1.2 Contact details of resource persons and institutions involved in the assessment and documentation of the Approach

Name of project which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

NamibRand Nature Reserve

Name of the institution(s) which facilitated the documentation/ evaluation of the Approach (if relevant)

Namibia University of Science and Technology ( NUST) - Namibia

1.3 Conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT

When were the data compiled (in the field)?

01/11/2017

The compiler and key resource person(s) accept the conditions regarding the use of data documented through WOCAT:

Yes

2.1 Short description of the Approach

Seventeen former sheep farms have been joined to form the world’s largest private nature reserve aimed at regenerating biodiversity to support high-quality low-impact tourism, environmental education and research. All farm owners are members of the management association.

2.2 Detailed description of the Approach

Detailed description of the Approach:

The NamibRand Nature Reserve is a not-for-profit organisation in south-western Namibia. It was founded in 1984 through the initiative of one farm owner, Albi Brueckner, who agreed, with 16 neighbouring farmers, to jointly manage their 215,000 ha for nature conservation and tourism. Its aims are:
 To conserve biodiversity for the benefit of future generations and protect the sensitive and fragile environment.
 To create a nature reserve with a healthy and functioning ecosystem, providing a sanctuary for flora and fauna, and to facilitate seasonal migratory routes in partnership with neighbours.
 To promote sustainable utilisation – through ecologically sustainable and high-quality tourism and other projects.
 To achieve a commercially viable operation to ensure continuity and financial independence.
The NamibRand Nature Reserve’s contributions to biodiversity conservation, in accordance with the environmental management plan, include the following:
• Removal of over 2,000 km of fencing to reinstate wildlife migration routes.
• Re-introduction of giraffe and cheetah.
• Bolstering numbers of red hartebeest and plains zebra.
• Removal of alien invasive vegetation such as Prosopis species and replacing these with indigenous Acacias.
• Zonation according to land use areas, including the setting aside 15% of the reserve as a wilderness area.
• Limiting overnight visitors to an average of one bed per 1,000 ha, and 25 beds per location.
• Conducting annual game counts, with results posted on the website www.namibrand.org
• Monitoring the endemic Hartmann’s mountain zebra through the use of camera traps. Results are at: http://www.nnf.org.na/project/mountain-zebra-project/13/1/12.html
• Continuous monitoring of drivers and determinants of environmental change to guide the management plan. Results are posted online at: http://www.landscapesnamibia.org/sossusvlei-namib/rainfall-monitoring
• Hosting researchers to study game migration routes. Results of wildlife monitoring, through the use of GPS collars are at: http://www.landscapesnamibia.org/sossusvlei-namib/research
• Hosting the Namib Desert Environmental Education Trust (NaDEET), to empower and educate schoolchildren for a sustainable future. It operates an environmental education and sustainable living centre (www.nadeet.org).
• A lighting management plan to qualify as an international dark sky reserve that avoids negative consequences of light pollution on biodiversity – which can interfere with animal navigation, reduce the hunting success of predators and prevent moths from pollinating (http://www.darksky.org/idsp/reserves/namibrand)
• A water management plan, including monitoring of the impact of a water hole on the surrounding vegetation.
• Implementation of tourism and land use zonation plans.
• Capture and sale of live game for wildlife population management purposes.
• Plans to develop a horticultural project to grow indigenous medicinal plants for commercial production, creating local jobs and income for conservation.
Rangeland management is achieved largely through continual monitoring and control of animal populations, and the balance between functional groups of their species, and turning off the water supply where grasses are in need of rest. Local outreach efforts focus mainly on predator-livestock management on neighbouring farms.
Stakeholders comprise the land owners, who agree on joint management, and the tourism concessionaires who operate in the reserve under contract. The reserve employs 12 people who are responsible for day-to-day management and maintenance. Biodiversity and land management are funded from park fees collected by the concessionaires from tourists who stay at their establishments. This small management team is possible, because tourism concessionaires offer scenic game drives across the reserve, while on the lookout for required action. For example, guides report issues such as leaking water pipes, unusual wildlife sightings, injured animals, and trespassers (etc.) to reserve managers, who can then react.
Land owners who have connected their land to the reserve and are members of the NamibRand Nature Reserve Association have the option of serving as directors of the association, with joint decision making powers. Those who choose not can still contribute to the strategic mission of the reserve at annual general meetings.

2.3 Photos of the Approach

2.4 Videos of the Approach

2.5 Country/ region/ locations where the Approach has been applied

2.6 Dates of initiation and termination of the Approach

2.7 Type of Approach

• recent local initiative/ innovative

2.8 Main aims/ objectives of the Approach

The approach aims, through participatory land use planning, to restore ecosystem function in the reserve and its surroundings to support high-quality, low-impact tourism that provides the means to support environmental education and other conservation projects.
The overall Strategic Vision of the NamibRand Nature Reserve is to manage the Pro-Namib area, alongside the Namib Desert, for the enhanced conservation of the landscape and its biodiversity.

2.9 Conditions enabling or hindering implementation of the Technology/ Technologies applied under the Approach

3.1 Stakeholders involved in the Approach and their roles

3.2 Involvement of local land users/ local communities in the different phases of the Approach

	Involvement of local land users/ local communities	Specify who was involved and describe activities
initiation/ motivation	self-mobilization	The founding farm owner approached philanthropic donors to buy neighbouring farms and invest in tourism facilities and environmental education centre.
planning	external support	In 1991, external experts provided advice for planning of the reserve. Influential persons involved included Chris Brown, Hugh Berry and Haino Rumpf of the Ministry of Environment, and Mary Seely of the Desert Research Foundation.
implementation	self-mobilization	Management staff were appointed in 1991, and paid for from the conservation levy raised from use of tourism facilities in the reserve.
monitoring/ evaluation	self-mobilization	Reserve management staff do the monitoring, paid for by the conservation levy.
research	external support	Research institutions conduct research after paying a small service fee.

3.4 Decision-making on the selection of SLM Technology/ Technologies

Specify who decided on the selection of the Technology/ Technologies to be implemented:

• mainly land users, supported by SLM specialists

Explain:

The Reserve's vision and mission were set up by its directors, who comprise farm owners willing to serve in this decision making role, at the Initiation workshop in 1991. Management actions were then Implemented under the guidance of various specialists.

Specify on what basis decisions were made:

• evaluation of well-documented SLM knowledge (evidence-based decision-making)
• research findings
• personal experience and opinions (undocumented)

4.1 Capacity building/ training

Was training provided to land users/ other stakeholders?

Yes

Specify who was trained:

• land users
• field staff/ advisers

• Tourism concessionaires

Form of training:

• on-the-job
• demonstration areas
• public meetings

Form of training:

• Exchange visits

Subjects covered:

Biodiversity conservation, financial management, tourism best practices, principles of co-management, human-wildlife conflict resolution, rehabilitation.

4.2 Advisory service

Do land users have access to an advisory service?

Yes

Specify whether advisory service is provided:

• on land users' fields
• at permanent centres

Describe/ comments:

Advice is provided by the Namibia Chamber of Environment, the Namibia Nature Foundation, the Ministry of Environment and Tourism Resource Centre, the Namibia University of Science and Technology, the Giraffe Conservation Fund and other wildlife biologists on issues such as determination of wildlife carrying capacities.

4.3 Institution strengthening (organizational development)

Have institutions been established or strengthened through the Approach?

• yes, greatly

Specify the level(s) at which institutions have been strengthened or established:

• local

Describe institution, roles and responsibilities, members, etc.

NamibRand Nature Reserve Association. All land owners are members, who elect the directors. They manage the reserve according to an agreed strategy.

Specify type of support:

• financial

Give further details:

Hiring of lawyers and auditors/accountants to establish the association.

4.4 Monitoring and evaluation

Is monitoring and evaluation part of the Approach?

Yes

Comments:

Impacts are monitored to feed back into management.

If yes, is this documentation intended to be used for monitoring and evaluation?

No

4.5 Research

Was research part of the Approach?

Yes

Specify topics:

• ecology

Give further details and indicate who did the research:

Determination of wildlife carrying capacities by wildlife biologists.

5.1 Annual budget for the SLM component of the Approach

If precise annual budget is not known, indicate range:

• 100,000-1,000,000

Comments (e.g. main sources of funding/ major donors):

Self funded from conservation levy collected from tourism income.

5.2 Financial/ material support provided to land users

Did land users receive financial/ material support for implementing the Technology/ Technologies?

No

5.4 Credit

Was credit provided under the Approach for SLM activities?

No

5.5 Other incentives or instruments

Were other incentives or instruments used to promote implementation of SLM Technologies?

No

6.1 Impacts of the Approach

6.2 Main motivation of land users to implement SLM

6.3 Sustainability of Approach activities

Can the land users sustain what has been implemented through the Approach (without external support)?

• yes

If yes, describe how:

Through income largely derived from tourism and partly from sale of captured game animals in accordance with the environmental management plan.

6.4 Strengths/ advantages of the Approach

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the land user’s view
The reserve is centrally and holistically managed by a team.
Resilience attained by the large unfenced ecosystem.
Land users coming together to sign and form a legally recognised body that is more robust.
Tourism is more profitable and sustainable than agriculture for such a hyper arid region.

Strengths/ advantages/ opportunities in the compiler’s or other key resource person’s view
Resilience to climate change through natural resources, using the competitive advantage of nature.
Private property excludes communal demands and allows fast and easy decision making on land use.

6.5 Weaknesses/ disadvantages of the Approach and ways of overcoming them

Weaknesses/ disadvantages/ risks in the land user’s view	How can they be overcome?
There is currently no legislative support from government for protection of private land.	The new wildlife bill being drafted makes provision for privately protected areas.
In the eyes of the Ministry of Lands, there are only two types of land, either urban and gazetted (e.g. parks) or agricultural (subject to land tax).	Include a third category of land for protected areas, such as the desert margin being non-agricultural.

7.1 Methods/ sources of information

7.2 References to available publications

Title, author, year, ISBN:

A Guidebook to the NamibRand Nature Reserve, 2017, ISBN 978-99945-85-14-4

Available from where? Costs?

Local bookshops for approximately USD25

7.3 Links to relevant information which is available online

Title/ description:

Website of NamibRand Nature Reserve

URL:

www.namibrand.org

Title/ description:

Website of Namib Desert Environmental Education Trust

URL:

www.nadeet.org