A series of high-profile disputes over community-private sector tourism agreements across Southern and East Africa has put these arrangements under scrutiny, raising questions about what makes them succeed and what causes them to break down.
Sue Snyman, Director of Research at the School of Wildlife Conservation of African Leadership University, said communicating benefits, costs, timelines and expectations clearly and explicitly is fundamental.
“Communication is key to success so that there is clarity, transparency and accountability for all stakeholders. The parties must align on the timeline and manage their own expectations. The private sector needs to respect community processes and the time they might take. Similarly, the community needs to understand that capital often has time constraints.”
Who speaks for the community?
But clear communication is complicated by the fact that communities are rarely single, homogeneous groups.
Chris Roche, Co-Founder and Marketing Director of Wild Expeditions Africa, said this is a complexity that many operators underestimate.
“It is critical, at the engagement and contracting stage, to understand exactly who (what entity/body etc) you are partnering with and what their role and position is in the broader ‘community’. It is obviously equally important to understand what other potentially competing representative bodies might exist.”
Ultimately, Roche said, operators remain accountable to the contracted partner, the legal entity authorised to enter into the agreement.
Snyman noted that, while operators should legally deal with the elected trustee, elected leaders and traditional leaders play differing but important roles in the community.
“Ideally, one should engage with both and try to reach a consensus where possible, so there is buy-in from all in the community, although this is not always possible. Intermediaries can definitely support the process but my personal opinion is that direct engagement is better to avoid misunderstandings and miscommunications.”
Visible benefits
For a partnership to secure lasting community buy-in, however, it is not enough for the arrangement to be mutually beneficial on paper. The benefits must also be visible and tangible to the wider community, Roche said.
He outlined three mechanisms that ensure the benefits of the partnership are felt deeply and widely. The first is the financial contribution paid to a community body through the lease or revenue share.
“If the monies are well directed and accounted for, the scale of impact is important. However, this is not always communicated to, or necessarily understood by, every part of the community, never mind linking abstract community improvement, like water provision, and the tourism partner.”
The second mechanism Roche outlined is employment where the benefit is felt directly at household level through wages and the wider multiplier effect.
The third is a visible, tangible project with a clear link to the tourism operator such as a clinic or communal vehicle. These projects, he said, can create a stronger perception within the community that the tourism operator is contributing to its development.
A diversified benefit-sharing model can therefore help ensure the value generated by tourism reaches different parts of the community rather than being concentrated in one area.
Benefits take time
Community-private sector partnerships rarely deliver their full benefits immediately with successful partnerships often taking years to deliver their full potential, said Lippa Wood, Founder of House in the Wild.
“Extraordinary relationships are built when an operator is deeply rooted in the places where they work. We have learned that genuine relationships matter far more than contracts. Contracts are important but genuine partnerships are built through respect, honesty and being prepared to have difficult conversations openly.”
Sibylle Riedmiller, Founder of Chumbe Island Coral Park (CHICOP), stated that, in her experience, partnerships fail when operators view community engagement primarily as corporate social responsibility or philanthropy rather than as an integral part of management.
“Likewise, if communities perceive that tourism revenues primarily benefit outsiders while local people bear the costs of conservation, trust gradually erodes.”
Supporting livelihoods
These relationships can become particularly difficult when tourism and conservation interests appear to compete with existing livelihoods such as farming, fishing or grazing.
Wood has seen that conservation can only succeed with the buy-in of the community.
“The best models recognise that people have lived alongside wildlife for generations. The question is not how to replace traditional livelihoods but how to make them more resilient while restoring nature.
“In our own landscape, we have seen holistic and regenerative grazing plans improve the grasslands, livestock health and wildlife at the same time. Tourism then provides an additional source of income, helping reduce pressure on the land rather than increasing it.”
Riedmiller said conservation cannot succeed if its primary effect is to prohibit traditional resource use. CHICOP management aims to prove to the local community that ecological recovery generates direct and measurable economic benefit for neighbouring communities. In this way, conservation has become a productive investment in local livelihoods rather than a competing land or resource use.
