the role of tourism in natural resource management in the okavango ...

Delta. Even though attempts have been made to draw local communities into the
benefit stream through Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM)
tourism ventures, the approach is problematic and has, to date, performed poorly.
This is largely because local people lack the necessary entrepreneurial and
managerial skills, and often motivation, to effectively utilise and manage the
resources in their area to produce significant economic benefits and returns, and to
participate as equals in the tourism industry. The opportunity for the local control and
management of natural resources in the Okavango Delta exists, but to date has not
been significantly or successfully exploited by the local communities. As such,
negative attitudes towards wildlife and its conservation in the Okavango Delta, and
elsewhere, prevail. This suggests that strategies should be developed to emphasize
further local participation and enhance the use of local knowledge, materials and
labour in order for local people to obtain meaningful benefits from the tourism
industry. Local empowerment, especially the provision of entrepreneurial and
managerial skills that will lead to more local involvement in the tourism industry,
needs to be given priority (Mbaiwa, 2002).
Despite the enthusiasm with which both the government and non-governmental
agencies implemented the CBNRM approach since the 1990s, resulting in an
impressive array of CBNRM projects across the region, the real success stories
remain somewhat isolated, and (unsurprisingly) many difficulties and challenges
have emerged. For some (particularly those from the old preservationist school),
these mean that the entire approach is fundamentally flawed and should be
abandoned altogether. For others, continuing innovation is required if the successes
are to be replicated and be made sustainable over the long term (Cassidy and
Jansen, 1999).
Elements of the critique of CBNRM include: fewer economic benefits to local people
than were anticipated, and therefore fewer incentives for biodiversity conservation;
lack of evidence of positive impacts on biodiversity; na·ive assumptions about the
coherence of rural 'communities', and the underestimation of the difficulties of joint
decision making; problems in developing strong and effective local institutions; lack
of political commitment to devolution of decision making powers; the often cited
capture of benefits by bureaucrats in intermediate institutions; and arguments that
393