This is contained in the latest Auditor General's report specifically dealing with community-based natural resource management, released recently. The report says violation of the terms of the agreement is more pronounced in instances where the operators failed to honour the pledges made to the community. Explaining this concession method, the report says once the price of the quota has been agreed, the community transfers their wildlife quota user rights to the safari operator. In turn, the operator pays the community quota and land rental fees. However, the report says it was observed that the agreement was "a mere barter system" whereby the community exchanged their wildlife quota for a certain amount of money. "Apart from that, there were no other benefits with long-term implications," it says. "For instance, there was little or no effort made by the operators to enhance the capacity or leadership of the community by transferring critical skills to members of the community." The Auditor General says there was often limited communication between the operator and the community, which resulted in the latter being a passive player in the entire agreement. The report says a sublease agreement was normally for a period of 15 years, reviewed with the option to renew the agreement every five years. "Apart from the five-year intervals, there was no other specified short time period to undertake the review of the agreement," says the Auditor General. "This resulted in the terms and conditions of the agreement being breached, more especially by the safari operators." Almost all the trusts utilising wildlife quotas were into joint venture agreements which culminated in the signing of a Memorandum of Sublease Agreement (MSA) between a community and a private company. The Auditor General says it was observed that the sublease agreement benefited the communities less because they were not actively involved in the setting of the price of their allocated quota. "What transpired was that the safari operator reserved the price of the different species making up a quota," the report notes. "Negotiations between the community and the operator would then be guided by the reserved price. The outcome of the negotiations presented a scenario whereby the final agreed price of the quota would constitute marginal deviations from the initial price." The situation was more pronounced in districts where wildlife was less abundant such as Kgalagadi and Gantsi, where communities had limited options for negotiation as compared to those in the Ngamiland and Chobe Districts where the abundant wildlife attracted more competition for safari operators and more bargaining power for the community. The report recommends that as an active facilitator, the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism should enhance the integrity of joint ventures by ensuring that involved parties benefit positively. "Communities should be assisted to be actively involved in the decision making process, such as determining the quota fees," it says. The report further recommends that the ministry should ensure that a sublease agreement entered into between a community and a safari operator is accompanied by tangible benefits and the transfer of critical skills and expertise to members of the community. Another recommendation is that the ministry, with the assistance of the TAC, should ensure that the terms and conditions of the agreement are fully enforced to ensure their non-violations.
