camp Changing dynamics and institutions in a community-based tourism project in Namibia Mariska Bijsterbosch 881117-153-020 [email protected] MSc Thesis Forest and Nature Conservation Policy FNP-80436 Wageningen University Supervisors: Dr. V.J. Ingram Wageningen UR WU Environmental Sciences Forest and Nature Conservation Policy Group (FNP) Dr. S.P. Koot Wageningen UR WU Social Sciences Sociology of Development and Change (SDC) Wageningen, August 2016 Disclaimer: This MSc report may not be copied in whole or in parts without permission of the author and the chair group. This report was written to be as accurate and complete as possible. The author nor Wageningen University are liable for any direct or indirect losses arising from utilisation of this report. Front cover photos: tree deck camp 5 (28-Mar-2016); tree house camp 2 (25-Mar-2016); unfinished family house (07-May-2016). Photos by the author. Acknowledgements This report was completed as the end product of my Master thesis at the Wageningen University. Looking back on the last months I can say I have experienced an amazing adventure, and learned many things of Namibia which I did not had yet discovered. I would not have been able to complete my report without the help of several people. My sincere gratitude goes out to everybody who has been involved in my thesis project. Firstly I would like to thank the people of Treesleeper and the Tsintsabis Trust, and in particular Moses //Khumûb, the manager of Treesleeper. When I arrived in Tsumeb, feeling a bit outlandish, Moses picked me up. On our way to Tsintsabis he told me passionately about Treesleeper, the life in Tsintsabis, and the struggle that they as San are going through. Coming to Treesleeper, and seeing my very own treehouse made me realize I was very lucky to spend my time here. Moses patiently answered all my questions and helped me settling in. I also would like to thank Simon Saroseb and Michael Ivanga of Treesleeper for all their help and kindness. I would like to thank all respondents of my interviews, for giving valuable information during my interviews and observations. Without their information I never would have been able to compile this report. I am very grateful to the people in Tsintsabis, it is remarkable to see how friendly and kind the community members are, despite the fact that most of them don’t have much. I felt really welcome in their village. I would also like to thank my translator, Elvis //Gamanseb, who helped me with the translations, and who acted as an important contact person. Without his help it would have been much harder for me to have met the community members. I am also very grateful to Erick Keimseb, the principle of the Tsintsabis Junior Secondary School, who provided me with a place where I could work. Furthermore I would like to thank my supervisors from the Wageningen University, Verina Ingram and Stasja Koot. I am very grateful for all their support, advice and feedback during the preparation period of my fieldwork, and during the writing of this report. Last but not least I want to thank all my friends and family, for their support. I know I have made life hard sometimes to some close family members, by going to Namibia on my own, to a village where I did not know anybody. But I came back as a richer person, with many experiences and good memories. To everybody, thank you, baie dankie! Mariska Bijsterbosch Wageningen, August 2016 ii Abstract Namibia has become a popular tourist destination over the years. The Namibian government is an proponent of Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) and Community-Based Tourism (CBT), as these programmes aim to link conservation with development. In 2004 the community-based camp-site Treesleeper started in Tsintsabis, aiming to show the rich culture of the Hai//om and !Xun San, while creating camp possibilities for tourists, and providing an income for the Tsintsabis San community. Over the years visitor numbers increased to up to 966 in 2009, and Treesleeper became an example of a successful CBT-project. Community members fulfilled the employment-roles within Treesleeper, and an income was generated for craft sellers and traditional singers and dancers. Trainings were provided by Treesleeper, and profits were given back to the community in the form of donations. In 2009 Treesleeper received a grant from the Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET), to upgrade the camp-site to a lodge. Despite the good intentions and high expectations of this grant, the construction which started in 2011 was stopped in 2013, while none of the buildings were finished. The financial situation of Treesleeper worsened since 2013, as tourists stayed away, and not enough income was generated to support employees, nor the community of Tsintsabis. A case-study approach was used to examine what happened at Treesleeper, thereby aiming at understanding how economic, social and political aspects shaped the institutional processes in and around Treesleeper. By drawing on institutions, I explored how design principles, as created by Ostrom (1990), and later adapted by Agrawal and Chhatre (2006) and Cox et al. (2010), were reflected in Treesleeper and whether they were helpful in explaining the current situation of Treesleeper. These ten design principles are seen as prerequisites for stable and robust institutions, which are needed to have a successful and enduring CBT-project. Data for this qualitative study was gathered in the form of interviews (n=45), participant observations and documents. By explaining how the situation at Treesleeper worsened, this study showed some important insights in what is necessary for successful CBT-projects. Treesleeper, a community-owned project, showed to be successful as visitor numbers went up, more employees were hired, and benefits flowed back into the community. The involvement of MET regarding the upgrade changed the dynamics of Treesleeper, as MET led the decision-making process about the upgrade, and Treesleeper lost part of its control over the project. The unfished structures are government property, and Treesleeper is not allowed to influence matters concerning this upgrade. Instead, they have to await an assessment which is performed by the Ministry of Works and Transport (MWT). Visitor numbers tumbled downwards, to about 150 in 2015. As Treesleeper was no longer able to bring benefits back into the community, Treesleeper stopped with having community meetings, which created an information gap among the community members. Old community disputes intensified, as more suspicion was fostered among some community members, thereby spreading allegations about the management of Treesleeper. When these findings are examined in the light of the design principles, it is evident that the institutional performance of Treesleeper decreased from a robust to a fragile state. The principle ‘recognition of rights to operate’ is heavily challenged by MET, while having ownership and control is one of the main characteristics of a successful CBT-project. The principles ‘congruence with local conditions and appropriation and provision’ and ‘collective choice arrangements’ became weaker, as the majority of the community is no longer informed, nor involved. The results of this case study contribute to our understanding of what is necessary for a successful CBT-project, by showing that local control and ownership, as well as community involvement are important key factors in community-tourism projects. Key words: community tourism, institutions, design principles, Tsintsabis, Namibia iii Table of contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... ii Abstract .......................................................................................................................................................... iii List of acronyms ............................................................................................................................................. vi List of figures ................................................................................................................................................. vii List of tables .................................................................................................................................................. vii 1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Problem description .............................................................................................................................. 2 1.2 Research aim and questions .................................................................................................................. 4 1.3 Thesis structure ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Theoretical Framework ............................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Institutions ...........................................................................................................................................