The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of Earth and Mineral Sciences
FROM CALIBERS TO CAMERAS:
BOTSWANA’S BAN ON TROPHY HUNTING AND
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE SOCIOECOLOGICAL LANDSCAPE
OF NGAMILAND DISTRICT
A Thesis in
Geography
by
Erica C. Hann
© 2015 Erica C. Hann
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Science
May 2015
The thesis of Erica C. Hann was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Brian King Associate Professor of Geography Thesis Adviser
Karl Zimmerer Professor of Geography
Cynthia Brewer Professor of Geography Head of the Department of Geography
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
ii Abstract
On January 1, 2014, a ban on all trophy hunting took effect in the southern African nation of Botswana. The ban was motivated by a 2011 aerial survey of wildlife populations which found statistically significant declines in eleven large mammal species. The decision to eliminate hunting marked a pronounced change from previous decades of wildlife management that included hunting and photographic concession. This shift in resource management is particularly important in the Ngamiland district of Northern Botswana in which over half of all residents are employed in the tourism industry. Trophy hunting, including of iconic and endangered species such as the African elephant (Loxodonta Africana), was previously permitted in Ngamiland and brought significant economic benefits to local communities, safari operators, and the national government. The role of hunting as a tool of conservation and importance of hunting-based tourism as a livelihood practice has been a subject of debate within and beyond
Botswana for decades. Thus, there is considerable uncertainty around the types and severity of impacts the hunting ban will produce for both social and ecological systems. This thesis examines these impacts through a mixed methods approach including twenty-two semi- structured interviews and archival data collection as well as remote sensing analysis of vegetation patterns in Ngamiland. Results demonstrate considerable spatial variability both among perceptions of the ban, as well as vegetation patterns across the landscape. This suggests a significant degree of socioecological heterogeneity not recognized by a homogenous resource management policy such as the hunting ban. It also suggests an uneven ability among concessions to transition successfully to photographic-based tourism, potentially weakening incentives for conservation in certain areas.
iii Table of Contents
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………...v List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………….vi Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………vii
Chapter 1: An Introduction to the Elimination of Trophy Hunting in Botswana 1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………1 1.2 Purpose of the Study….…………………………………………………………..…...3 1.3 Study Area………...……………………………………………………………..……5 1.4 Conceptual Frameworks…………………………………………………………..…..7 1.5 Methods………………………………………………………………………….…...13 1.6 Summary……………………………………………………………………….…….15
Chapter 2: Tourism, Conservation and Wildlife Management in Ngamiland District 2.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………...…...16 2.2 Tourism in Botswana………………………………………………………………...16 2.3 Community-Based Conservation in Botswana………………………………………17 2.4 Wildlife Management in Botswana………………………………………………….22 2.5 The EWB survey……………………………………………………………………..24 2.6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….……..27
Chapter 3: Perceptions and Impacts of the Hunting Ban 3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………..……28 3.2 Methods and Study Area………………………………………………………..……29 3.3 Results………………………………………………………………………..………30 3.4 Discussion……………………………………………………………………….…...43 3.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………….…………..47
Chapter 4: Spatial Variability of NDVI Values in Northern Botswana 4.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….………….48 4.2 Methods………………………………………………………………….…………...49 4.3 Results…………………………………………………………………….………….53 4.4 Discussion……………………………………………………………………………57 4.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...59
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications 5.1 Socioecological hetereogeneity in Ngamiland………………………………..……...61 5.2 Areas for Future Research…………………………………………………………...63 5.3 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...65
References………………………………………………………………………………………..67
Appendix A: Wildlife Populations in Ngamiland, 1989-2012…………………………………..71
Appendix B: NDVI values in Northern Botswana………………………………………………72
iv List of Tables
1.1 Factors governing suitability for consumptive or non-consumptive tourism…………….…12
2.1 Hunting Quotas as a percentage of overall wildlife populations in Ngamiland…………..…23
3.1 Summary of interview results across three groups of interest…………………………….....41
4.1 Land cover type and NDVI range…………………………………………………………....52
v List of Figures
1.1 Map of Botswana with Study Sites…….……………………………………………….……..5 1.2 Socioecological system of trophy hunting in Ngamiland……………………………....……..9
2.1 Revenue generated in selected Ngamiland Trusts……………………………….……….….19 2.2 (a) Revenue generated in Sankuyo trust, by type………...……………………………...…..21 2.2 (b) Revenue generated in Khwai trust, by type…………………………………………..…..21 2.2 (c) Revenue generated in Mababe trust, by type……………………………………………..21 2.3 Aerial survey strata………………………………………………………………...….……..22 2.4 (a) Overall trends in selected wildlife populations by land area……………………………..25 2.4 (b) Trends in selected wildlife population (1996-2010)……………………………………..25
4.1 Land Use in Botswana………………………………………………………………...……..50 4.2 Concessions used in analysis………………………………………………………………...51 4.3 (a) NDVI distribution by concession, 1990-1998………………………………………..…..54 4.3 (b) NDVI distribution by concession, 2000-2008…………………………………………....55 4.4 Ngamiland Annual Rainfall, 1998-2010……………………………………………………..56
vi Acknowledgements
There are a number of people who assisted in the completion this thesis, either through intellectual input, moral support, or a combination of the two. I have been lucky enough to have a consistently wonderful group of friends and mentors that allowed me to pursue a graduate degree and undertake international fieldwork. Dr. Brian King has been absolutely invaluable as an advisor and mentor from my first semester on campus. His ideas, incredibly insightful comments on earlier writing and incredible patience as I worked through the last two years have been so helpful, particularly in stages of fieldwork preparation. Numerous additional faculty members contributed to the development and execution of this thesis. Feedback from Dr. Karl Zimmerer on seminar papers, research proposals, and this thesis has greatly improved the quality of my work and ability to communicate complex ideas of human-environment interactions. Dr. Doug Miller was a wonderfully patient and supportive mentor in my goal of integrating remote sensing into this thesis and proving to myself that I can actually do quantitative analysis I am grateful to my fellow graduate students many of whom helped revise drafts of proposals, research questions and this very document. Having your support throughout the tumultuous journey of grad school has made it that much easier to get through long afternoons in 319 and late nights of editing. I’d like to thank Jamie Shinn in particular for her guidance and friendship both at Penn State and during fieldwork in Botswana. My parents and family deserve a great deal of credit for their unending confidence in my abilities and encouragement to pursue my dreams wherever they took me and however I got there. And to all of my friends who are practically family by now, thank you for late nights of dancing and laughter, delicious nourishing meals and beautiful uplifting experiences in the outdoors. The greatest thanks of course goes to the people and communities who I interacted with in Botswana. From university faculty to villagers in Mababe, I am grateful beyond words for your cooperation and patience with me. Your contributions are why I bothered to start this project in the first place, and I hope I have been able to reflect that in the following pages. Ke a leboga thata! A final offering of thanks is owed to those who provided financial support for this research, the Penn State Department of Geography and the National Science Foundation. Easing the financial burden allowed this research to take place. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation Grant No. 0964596. Any opinion, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
vii
Chapter 1: An Introduction to the Elimination of Trophy Hunting in Botswana
1.1 Introduction
With over a third of the country classified as protected area of some kind, Botswana has long nurtured highly successful conservation efforts (Department of Wildlife and National Parks
2011). The northern part of the country is host to one of the largest African elephant populations in the world with recent estimates of a population of approximately 160,000 (Department of
Wildlife and National Parks 2012). Robust lion, hippo, giraffe, and zebra populations are also present in Botswana (ibid.). This abundance of wildlife resources represents a significant draw for both hunting and photographic-based tourism. Wildlife-based tourism is a critical element of the economy of Botswana, second only to the profitable diamond industry in terms of GDP contribution (Department of Tourism 2010). This importance is evidenced in the government’s decision to eliminate trophy hunting after a 2011 aerial survey found statistically significant declines in eleven large mammal species in Northern Botswana (Chase 2011).
Most tourism in Botswana takes place within protected areas, either in National Parks and
Game Reserves, which make up 17% of all land area, or Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) which make up another 20% (Republic of Botswana 1992). WMAs are further divided into concession areas, and management of individual concessions is often devolved to communities or safari operators. Communities are typically involved in this devolution via Botswana’s community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) program, similar to other community-based conservation programs in Southern Africa. Concessions are designated by the government as either hunting or photographic, and labeled with the district name ((NG for
Ngamiland, CH for Chobe etc) and a number. Ngamiland contains 17 hunting and 10 photographic concessions (Department of Lands 2009). It is within these publicly held (but privately managed) areas that hunting has been banned; privately owned land may continue to
1 provide hunting opportunities, though this represents a small fraction of the total land area in
Botswana. Although land managers have some autonomy in concession areas, the land and wildlife within remain property of the state and subject to centralized resource management.
One of the major challenges identified with Botswana’s tourism industry in the early
1990s was the involvement, or lack thereof, of the local Batswana people (Republic of Botswana
1992). This is of particular concern in rural areas where livelihood opportunities are limited and people live in close proximity to wildlife but have limited opportunities to benefit from them.
Reconciling this was part of the motivation behind the development of the CBNRM program.
Though the government remains the ultimate authority on wildlife management, partial management rights are transferred to involved communities (Thakadu 2005). This provides rural villagers more direct access to natural resource industries, including tourism. Until the hunting ban was introduced, communities had been able to operate both hunting- and photographic-based tourism enterprises, often in collaboration with a safari company under 15-year sublease agreements. In addition to revenues from tourism, meat from hunted animals was distributed to involved communities, a significant benefit in isolated areas (Mbaiwa 2013). With the institution of the ban, the communities that operate hunting-based operations have been instructed to transition to the photographic-based counterpart (Motseta 2013).
The hunting ban thus represents a substantial shift in resource management, both for communities involved in CBNRM and the tourism industry in general. However, the severity and ease of this transition varies based upon the social and ecological factors in each concession.
As will be demonstrated, this socioecological heterogeneity is a dominant feature of Ngamiland and the homogenous hunting ban does not reflect this variability. As a consequence, the future of CBNRM hangs in a delicate balance in Ngamiland, with certain concessions much more well positioned to transition to photographic tourism than others.
2
1.2 Purpose of the Study
The trophy hunting industry involves a variety of land managers and stakeholders, each with perspectives on the role of hunting in conservation. This study works to move beyond international discourse on trophy hunting to understand opinions of the hunting ban within
Botswana, and among those who stand to be impacted the most by its institution. It also works to examine the various socioecological conditions that exist within different parts of Ngamiland, with a focus on variability between concession areas. As results demonstrate, there is a range of social and ecological characteristics of concession areas, even those directly adjacent to one another. This contrasts sharply with the “one size fits all” hunting ban declared by the central government. These findings also indicate an uneven ability to transition successfully to photographic-based tourism, potentially weakening the utility of community-based conservation programs in certain Ngamiland concessions.
The decision to ban trophy hunting in Botswana stands to have major implications for both the social and ecological system. These systems are not considered as separate entities, but instead as an interdependent socioecological system. Integrating these systems into a single analysis is a critical element of this research, as it more accurately reflects Botswana’s resource management goals that seek to promote both conservation and development. Additionally, in the context of Ngamiland, where wildlife-based tourism and conservation dominate daily life for many inhabitants, a division between these two systems would be impractical.
As an unprecedented policy in Botswana, accounting for those impacted by the hunting ban is a vitally important research goal particularly when the impacted parties have limited capacity to represent their own views. Given the varied history of community-based conservation and wildlife management in Northern Botswana, understanding how these impacts vary across space is another important goal particularly for a geographic study. This spatial
3 heterogeneity is a critical component of any resource management evaluation in the dynamic landscape of Ngamiland.
Questions of the role of hunting in conservation and as a livelihood practice are also critical elements of this thesis, which carefully examines the available data on these relationships in Botswana. Trophy hunting has become a controversial issue around the world, and the response to the hunting ban has been correspondingly heated. The international community has, on the whole, enthusiastically supported the hunting ban as a commitment to progressive environmental management and strong example for other African countries. There are also those vehemently opposed to the ban, typically framing their arguments in defense of the large revenues generated by hunting and the history of hunting as an impetus for successful conservation. These debates frame the discourse around hunting within Botswana. However, despite the controversy generated by the hunting ban, a limited amount of information from a limited perspective has dominated the debate. Gaining a deeper understanding the role of hunting-based tourism plays for both people and wildlife is important for any kind of recommendation about hunting bans, in Botswana or elsewhere. In the case of this thesis, obtaining opinions from within Botswana is an essential complement to international framings of the issue.
This thesis examines the ways in which the hunting ban has impacted the socioecological system of the Ngamiland district in Northern Botswana. The central research objective is to examine perceptions of Botswana’s hunting ban and evaluate current or anticipated outcomes resulting from the hunting ban. The primary research questions are (1) What are the impacts, both anticipated and realized, of the hunting ban on livelihoods and conservation management practices? (2) How do perceptions of impacts of the ban compare between government officials,
4 safari operators, and rural community members? In cases where they differ, what factors can explain this?
These research questions will enable an understanding of how the hunting ban is affecting key groups of stakeholders in Botswana, and how these impacts are perceived. These questions also help provide critical information on the role of trophy hunting in conservation and livelihood practices. Data to answer these questions is provided through a mixed methods approach that involves qualitative and quantitative data. Specifically, textual analysis, semi- structured interviews and remote sensing are integrated.
1.3 Study Area
Fieldwork was primarily conducted in northern Botswana, in the town of Maun and the village of Mababe, with a small set of interviews in the capital city of Gaborone
(see Figure 1.1). Fieldwork was undertaken over a six-week period in June and July of
2014. Funding for this fieldwork was provided through a National Science
Foundation supported project examining perceptions and livelihood responses to environmental changes in the Okavango
Delta. Figure 1.1: Map of Botswana with Study Sites
5
The largest settlement in Ngamiland, Maun also serves as the starting point for most safaris into the Okavango Delta and surrounding areas. Maun is also host to regional branches of government relevant to this research project, including the Department of Wildlife and National
Parks and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism. A number of CBNRM trust offices are also located in Maun, which gave me the opportunity to speak with leadership officials from the community trusts. A branch of the University of Botswana near Maun, the Okavango Research
Institute, provided opportunities for archival data collection and the consultation of textual materials not available remotely. Working in Maun therefore offered opportunities to speak with a wide range of stakeholders in the trophy hunting industry from safari operators, government officials and representatives of rural communities.
Mababe is a small village of approximately 200 people located on the eastern edge of the
Okavango Delta (Census Office 2011). A CBNRM program has been in place in Mababe since
1999, though a long-term partnership with a safari company was not achieved until 2002 (The
Natural Resource Management Project). At the initial consideration as a site for CBNRM,
Mababe was characterized as “an attractive example of a rural Botswana settlement” but one that had limited game viewing potential (ibid.,18). This led to the decision to establish a hunting camp instead of a photographic lodge or campsite as pursued by the neighboring concessions of
Khwai and Sankuyo. However, the current lease agreement, which allows for only hunting- based tourism, will not expire until 2017 and thus the community is unable to continue to profit from hunting nor generate new kinds of revenue through photographic tourism. Additionally, the lack of abundant wildlife in Mababe means it is considered to have limited potential to transition to photographic tourism, in contrast with Khwai and Sankuyo. These differences in potential for photographic tourism are a critical element of this thesis and will be discussed further in
Chapters 2, 3 and 5.
6
Finally, a handful of interviews were also conducted at the University of Botswana in
Gaborone. The seat of government as well the location of Botswana’s major transportation, economic and educational services, Gaborone is an important place to gain an initial understanding of the dynamics of Botswana. Interviews here, primarily with university faculty, allowed for clarification of information as well as access to archival documents.
1.4 Conceptual Frameworks
This thesis draws on a number of bodies of literature, all of which are grounded within the field of resource management and applied conservation. A wide field, aspects of resource management focused on environmental governance, social-ecological systems and the role of hunting in conservation are the most critical aspects of this body of work. When available, work with a geographic focus in Botswana or Southern Africa is highlighted. Both academic and gray literature are important to this review, as much insight has come from conservation practitioners as well as academic theorists.
Environmental Governance
The role of the state in environmental conservation has been well documented in sub-
Saharan Africa (Neumann 1998; Hulme and Murphee 2001; Magome and Fabricius 2004).
Legacies of colonialism are often cited as responsible for the top-down form of environmental governance common in southern Africa (Agrawal and Gibson 1999). Resource management techniques introduced by colonial powers often resulted in the exclusion of local people from areas set aside as protected areas and government ownership of wildlife, as is the case in
Botswana (Neumann 1998; Wall and Child 2009). This effort to make “legible” complex and geographically-specific relationships between people and their environment has been documented in many geographic and temporal contexts (Scott 1998; West 2006). As James
7
Scott explains, this process of legibility “exemplified a pattern of relations between local knowledge and practices on one hand and state administrative routines on the other.... In each case, local practices of measurement and landholding were ‘illegible’ to the state in their raw form” (1998, 24). The transformation of context-specific ontologies and knowledge systems in
Botswana took place first by the colonial state and then the centralized post-independence government intent on capitalizing on valuable natural resources, namely wildlife and tourism.
The more recent shift to community-based resource management emerged as a reaction to these centralized forms of environmental governance. The integration of both conservation and development at the community level has been a particularly popular strategy in the global South
(Jones and Murphree 2004; West 2006; Adams 2009). The validity of this approach remains controversial, with critiques centered around the proliferation of neoliberalism through markets, variable community benefits and unclear advantages for conservation (Arntzen et al. 2003;
Mbaiwa and Stronza 2010; King 2010). CBNRM in Botswana has faced concerns of this nature, especially in comparison to systems in neighboring Namibia and Zimbabwe which are generally acknowledged to be more effective (Jones 2009; Leader-Williams 2009; Lindsey 2014).
In Botswana, the role of CBNRM as an impetus for development and successful conservation has been analyzed since implementation in the late 1980s. Periodic reports on the status of CBNRM across Botswana offer a set of comparative data which details information such as participation in CBNRM, revenue generated, and examples of both successful and unsuccessful CBO programs (Arntzen et al. 2003; Schuster 2006; Mbaiwa 2013). Ngamiland and Chobe districts have been common study sites for examinations of CBNRM, as the communities of Sankuyo and Khwai are often highlighted for substantial revenue generation as well as complex issues of community-level governance (Boggs 2004; Madzwamuse and
8
Fabricius 2004; Mbaiwa 2005). However, relatively little work has been conducted in Mababe, a community in close geographic proximity to Sankuyo and Khwai.
Social-ecological systems
Another body of literature important to this thesis is that of social-ecological systems
(SES). This conceptualization of the human-environment interaction as an interdependent system is exceptionally useful for work which examines issues such as the hunting ban with clear social and ecological implications. Elinor Ostrom’s seminal work is the basis of SESs, and contains useful baseline categories of resource systems, resource users, governance systems and users (2009). A modification of these basic categories for the context of trophy hunting in
Ngamiland is displayed below in Figure 1.2.
Governance Systems Resource System Central government, Okavango Delta CBNRM Trophy Hunting in Ngamiland Users Resource Units Safari operators, Wildlife, tourism revenues Community Members
Figure 1.2: Social-Ecological system of trophy hunting in Ngamiland
In recent years, work within this field has focused on the importance of scale and governance. When evaluating an SES, identifying actors at different scales within each of the four categories is critical to evaluation. Actors may operate at similar or dissimilar scales, and recognizing these scalar “mismatches” (Cumming, Cumming, and Redman 2006) is important when developing a solution to issues within the SES. Consequences of scalar mismatches can lead to policies that result in undesirable changes to the SES. An example of this risk is provided by Jannsen et al (2007), who describe the negative impacts that top-down decisions can have on
9
SES, potentially even leading to a collapse of the system. This analysis is quite poignant given the circumstances surrounding the hunting ban.
Another important element of SES analysis is the integration of multiple methods to examine complex environmental issues (Folke et al. 2005). I seek to continue this trajectory of combining qualitative and quantitative methods to examine various elements of social-ecological systems. The tradition of mixed methods is particularly strong in geography, where scholars have the opportunity to integrate qualitative or quantitative data with GIS technology and mapping or work in an interdisciplinary fashion. The particular combination of methods selected for this study correlates directly to the research questions and data availability, but intentionally relies on multiple methods of data collection and analysis.
Hunting in Conservation and Tourism
A final important element in the academic literature includes the debate around the role of hunting in conservation and tourism. As tourism has been promoted as a useful strategy to promote conservation, these industries are closely tied, particularly in Botswana. Conservation biology suggests minimum sustainable off-take rates for wildlife species of between 2-7% but concerns around genetic diversity and the group impact (particularly for social animals like elephants) have left hunting’s role in conservation ambiguous (Baker 1997; Norton-Griffiths
2007; Deere and Yorkshire 2011).
Hunting has variously been considered the best and only way to fund conservation, anathema to conservation goals and animal welfare, and generally something that “nice people don’t like to talk about” (Lovelock 2008, 3). Proponents of hunting argue that it generates large sums of money with minimal need for infrastructure or other resources required for photographic tourism (Lindsey et al. 2007; Lindsey, Roulet, and Romanach 2007; Barnes 2001). This group
10 also argues that hunting it can be an effective way to manage wildlife population size and deal with problem animals such as habitual crop raiders (Booth and Cumming 2009).
There are also arguments presented against hunting, typically of an ethical or economic nature (Loveridge and Reynolds 2006; Gressier 2014). The ethics of killing for sport is often questioned by opponents of hunting. Valuations of nature, as an economic commodity or intrinsically valuable idea, are also discussed. The economic sustainability of the hunting industry has also been called into question, particularly when compared with photographic tourism which can operate year-round and also generate considerable revenues (Novelli, Barnes, and Humavindu 2006; Republic of Botswana 2000). This debate is central to understanding many of the results presented in this thesis.
At a broader scale, the amount of revenue generated by hunting and photographic tourism that remains in Botswana is a critical question. With many safari operators based in South
Africa or even overseas, the proceeds which remain in-country from a given tourism experience can be quite small. Lindsey et al (2008) found that in Botswana, about 75% of revenue from hunting-based tourism is retained in country versus only about 27% of revenue from the photographic industry. The cost of a safari hunt involves payment to the safari operator, trophy shipping and airfare often totaling well over $50,000 (Donovan 2013).
The contribution of hunting to rural livelihoods is a related research question. (Barnes
2001; Arntzen et al. 2007; Mbaiwa 1999). These studies have typically focused on the economic impact of hunting, rather than its cultural role or impact on attitudes toward conservation or tourism. Nationwide data on CBNRM has periodically been collected in government-sponsored reports, providing a valuable comparative lens (Schuster 2006; Arntzen et al. 2003; Mbaiwa
2013). Results from the most recent CBNRM report show that the northern districts of
Ngamiland and Chobe are much more reliant on wildlife-based tourism than concessions in other
11 parts of the country (Mbaiwa 2013). Concessions in these areas are also the most profitable, generating 80% of the overall CBNRM revenues (ibid.). Among all CBOs, trophy hunting was considerably more lucrative than photographic tourism, generating 33,041, 271 ($330,412) and
4,399,900 ($43,999) pula respectively (ibid., 17). The pula to dollar exchange rate is set at 10 pula to 1 dollar, the rate as of March 2015.
Comparisons of hunting and other types of land use, agriculture or photographic tourism for example, has also been investigated in Botswana. Findings from these studies indicate that different areas of land are better for certain land uses. Barnes (2001) explored this in terms of comparative advantage while more recent work has looked specifically at where photographic tourism is most effective. These studies each conclude that photographic tourism is not a viable revenue generation strategy for all land in Northern Botswana, with some areas better suited than others. In fact, Barnes concludes that “a large proportion [2/3] of the wildlife estate would have no wildlife use value in the event of a ban on consumptive wildlife uses” (Barnes 2001: 148).
This suitability is governed by factors such as wildlife abundance, infrastructural development, and the viability of other industries such as agriculture (see Table 1.1) (Barnes 2001; Baker
1997; Lindsey et al. 2007).
Tourism Type Necessary Factors Consumptive -Presence of high quality trophy animals but not necessarily other (hunting-based) wildlife for viewing -Large land area -Connection to local community Non-consumptive -High scenic value (photographic-based) -Diverse and abundant wildlife populations with charismatic species -Small areas can be used productively -Large initial capital investment, but higher return per unit of land Table 1.1 Factors governing suitability for consumptive and non-consumptive tourism (Barnes 2001; Novelli, Barnes, and Humavindu 2006; Winterbach, Whitesell, and Somers 2014; Lindsey et al. 2006)
12
In the end, the question of the utility of hunting as a land use is a spatial one, and the answer to the question of hunting or photographic tourism “is not one or the other, but how much of each and where...the challenge is to select the best mix of uses for each locality which will maximize community benefits without jeopardizing Africa's wildlife heritage" (Baker 1997:
284). In the context of Botswana this means that the small number of high value areas for photographic tourism can coexist with much larger areas of marginal land.
These studies all acknowledge hunting-based tourism as part of a mosaic of land use that also can bring important economic benefits to rural areas. Despite the problems of revenue distribution in CBNRM, detailed in Chapter 2, the ability to produce similar profits via photographic tourism is uncertain in many concessions. This thesis furthers these investigations into the role of hunting-based tourism as a livelihood practice and conservation strategy in
Botswana, as seen through the perspective of various involved parties.
1.5 Methods
This paper involves a mixed methods approach, employing both qualitative and quantitative methods. This choice was made to reflect the multiple types of data important to understanding the hunting ban, leaving room for insights from semi-structured interviews and participant observation to complement quantitative data on hunting quotas and Normalized
Digital Vegetation Index (NDVI) variability in Ngamiland.
Qualitative data collection was conducted from June-July 2014 in Botswana. Data collection during this time period involved archival research on government documents and media related to the hunting ban, and semi-structured interviews with government officials, safari operators, and rural community members.
13
Archival data collection took place in the libraries of the University of Botswana in
Gaborone and the Okavango Research Institute in Maun. Government policies, reports and scholarship not available outside Botswana were studied. Promotional materials from photographic and hunting-based safari organizations were also collected, primarily in Maun.
Twenty two semi-structured interviews were also conducted in both Gaborone and Maun.
The three primary groups interviewed were government officials, tourism operators, and representatives of community trusts. Secondary groups of interest included researchers, resource managers, and conservation-oriented not-for-profit and non-governmental organizations.
Interviews examined the perceptions of the ban among these groups as well as the types and severity of impacts anticipated, with a focus on recent impacts for livelihoods of rural villagers.
The second stage of data collection involved the use of remote sensing technology to analyze spatial heterogeneity and variations in NDVI values across Northern Botswana. This set of data was collected and analyzed at Penn State University from September-December 2014.
Ten images collected by the Landsat 4-5 TM satellite during dry season months from 1990-2008 were included in this analysis. NDVI values were calculated for each of the images, and compared against an aggregate range of NDVI calculated through a combination of all ten images. Five concessions with varying histories of conservation and tourism in Ngamiland
(NG15, NG18, NG33, NG34 and NG41) were chosen for the most rigorous analysis.
The integration of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies is intended to both strengthen the overall quality as well as to ground the central argument in multiple perspectives.
The interdisciplinary nature of wildlife management and community development, two central threads of this thesis, lends itself well to a mixed method approach.
14
1.6 Summary
The remainder of the thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 explores the relevant background and contextual information relevant to understanding the dynamics of trophy hunting and conservation in Botswana. The 2011 aerial survey so critical to the hunting ban’s justification is also examined in more detail. Chapter 3 recounts results from interviews and textual analysis pertaining to opinions of the hunting ban, as well as expected outcomes. Chapter
4 is focused on a remote sensing analysis of NDVI values in Ngamiland. The final chapter evaluates conclusions from each empirical chapter and makes suggestions for potential adjustments to the hunting ban.
All chapters serve to demonstrate the variability of results across both social and ecological systems, a condition I will refer to as socioecological heterogeneity. This heterogeneity is demonstrated through both qualitative and quantitative methods and serves as a contrast to the homogeneity expressed through the hunting ban. Given the variability of socioecological conditions within Ngamiland, this type of policy making stands to have highly variable impacts for conservation and livelihood practices. Though a thorough assessment of these impacts, particularly in the biophysical environment, would be premature, the socioecological heterogeneity discussed in this thesis indicates an uncertain and spatially uneven future for tourism in Northern Botswana. The utility of a homogenous policy like the hunting ban to promote effective conservation is also questioned, with a particular emphasis on implications for the CBNRM program. Overall, it is clear that certain concessions will be more severely impacted by the hunting ban than others, a designation which depends on factors such as their relationship with the central government and potential to successfully transition to photographic tourism.
15
Chapter 2: Tourism, Conservation and Wildlife Management in Ngamiland District
2.1 Introduction
An analysis of Botswana’s hunting ban necessitates an understanding of the relevant aspects of conservation policy, wildlife management and experiences with tourism. This chapter explains some of these essential pieces in more detail. The history of tourism and community- based conservation will be presented first, followed by an explanation of the system that existed to monitor hunting and wildlife populations. Finally, essential components of the 2011 aerial survey of wildlife populations which inspired the ban are examined. This contextual information establishes the socioecological heterogeneity in Northern Botswana previously recognized by the government, but now disregarded by the homogenous hunting ban. Information in this chapter is drawn principally from policy documents, media publications and NGO-produced reports.
2.2 Tourism in Botswana
With such a substantial area of land devoted to conservation, tourism has become the second-largest industry in Botswana behind the diamond industry. Wildlife-based tourism takes two main forms: consumptive (hunting-based) and non-consumptive (photographic-based).
These forms have existed side by side in Botswana for decades. However, the types of clients catered to by each form of tourism can be quite different in their priorities and particularly in their attitudes toward hunting. Despite these differences, the emphasis in marketing materials for both hunting and photographic-based safaris is the draw of “magnificent wildlife”, experiencing
“pristine wilderness…where the environment is still intact” and “African nature at its best”
(Odirile Safaris 2013). These motivations, particularly the connection with nature and wilderness quality of Northern Botswana, are primary drivers of tourism in Botswana (Republic of Botswana 2000).
16
Tourism is an especially important sector in Ngamiland, in which 60% of residents are employed (Madzwamuse and Fabricius 2004). In the past, Botswana advocated a policy of low- volume, high-cost tourism, establishing small but expensive lodges in remote areas. This strategy is outlined in the Tourism Policy of 1990 that suggested that a transition from regional and self- directed tourism to wealthy, international tourism will greatly improve the profits generated.
Alternative types of tourism were also suggested in the Tourism Policy, with cultural tourism standing out as predominant strategy. However, tourism in Botswana has continued to be overwhelmingly wildlife-based, with 90% of all tourists coming for wildlife-based tourism
(versus 20% in neighboring South Africa) and substantial changes have not been realized despite encouragement for diversification (Republic of Botswana 2000).
In 2000, a Tourism Master Plan was produced. Interestingly, this document suggested diversification away from exclusively high cost, low volume tourism to a mixed price structure.
This reflected the sentiment that popular tourism areas such as Moremi Game Reserve and
Chobe National Park had become overcrowded and that wildlife-based tourism needed to become more exclusive and expensive to counteract this trend and preserve wilderness and wildlife as “Botswana’s outstanding tourism assets” (Republic of Botswana 2000: 4).
Given this history, it is unlikely that the role of tourism will be of any less importance in
Botswana’s future. However, the kinds of tourism which take place, where tourism takes place, and how widely available the benefits can be are much more uncertain.
2.3 Community-based Conservation in Botswana
Community-based conservation has become a common resource management strategy in sub-Saharan Africa over the past thirty years. Based upon the ideas of common property theory and sustainable development, it has taken a variety of forms in sub-Saharan Africa but generally
17 follows two universal principles: to increase rural development and improve natural resource management by improving attitudes toward wildlife (Boggs 2000). Botswana’s CBNRM policy describes this goal as creating “a foundation for conservation-based development, in which the need to protect biodiversity and ecosystems is balanced with the need to improve rural livelihoods and reduce poverty" (Republic of Botswana 2007, 5).
Botswana began its CBNRM program in 1989 with a pilot project in the Chobe district in
Notheastern Botswana (Thakadu 2005). Funded for the first ten years by USAID as a Natural
Resource Management Program, the program is now managed in country through the
Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP). In 2007 a decade-long policymaking process produced a CBNRM policy, intended to provide more formal guidance on the structure of CBNRM. CBNRM has continued to grow in popularity since its implementation and 106 trusts involving some 280,000 Batswana, 14% of the total population (Mbaiwa 2013).
In order to participate in CBNRM, communities must first identify the social and geographic bounds of the community, and then establish a constitution and elect a board of trustees for their community-based organization (CBO) (Boggs 2004). Once these steps are completed, CBOs can choose to become involved in the tourism industry via a partnership with a private safari company, known as a Joint Venture Partnership (JVP). In Botswana, the current
CBNRM policy mandates a 15-year lease period between a community trust and JVP (ibid.).
This time period is meant to ensure a long term commitment by both parties and allow the safari operator enough time to get a return on their investments in infrastructural improvements, training and employment for local people (Republic of Botswana 2007). Decisions within CBOs are governed by an elected board of trustees but follow the structure of the traditional kgotla system in which all members of a community are invited to participate.
18
Benefits of CBNRM for livelihoods and conservation
The effectiveness of CBNRM as a rural livelihood improvement strategy as well as a conservation practice is a matter of great interest to the central government, and multiple studies have investigated this question. Though data have shown substantial revenue generation by some trusts and positive shifts in attitudes toward wildlife have been demonstrated, these benefits are not widespread nor is it clear that CBNRM has improved conservation in any significant way
(Emerton 2001; Madzwamuse and Fabricius 2004; Ministry of Environment, Wildlife 2007;
Jones 2009;). For instance, overall wildlife populations have not increased under CBNRM, though limited data exists to evaluate these trends at the community-level.
As can be seen in Figure 2.1, revenues generated through CBNRM in Ngamiland have progressively increased from 2000-2011 (Mbaiwa 2013).
500 450 400 350 300 Sankuyo
250 Khwai 200 Mababe 150
Revenue in 1000s of dollars OKMCT 100 50 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year Figure 2.1: Revenue generated in selected Ngamiland Trusts (Mbaiwa 2013).
The most successful trusts have generated hundreds of thousands of US dollars annually, with even the most menial returns in the tens of thousands of dollars. Trusts in Ngamiland district have generated the greatest amount of revenue from CBNRM projects, when compared
19 with the rest of Botswana (Mbaiwa 2013). CBNRM profits have been used for cash household dividends, social services such as funeral assistance and scholarships, the purchase of community computers and vehicles for transportation (ibid.).
However, the decision making process of fund distribution has proven complex.
Widespread allegations of mismanagement led to a clause in the 2007 CBNRM Policy which requires 65% of revenues to be placed in a National Environmental Fund, to be supervised and dispensed by the government, with just 35% remaining at the community level (Republic of
Botswana 2007).
Another critical benefit of CBNRM, at least in areas with hunting-based tourism, is the supply of meat provided. In fact, meat has been identified as the most important benefit from
CBNRM by the Sankuyo community (Thakadu 2005). Though revenues could conceivably be replaced by photographic tourism, the benefit of meat from hunts is a less easily replaced benefit.
Complicating this issue is Botswana’s system of buffalo fences, which surround much of
Ngamiland and form the dividing line between wildlife and livestock zones and protect against the spread of Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) to Botswana’s valuable (and EU subsidized) cattle industry. In 1996, the Northern Buffalo Fence was erected in response to an outbeak of FMD and all of the livestock in Ngamiland were subsequently killed (Mbaiwa and Mbaiwa 2006;
Arntzen et al. 2007). This has made the supply of meat north of the fence, particularly in rural areas, quite difficult. Transportation south of the fence, most often to Maun, is expensive and slow given the distance and unpaved roads.
It is also important to note that certain CBOs depend more heavily on revenue from hunting quotas than others, as shown in Figures 2.2 (a), (b), and (c) below.
20
100% 90% Land rental 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Hunting Quota 30% 20% 10% Other 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 2.2a: Revenue in Sankyo trust, by type (Mbaiwa 1999)
100% 90% 80% Land Rental 70% 60% Hunting Quota 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Other 0% 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 2.2b: Revenue in Khwai trust, by type (ibid.)
100% Land rental 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% Hunting Quota 40% 30% 20% 10% Other 0% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Figure 2.2c: Revenue in Mababe trust, by type (ibid.)
21
The degree of variability among concessions, particularly those located in close
geographic proximity, is a strong indicator of the socioecological heterogeneity in Ngamiland.
This pattern also suggests that the hunting ban will have highly variable consequences from trust
to trust. Management at the concession-level is likely a more appropriate option in these variable
circumstances.
2.4 Wildlife Management in Botswana
Wildlife population counts and hunting quota designation methods
Botswana’s DWNP conducts an annual or bi-annual aerial survey to monitor wildlife
populations. The aerial survey method relies on observers on either side of a low-flying plane
counting various species. These counts are reported, along with 95% confidence intervals
(Department of Wildlife and National Parks 2012). Hunting quotas are determined based upon
results from these aerial surveys. A partial
listing of aerial survey results from 1989-
2012 are included in Appendix A.
Though aerial surveys are widely
used for wildlife monitoring, issues of
miscounting, particularly of small animals
easily frightened by the noise of a low-flying
plane, have been acknowledged (Pollock and
Kendall 1987). Aerial surveys are also quite
expensive and the results are often
Figure 2.3: Aerial survey stata (Department aggregated over large spatial scales. For of Wildlife and National Parks 2012) instance, area 27D (see Figure 2.3) contains
22
Moremi Game Reserve, as well as neighboring community or commercially-managed areas
(NG19, NG41, NG33). Results are presented at the scale of protected areas, or even the distrct, making this information relatively impractical for management decisions. Despite these issues, aerial survey wildlife populations at a large aggregate scale is the best information available, and thus dictates the level of analysis possible.
Hunting Quotas
Hunting in Botswana most recently took place under a quota and licensing system.
Hunting quotas issued as a proportion of the overall wildlife population are displayed in Table
2.1 below. Conservation biology suggests sustainable off take rates of no more than 7%; any instance in which this rate is exceeded is highlighted in blue.
1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2010 Buffalo 0.14 0.19 0.36 0.78 0.88 0.20 0.13 0.21 Eland 2.16 4.00 4.80 8.06 13.88 0.31 2.53 2.76 Elephant 0.16 0.19 0.24 0.27 0.56 0.19 0.16 0.35 Impala 2.43 5.36 5.96 3.26 2.98 1.54 0.76 0.66 Kudu 10.71 14.13 6.26 4.87 3.77 2.54 2.74 2.98 Lechwe 1.17 1.67 0.73 0.61 0.83 0.48 0.20 0.17 Ostrich 2.26 1.63 1.49 2.63 2.17 0.83 1.04 6.84 Tssessebe 4.36 15.82 7.64 8.73 14.98 8.07 1.82 1.79 Warthog 14.29 27.87 8.55 21.34 24.31 9.03 3.41 2.87 Wildebeest 0.60 1.26 1.14 2.29 2.46 1.36 0.94 1.61 Zebra 0.39 0.35 0.54 0.57 0.31 0.33 0.09 0.27 Table 2.1: Hunting Quotas as a percentage of overall population in Ngamiland (Central Statistics Office 2006)
It is also important to note that although the data in Table 2.1 reflect the licenses issued, not all of these animals were necessarily successfully hunted. All hunts, regardless of classification, were required to be accompanied by an official from the DWNP to ensure that the correct animal was hunted (Department of Wildlife and National Parks 2011).
Despite this relatively standardized system, wildly different rates were charged for a license from one species to another, and non-citizens paid much higher prices for licenses than
23 citizens. For instance, an impala license costs 150 pula ($15) for a citizen and 500 pula ($50) for a non-citizen (Department of Wildlife and National Parks 2011). Licenses for more prized trophy animals, such as the elephant, came at a price of 8000 pula ($800) for citizens and 20,000 pula ($2,000) for non-citizens (ibid.). There were also set maximums for the number of licenses an individual could hold for a single species, almost always 1 or 2, with the exception of bird licenses. Hunting took place from April-September each year, dry season months when wildlife congregate near permanent water sources.
2.5 The 2011 Elephants without Borders Survey
In addition to the government aerial surveys, the NGO Elephants without Borders (EWB) conducted an aerial survey of wildlife populations in 2010 (Chase 2011). This study found statistically significant declines in the populations of eleven large mammal species, along with
61% decline from 1996 to 2010 in Ngamiland (ibid.). The resulting report has been referenced extensively by the government in justifying the hunting ban. The validity of the study, as well as the way it has been coopted by the central government to advance the hunting ban, is a subject of considerable debate in Botswana. It is not my intention to question the validity of the study results but merely to examine how they have been used in the justification of the hunting ban.
Specific sentiments around this study are detailed further in Chapter 3.
Selected figures from this report are displayed below (Figures 2.4 A and B). The presence of an asterix in Figure 2.4A, which shows overall trends in species populations, indicates statistically significant changes in wildlife population. Noticeably absent from these results are elephant population trends, which were found to have a stable population, neither increasing nor decreasing substantially (Chase 2011). Figure 2.4B displays trends in population for the same group of species (including elephants) from 1996 to 2010.
24
2010) (Chase 2011) (Chase 2010) - Figure2.4 B: Trends inselect wildlife populations (1996
2011) (Chase 2010) -
(1996
Overall trendsin selected wildlife
:
ure A 2.4
Fig populations landbyarea
25
The author of the EWB study identified hunting as one potential cause of decline, though other factors were also suggested:
“These declines largely coincide with a 20 year drought… The encroachment of
farming fields in prime wildlife habitat and deforestation in the middle of key
wildlife migratory corridors will continue to increase human wildlife conflict,
disrupt connectivity between seasonal ranges and result in wildlife declines…The
extent of bush fires, the timing and intensity of these fires and their effects on the
distribution and abundance of wildlife populations and vegetation communities
needs to be studied” (Chase 2011, 33-36).
While hardly an unambiguous call for the elimination of hunting, the government has often cited this report as the primary rationale for the hunting ban (Pabst 2013). A closer examination of the study also reveals substantial spatial variability in changes to wildlife populations, a fact that is explicitly neglected by the universal hunting ban. For instance, despite the district-wide trend of decline in Ngamiland shown in Figure 2.4A, data at smaller spatial scales (Moremi GR, Nxai Pan NP) within Ngamiland reflect a greater deal of variability. When compared with results from the neighboring Chobe district, which contains Chobe National Park, this heterogeneity is even more apparent. This fascinating contrast between the results of the 2011 survey, and the way in which they have been employed by the government is a powerful demonstration of the disconnection between a heterogeneous landscape governed by a homogenous policy. This contradiction is explored further in the next chapter.
26
2.6 Conclusion
This chapter has presented the most essential components of relevant history and policy- making pertaining to trophy hunting in Botswana. These details are intended to better inform the reader of the social and ecological conditions which exist in Northern Botswana, and contextualize the forthcoming chapters which focus on the presentation of empirical data. The arguments and rationale behind the hunting ban are of particular importance, reflected in the variability of opinion around the motivation behind the ban found through interviews. Coupled with ecological variability demonstrated through NDVI analysis, the socioecological demonstrates a high degree of heterogeneity. However, this is not reflected through the government justification of a universal ban on trophy hunting, and leaves the future of conservation, particularly in the form of CBNRM, uncertain in Ngamiland.
27
Chapter 3: Perceptions and Impacts of the Hunting Ban
3.1 Introduction
This chapter examines opinions and anticipated outcomes of the hunting ban from impacted stakeholders in Ngamiland. Such a dramatic policy has naturally stirred up a great deal of controversy, both within Botswana and around the world. Through semi-structured interviews and textual analysis, I recorded perspectives on the hunting ban from a number of affected parties in Botswana. Twenty two interviews were conducted with academics, NGO employees, rural community members and leadership officials, individuals associated with the tourism industry and a government official.
Despite this wide array of interview subjects, three groups serve as the main focus of this chapter: the Government of Botswana, safari operators, and rural community members. There were very few government officials willing to share their opinion on this controversial issue, so the perspectives from that group are established primarily through a textual analysis of relevant government documents, such as policy documents, and official statements surrounding the ban.
Results from these interviews indicate considerable diversity of opinion around the ban, from understandings of its justification to expected consequences. The role of the hunting ban in conservation emerged as another common concern, though again opinions of what constitutes conservation varied widely between and among groups. As will be detailed, these differences can be explained by the influence of international conservation in Botswana, the strong role of state-level governance in Botswana, and the suitability of a given concession to successfully transition to photographic tourism. The variability of these results, and particularly the range of experiences with the ban at the community level, reflects the heterogeneous socioecological landscape of Ngamiland. Though not the only explanation, the geography of concessions plays an important role in determining opinion among impacted parties, particularly safari operators
28 and rural community members. This diversity is not accounted for with a homogenous policy like the hunting ban, a contrast which carries implications for the future of conservation and tourism in Botswana.
3.2 Methods and Study Area
This chapter is informed principally by semi-structured interviews which took place throughout the course of fieldwork. Interview subjects were identified based upon their relationship with the tourism industry. After initial interviews were conducted, snowball sampling was used to identify additional interview participants. Interviews lasted from 15-90 minutes, and were recorded through detailed field notes. Names have been removed from all interview data and general identification categories (a representative of the trust, a photographic safari operator) are used to maintain anonymity.
Interview questions differed slightly between each group of interview subjects.
Government officials were asked about their understanding of the role of government in implementing and enforcing the hunting ban as well as the anticipated outcomes for the tourism and conservation industry. Safari operators were asked about their specific experiences with hunting-based tourism and their opinions on the importance of this type of tourism. Community trust representatives and members were asked about what benefits they have received from hunting-based tourism, via the CBNRM program, and how information about the hunting ban had been communicated to them. All interview subjects were asked about their opinion on the hunting ban and what outcomes they expected as a result of the policy.
Interviews took place in Maun and Mababe, both located in Ngamiland District. Maun is the central town in Ngamiland, and host to a number of government offices, safari operations and community trust offices. Mababe was selected for additional interviews because of its history of
29 hunting-based tourism, ongoing lease with a hunting-based safari operator, and previous experience of Penn State researchers in the community. Specifically, Dr. Brian King and Kayla
Yurco conducted interviews in Mababe in 2012 to determine the perceptions of environmental change. This prior work provided contacts in the community and greatly aided the completion of this research.
3.3 Results
Government of Botswana
It was exceedingly difficult to get government officials to agree to an interview because the hunting ban is such a controversial topic. This in itself reveals how delicately the government is handling the ban. It also reflects the general political climate of Botswana, in which the risks of speaking out against the President can be quite severe. Officials who do so are often removed from their position. Thus, I had to turn to government documents and prior policies to understand the government’s perspective.
The one official with whom I was able to speak noted that the ban came as a surprise to him and many lower-ranking officials. However, he also felt that a policy like this is in line with President Khama’s overall views on conservation. Upon reflection he also mentioned that given how centralized power is in Botswana, the fact that this ban came directly from the top is, in fact, not that surprising. He felt that concerns over illegal hunting practices, such as not hunting the animal licensed for, and poaching were primary motivators of the ban.
One of the contentious issues surrounding the ban is the amount of time the ban will be in place, and whether or not it is a permanent policy change. My interview subject noted that recently the Minister of Tourism announced that the ban would last for three years and be reviewed at that point if there was an improvement in wildlife populations. However, the
30 interview subject felt that this time frame was unrealistic, and presented as a purely political strategy in light of backlash against the ban.
The interview participant also reported larger-scale shifts in the tourism industry, pointing out the goal of moving away from low-impact high-revenue tourism in order to diversify the tourism base. In terms of existing tourism, he emphasized that certain concessions are better suited for hunting-based tourism and some for photographic. This designation is determined primarily by the abundance of wildlife, infrastructure for access (such as roads or an airstrip) and the general environmental condition (dense woodlands make wildlife viewing more difficult than open floodplain). A powerful example is the recent auction of previously hunting- based concessions which received no lease bids due to their limited potential for photographic tourism. Though certain concessions receive many bids and are known to be well-suited for photographic tourism, concessions outside of the Okavango Delta floodplain cannot necessarily support a successful photographic tourism operation. Instead, these areas are seen as better positioned to support hunting-based tourism.
As noted above, interviews with government officials proved almost impossible to obtain and thus much of the analysis of this group is textual in nature. Data for this analysis was collected from published and unpublished government reports, policy documents, and news articles. It is important to note that although they will be discussed together, President Khama and the general Botswana government are slightly separate actors and occasionally contradict each other in their writing.
As discussed in the first chapter, hunting has a long history in Botswana and is often referenced in resource management policy and reports. Three of the most critical policies governing hunting in Botswana are the Wildlife Conservation Policy (1986), the Ngamiland
Land Use Plan (2009), and the aerial survey reports of wildlife populations, including the 2010
31 survey used to justify the ban. Each of these documents address wildlife populations and hunting specifically, coming to a number of conclusions on management.
The Wildlife Conservation Policy is the major document governing wildlife in
Botswana, and was created to ensure a better economic return for wildlife while also promoting sustainable management. Wildlife is a framed as a commodity, whose exploitation “may well yield a higher economic return to the nation than some of the more conventional industries, such as agriculture” (Republic of Botswana 1986, 4). However, concerns are expressed over declines in wildlife numbers, primarily as the result of drought, and photographic tourism is identified as the “main ingredient” in Botswana’s tourism industry (ibid., 6). A ban on hunting in specific concessions is even suggested. However, subsistence hunting in rural areas is recognized as an important source of livelihood and sustenance and was not targeted by this policy.
The Ngamiland Land Use Plan discusses the differences between photographic and hunting tourism and tourists, carefully navigating a place for each side of the industry. It states that “while non-consumptive use of wildlife gives the best economic returns where wildlife density is high, these areas are limited. It is in the marginal areas with low wildlife densities that commercial hunting can, with well-regulated and controlled quotas, be of considerable benefit to conservation” (Department of Lands 2009, 38). This report mentions the concession in which
Mababe (NG41) is located, along with NG4, 5, 13, 42, 43, 47 and 49 (for map, see Figure 4.2 in
Chapter 4), as particularly vulnerable to the elimination of hunting. This heterogeneity among concessions suggests an uneven transition to photographic tourism, reasoning that “in areas of high game density and with great aesthetic appeal the transition from hunting to photographic tourism should be smooth, but the ability of more marginal areas to match the economic return of hunting is doubtful, with possible negative consequences for the land use management of areas and the economic viability of some communities” (ibid., 39). Poaching is brought up as a
32 concern here, particularly for concessions NG16, 22, 25 and 32, facilitated by local knowledge and limited law enforcement presence along the buffalo fence. This language clearly recognizes a heterogeneous socioecological landscape in Ngamiland.
Aerial survey reports on wildlife populations are the final set of documents of note, both for their content as well as the language used. It is especially interesting to contrast government surveys with the 2011 report produced by Elephants without Borders (EWB). Government surveys dating to 1991 through 2012 were analyzed, along with the EWB report. The most notable feature of these early documents is the lack of policy recommendation as just the basic data is presented. However, the most aerial survey recent report, for 2012, mentions declines in specific species such as the lechwe, tsessebe, and springbok. No mention of the negative impacts of hunting is made. This is in contrast with the 2011 EWB survey, in which the author does identify hunting as one potential cause of decline (Chase 2011). None of these aerial survey reports condemns hunting as the root cause of wildlife decline in Northern Botswana, though some note hunting’s importance to the tourism industry, especially in particular concessions.
Despite this ambiguity around the role of hunting in wildlife conservation, the government has often cited wildlife decline as the primary rationale for the hunting ban (Pabst
2013). President Khama has particularly emphasized this study, as well as the economic sustainability of trophy hunting. When announcing the ban in November 2012, Khama issued the following statement:
“We have reached the decision to stop the commercial hunting of wildlife in
public areas from 2014 as the shooting of wild game purely for sport and
trophies is no longer compatible with our commitment to preserve local fauna as
a national treasure, which should be treated as such...the decision to impose this
33
moratorium on hunting was made in the context of a growing concern about the
sharp decline in the populations of most of the wildlife species that have been
subject to licensed hunting. If left unchecked this decline poses a genuine threat
to both the conservation of our natural heritage and the long term health of the
local tourist industry...It may be noted here that while hunting is a seasonal
activity, meaning that its contribution to the tourism sector and hence national
revenue has also been seasonal and minimal, photographic tourism is conducted
year round. Moreover, photographic tourism has virtually no potential for any
negative impact on local wildlife populations and hence [is] sustainable”
(Government of Botswana 2014).
This language clearly implies that hunting is the major driver of wildlife decline, and that it cannot be done sustainably. Photographic tourism, on the other hand, is given a prominent place in the vital tourism industry and its sustainability is left unquestioned. This contrasts quite starkly with language from other government documents concerning hunting, which generally suggest that hunting and hunting-based tourism, when well managed, is appropriate in certain concessions.
Safari Operators
Despite having a common connection to the tourism industry and vested interest in conservation, safari operators are a diverse group with a wide range of opinions about the hunting ban and current state of conservation in Botswana. Interviews with these participants were some of the most lengthy I conducted, and the participants provided a great deal of background and contextual information that was not offered by either government officials or community members. They occupy a unique position in the world of conservation, with the
34 ability to act independently of the state, but are also inherently tied to international perspectives of their clients. This helps explain the radically different perspectives offered by individuals within this category, particularly between those involved in photographic tourism and those in hunting-based tourism.
However, there were some dominant themes across these interviews. The first was the focus on conservation, and whether or not hunting has a role to play in the conservation industry.
As could be expected, hunting-based safari operators believed much more strongly that hunting can and should be a part of Botswana’s conservation efforts. These individuals pointed to the revenue generating potential of hunting along with the services provided by hunters, such as borehole drilling and more positive relationships with communities. In fact, one interview subject expressed great concern that boreholes (water sources) previously maintained by hunters in marginal photographic areas would not be maintained by photographic tourism operators and lead to an increase in wildlife fatalities. On the other hand, those in the photographic side of tourism felt that hunters had not given back to the conservation industry in the way they promised, and often expressed ethical concerns about hunting. One interview subject allowed that there was room for both industries and that the hunting ban means conservation will just now take place in a different way.
Another common concern among this group was poaching, both in its current state and what may happen in the future now that hunting is illegal. Though the government does publish numbers on poaching rates in Ngamiland, these are widely regarded as a small fraction of overall poaching rates, making this concern quite difficult to evaluate objectively. The government does have an official anti-poaching unit through the Botswana Defense Force, but issues of corruption have made enforcement difficult. Private anti-poaching groups, paid for by the concession owner and staffed by those previously employed in hunting-based tourism, were suggested as an
35 alternative approach. Interestingly, poaching was thought to be mostly motivated by the bush meat trade rather than for ivory or other trophy items.
Another final shared opinion was that the justification for the hunting ban was entirely political and motivated by Khama’s dislike of the hunting industry and certain hunters themselves. One subject felt that Khama had simply been waiting for the appropriate time to implement this policy, and that the expiration of many CBNRM joint venture leases and the release of the 2011 report granted him this opportunity. The central role of the President was expressed by all safari operators, despite their feelings toward the ban itself.
Community Trusts
Interviews in this category were conducted with community members in Mababe, as well as trust officials in Maun representing the following trusts: Sankuyo (NG34), Mababe (NG41),
Khwai (NG18/19) and OKCMT (NG32). Though there was some diversity of opinion, it was to a lesser degree than the safari operator responses. Overall, members of this group were concerned about the negative impacts of the ban, particularly the loss of benefits from hunting- based tourism, and expressed little understanding or engagement with the rationale behind the hunting ban. In Mababe, participants were particularly concerned with the loss of meat and expressed a positive relationship with wildlife.
When asked about their feelings toward the hunting ban, the majority opinion was that the ban will be negative for both the community as a whole and the communities’ ability to participate in CBNRM. However, there was considerable variation, both in terms of the ways interview participants felt toward the CBNRM program as well as what specific impacts they were experiencing or expected to experience as a result of the ban.
36
Trust Leadership
The main focus of interviews with members of the trust leadership was the monetary impact of the hunting ban. All interviewees brought up this quickly in order to quantify the implications of the removal of hunting at the community level. Revenue was predominately seen to be negatively impacted, with the exception of the Khwai trust, which transitioned to a solely photographic safari operation in 2010 and has subsequently seen revenue numbers and employment increase.
The representative from Khwai reported that when their lease expired in 2009, the government instructed them to re-sign with a photographic safari company, so as to provide an example for other trusts. Though the interviewee still said that the community had mixed feelings about the ban, particularly in regards to the lack of bush meat, the transition had overall been positive. This is a fascinating contrast with the experience of the other trust leadership interviewed.
All other interview subjects reported dramatic declines in their revenue with the removal of the hunting quota; for example trust leadership from Mababe said their annual revenue was composed of 70-80% hunting fees, so the loss of this income would make a substantial difference in the trusts’ financial future. The representative from OKMCT reported slightly less striking numbers, as around 40% of their revenue was generated from Mokoro tourism, with the remainder from hunting fees. The representative of Sankuyo did not discuss revenue numbers in detail, but did note that the national tourism revenue was overwhelmingly based upon hunting fees. Examples of revenue streams from Khwai, Sankuyo and Mababe can be found in Figure
2.2 (A-C) in Chapter 2.
The issue of employment was also raised, but seemed to be a separate issue from revenue. For instance, the OKMCT representative felt that photographic tourism would provide
37 more jobs but that overall revenues would decrease. The Sankuyo representative felt that the jobs lost to hunting would certainly be replaceable by photographic tourism, though this would likely take 2-3 years and in the interim people would be upset.
However, while revenue concerns were a dominant aspect of these interviews, other themes also arose, including interactions with the government, poaching, and the role of people in conservation. First, the amount of information or cooperation offered the government varied between trusts and was commonly a cause for concern. Though rumors of the hunting ban had been circulating since late 2010, and the transition of Khwai must have provided at least some indication of what was to come, trusts were alerted of the change either via newspaper or, in the case of Sankuyo and Mababe, at a community-wide kgotla meeting. The government did attend the Sankuyo meeting to announce the ban, but in Mababe the joint venture partner was the one who brought the news.
Since learning of the ban, Mababe, Sankuyo and OKMCT trusts have either been offered or sought the financial assistance of the government. As of the time of fieldwork, none has been received by any of these trusts. All three trusts have had slightly different experiences in this regard; representatives from Sankuyo says they were promised assistance from the National
Environmental Fund. OKMCT leadership says they were offered 2.6 million pula ($260,000) for the administrative costs of the transition, and trust representatives from Mababe has actively sought government support to alter the terms of their lease agreement, which currently runs through 2017.
Mababe appears to be the only trust in this situation, as the majority of other trusts were up for lease renewal in 2013 or 2014. The Mababe trust is now seemingly trapped in a contract with a hunting-based safari organization who has little incentive to begin plans for a transition to photographic tourism under the current lease agreement. Though unique among the trusts
38 included in this study, this predicament makes plain the uneven nature of the hunting ban’s impact in Ngamiland. Mababe is further disadvantaged by uncertainty around the potential to transition successfully to photographic tourism, even when the legal issues of leasing are resolved. Reasons for this uncertainty include the (relative) lack of wildlife, thick woody vegetation and the inability for development of photographic tourism until a new lease is signed.
Poaching was raised as a serious concern by the leadership in OKMCT, who also felt that hunting was a form of sustainable management for elephant populations. Representatives of
Sankuyo also raised concerns over poaching or at least retaliatory killing of wildlife, citing a recent example of the killing of lions that appeared in the village. Representatives from Mababe did not mention poaching, but was concerned, as were other trust officials, about the lack of available meat for the community.
A final point of interest in these interviews came from the attitude of the trusts toward wildlife in general, and CBNRM specifically. Elephants were brought up in multiple instances for their revenue-generating potential as trophy hunting targets, a source of meat, and of critical conservation status. The OKMCT trust in particular felt that the interests of the human community were being compromised in the interest of the elephants and that concern about elephant conservation is misplaced. Elephant hunting has benefitted communities like these through revenue generated by hunting quotas and as a source of meat. Mababe and Sankuyo both reported that they had a large and growing of elephants in the area, reflected in the annual increase in hunting quotas for elephant. Removal of elephant hunting thus seemed unnecessary from the perspective of these participants.
The contentious relationship between these rural areas and elephant populations is relatively well documented in conservation literature, and will be an interesting metric to track as
39 the hunting ban continues. This link also serves as a useful example of the interdependent ties between social and ecological systems in Ngamiland.
Community Members
In addition to interviews with trust leadership, community members in Mababe were interviewed to get a more detailed set of perspectives on the ban. These results demonstrate the variety of circumstances and reactions within a single small community in Ngamiland.
Interview subjects ranged from older men who had been involved with the trust or employed by the hunting safari partner since the beginning to younger people currently employed by the trust. Interviews focused around attitudes toward CBNRM, benefits from
CBNRM, and their understanding of the hunting ban.
CBNRM in Mababe has not been immune from the general problems of CBNRM in
Botswana. The micropolitics of the community were evident in interviews, as trust membership is not offered to all members of the community, an exclusion oriented around tribal divisions.
While two interviewees, both either current or past employees of the trust, said they did receive benefits from the trust, others did not report any benefits. Dissatisfaction with the trust management was of particular importance, and mismanagement of funds meant to be distributed to the community was often brought up as a prime example of how ill-managed CBNRM has been in Mababe.
Despite disagreement over the level of benefit received from the trust, all but one interview subject felt that the ban on hunting would negatively impact the community. Part of this sentiment stemmed from the loss of benefits associated with trophy hunting, in particular access to meat as well as loss of employment. Another element was Mababe’s location and abundance, or lack thereof, of wildlife. Many community members felt that Mababe was not suitable for photographic tourism, or that the government should allow more time for a
40 transition. Indeed, negative attitudes toward the government were not uncommon in these interviews.
Comparisons Across Groups
Though each set of stakeholders, as well as each individual, expressed a unique opinion regarding the hunting ban and its impacts on tourism and conservation, some common themes from interviews are outlined in Table 3.1 below. First, the justification behind the ban tends to be understood quite differently among groups, with very little understanding about the ban in rural areas. Additionally, concerns about consequences of the ban varied substantially, ranging from poaching to impacts on meat supply in rural areas. Finally, all groups consider themselves to be acting in the interest of conservation, though they conceptualize this differently
Table 3.1 Summary of interview results across three groups of interest Stakeholder Ban Justification Expected Outcomes Conservation Government Ban is based on science, Poaching in particular Ultimate authority on though it reflects the areas, a more wildlife, act to President’s view sustainable tourism "balance interests of industry conservation and development” Safari Operators Pres. Khama is the main Poaching increases, as We are force behind the ban, not well as conservationists, others science elephant/tourism are not feasability in marginal areas Rural Little to no Loss of supply of Animals are friends, Community understanding of the meat, revenue from wildlife are our cattle, Members ban’s rationale hunters we are conservationists
All groups think of themselves as acting in the interests of conservation. The government feels that centralized policy is the best way to achieve effective conservation and that it is critical to integrate conservation and development. As the government owns all wildlife in the country, they are also the ultimate authority on the management. Safari operators also feel strongly that they are acting in the interests of conservation, though the cleavage between photographic and
41 hunting safari operators was quite prevalent. Finally, community members felt that they were acting in the interests of conservation as well, comparing their relationship to wildlife to the
Tswana (the dominant ethic group in Botswana) relationship with cattle. As cattle are of paramount importance in Tswana culture and traditionally serve as the primary unit of wealth, this comparison is striking.
Understandings of the rationale behind the ban are all radically different. The official government position is that the ban is in place to promote sustainable development and ensure a more sustainable future for the tourism industry. The government emphasizes that the ban is justified by the decline in wildlife populations, though Khama has also focused on the economic aspects of keeping tourism sustainable. The safari operator community feels that the hunting ban was a political move by President Khama based on his personal feelings toward the hunting industry. Though the 2011 aerial study was not designed with the intention to inspire a hunting ban, the manner in which its results were delivered has been questioned and the study thus implicated in the politics leading up to the ban’s declaration. Communities have very little understanding on the rationale behind the ban, with a couple of exceptions. Some communities were told about the ban at kgotla meetings, while some simply read about it in the newspaper.
There was zero consultation among communities when the policy was being formulated.
Finally, concerns over the impact of the ban were highly variable. The government was primarily worried about issues of poaching particularly in certain areas close to the buffalo fence, where it is easy to smuggle poached animals across the fence and into market. Safari operators were also concerned about poaching, which some concessions have attempted to address through private anti-poaching units. The success of these efforts have been mixed and likely play a pivotal role in the relationship between communities and their safari partners. The feasibility of tourism in more marginal areas, with lower wildlife populations or limited infrastructure, was
42 also of concern. Community members were worried about the meat supply, as they are not permitted to have livestock and received large quantities of meat, particularly elephant, from hunters in the past. Revenues were also discussed as cause for concern, though due to the volatile history of revenue distribution in the past, this seemed to be a more pressing issue for the trust leadership, who stand to benefit more directly from revenues than the average community member.
3.4 Discussion
It is clear that dramatic differences exist in understandings of and opinion toward the hunting ban, which can be explained through an analysis of the social circumstances within
Botswana as well as spatial variability of particular concessions. Much of the variety of the opinion around the hunting ban can be explained by relationship to international conservation organizations, relationship to President Khama and the central government, and the potential for a given concession to transition to photographic tourism. I argue that the centralized policy making of the hunting ban fails to account for the nuances of the hunting ban’s impacts in the heterogeneous social-ecological landscape of Ngamiland.
The role of international conservation and the ideal of an Edenic African landscape looms large in the decision to eliminate hunting in Botswana. President Khama’s connections to international conservation groups, which do not look favorably upon trophy hunting, compounded with his own personal feelings about conservation have been the primary drivers behind the ban. There is little evidence of a government-wide stance on hunting; instead, this dramatic shift in policy can be attributed to the powerful force of the international community to govern what is “sustainable” in the matters of tourism and wildlife management. The immense
43
Presidential power means that these past doctrines can be overturned in favor of a universal policy which pleases many international donors and conservation organizations.
Safari operators have in some ways a similar relationship with the international community. They must rely on clients paying a great deal of money to travel to Botswana, and as wildlife and its conservation are a major priority for many of these clients, the operator must respond accordingly. It is clear from interviews and document analysis that safari organizations strive to meet these expectations by identifying themselves as true conservationists. Both photographic and hunting safaris emphasize the quality of wilderness, connection to wildlife and dehumanized landscapes of the Okavango Delta. Hunting operators in particular also emphasized their distance from the government, and thus the decision to ban hunting, reflecting a strategic degree of autonomy not exercised by the photographic groups.
Rural community members, though connected to international conservation through
CBNRM and tourism ventures, do not have to appease this set of ideals in the same way.
Conservation is more a fact of daily life than an ideal to strive for. This is reflected in the comparison of wildlife with cattle, a particularly intriguing analogy given the importance of cattle in Botswana. This implies that wildlife serves an important purpose and are worth protecting and profiting from, and also that communities have the capacity to manage this resource for themselves. This logic also suggests that if hunting can no longer give wildlife a substantial economic value, poaching will become an increasingly attractive option either for revenue generation or simply for food to put on the table. This may also have implications for
CBNRM more generally in these concessions, as it will breakdown the economic incentive for conservation at least temporarily.
The national government, and in particular the ideals of Ian Khama are another driver of opinion of the hunting ban. Those working closely with Khama, which include government
44 officials as well as select safari operators and rural community members, are generally the most supportive of the policy. Government officials are compelled to be supportive of this policy in order to keep their jobs. Safari operators are in a similar position, though their freedom to speak out against the ban is not as restrictive.
The different experiences of rural communities with the hunting ban’s implementation is particularly interesting, however. For instance, the Khwai community was approached by the government in 2009 and asked to transition to photographic tourism as a way to serve as an example to other communities soon to face a similar adjustment. The selection of Khwai by the
President enabled the community to easily transition to photographic tourism. The ability to begin earning revenues comparable with hunting-based tourism has led to a positive opinion of the ban, at least among trust leadership. Conversely, in the communities of Mababe, Sankuyo and OKMCT trusts, though similar assistance in the transition has been offered no such help has been received and thus opinions of the ban are much more negative.
Finally, the concession in which each group operates and sources a livelihood helps to explain the dramatic differences in opinion recorded in interviews. The central government, of course, holds nationwide jurisdiction and the power to declare policy impacting all of Botswana.
The tendency to make a universal policy is evident in much wildlife conservation policy, and of course true for the hunting ban as well. Though the aerial survey studies that document wildlife populations focus only on Northern Botswana, and not all wildlife are in decline equally, a universal protection for all species across the entire country was deemed an appropriate solution.
This explicitly disregards the heterogeneous social and ecological landscape of Ngamiland.
There is a stark contrast, however, between the acknowledgement of this landscape-level heterogeneity in previous policy documents, and the current support of a homogenous ban on trophy hunting.
45
Safari operators, on the other hand, act much more locally, often at the level of the concession(s) they manage. Each concession may have its own set of boreholes, anti-poaching units and infrastructure to facilitate tourism. Safari operators are thinking a great deal about where photographic tourism will be feasible, reflecting their own interests in employment. Many hunters have chosen to either transition to another line of work, or leave the country entirely.
Thus, the type of tourism which takes place in an individual concession, and the potential for photographic tourism specifically, will be much more powerful in impacting opinions about conservation decisions among safari operators.
Rural community members operate at the finest scale of them all, often with few opportunities to travel outside of their district and a subsequently limited access to information.
As reflected in the interviews, few community members reported a decline in wildlife, and certainly did not connect these trends to the hunting ban. Communities are concerned with the immediate impact of loss of revenue and meat. Though these problems may be eased in the future, as photographic tourism gains a stronger foothold the next 2-3 years are quite uncertain, particularly in villages like Mababe.
The dominant theme throughout these results is variability, both among and withing groups of interview subjects. This heterogeneity is reflective of the socioecologically heterogenous landscapes of Ngamiland, a variability governed by social and spatial factors. This range of socioecological conditions was recognized in most interviews and archival documents, even those produced by the government, but not by President Khama’s decision to ban trophy hunting across all of Botswana.
46
3.5 Conclusion
Connection to the international conservation community, relationship to President
Khama, and feasibility of a given concession to support photographic tourism are thus the central explanations for the differences in opinion of the ban between government, safari operators, and community areas. The focus on centralized resource governance over more local level management has led to a variety of opinions of the hunting ban, and much dissatisfaction at the community level.
Impacts of the ban are not evenly distributed, however, reflecting the large degree of heterogeneity in resource governance and social systems in Ngamiland. The ban’s impacts are correlated with the social dimensions discussed above as well as with the geography of a given concession area. The particular history of conservation and resulting degree of dependence on trophy hunting for livelihood practices varies between concessions and affects the ability of a certain concession to transition successfully to photographic-based tourism. Coupled with the ecological heterogeneity explored in the next chapter, a heterogeneous socioecological landscape is produced. However, this variability is inadequately accounted for by a homogeneous ban on trophy hunting, thus producing distinct winners and losers between particular concessions and the associated communities.
47
Chapter 4: Spatial Variability of NDVI Values in Northern Botswana
4.1 Introduction
This chapter evaluates changes in Normalized Digital Vegetation Index (NDVI) values in a portion of the Ngamiland District of Botswana from 1990-2008. Results indicate considerable variability of NDVI values across space and through time in this region. Understanding changes and variability of NDVI is an important issue in a discussion of the hunting ban, as the availability and quality of vegetation has major implications for Botswana’s wildlife. This chapter also serves to complement the information presented in Chapter 3 focused on social heterogeneity in Ngamiland. The demonstration of ecological heterogeneity in this chapter supports the central argument of the socioecological heterogeneity not acknowledged by the homogenous ban on hunting. Specifically, this chapter helps to explain factors in Botswana’s wildlife decline by providing an indication of which areas are the most well suited to support wildlife in terms of vegetation availability. A universal ban on hunting does not account for this heterogeneity and therefore should be evaluated more closely at the concession-level instead of the national-level.
Land is held as either state or tribal land in Botswana, with very little private property.
Just under 40% of all the land area is dedicated to conservation, either as a national park, game reserve or wildlife management area (WMAs) (Department of Wildlife and National Parks
2011). WMAs are further subdivided into concession areas, which are leased to communities or private companies for tourism development or other resource use. Land in Botswana thus has a variety of managers at a variety of scales. Management reflecting this multi-scalar system is manifested in the CBNRM program, a land use which encompasses roughly half of the district of
Ngamiland (see Figure 4.1). However, despite this devolution, it is important to note that all wildlife is owned by the central government.
48
As discussed in previous chapters, the implementation of the hunting ban has not been without controversy, and many have speculated over the motivation behind this decision. A key justification for the ban was evidence of wildlife decline in Northern Botswana, including
Ngamiland, found in a 2011 aerial survey (Chase). Though used by the government as support for the hunting ban, the survey acknowledged the myriad of other factors which govern wildlife populations other than hunting. Habitat fragmentation, the availability of food and water, and natural disturbances such as fire or disease are just three examples of important ecological attributes to consider in wildlife management (Flynn & Bonyongo 2011). This chapter demonstrates the heterogeneity of the Ngamiland District through an analysis of NDVI values across space and time. Results indicate that suitable forage is variable across time and space.
This corresponds closely with results from the analysis in Chapter 3 which indicates a high degree of social heterogeneity in Ngamiland. In combination, results from this chapter suggest a need for a management perspective which more accurately reflects the heterogeneous landscape in Ngamiland. Without this perspective the role of conservation, particularly at the community level, faces an uncertain future in Botswana.
4.2 Methods
Study Area and Base Data
Images in this analysis were downloaded from the Landsat 4-5 ETM archive at the USGS
GLOVIS portal (glovis.usgs.gov). 10 images were collected in total, all in dry season months of
July-October. This time period also corresponds roughly with the time of year aerial surveys of wildlife populations are conducted (September-November). All images were raster files with a resolution of 30m. The area covered by the imagery is marked in red in Figure 4.1, which also shows a general land use classification
49
Figure 4.1: Land Use in Botswana
Though data was obtained from all areas covered by Landsat Imagery within this extent, only concession areas with 100% coverage in all images (NG15, NG18, NG19, NG33, and
NG41) were chosen for extensive analysis and are highlighted in red in Figure 4.2. Northern
Botswana is composed of two administrative districts: Ngamiland and Chobe, noted by the abbreviations NG and CH in figures. Although some data from the Chobe district is included in the analysis, the focus of this analysis is on the Ngamiland district.
50
Figure 4.2: Concessions used in analysis
Study Methods
NDVI values were calculated for each satellite image by combining near infrared and red values as per the NDVI equation:
NDVI= (!"#!!"#) (!"#!!"#)
NDVI values range from -1 to 1, with values closer to 1 as the most vegetated areas.
Because of the semi-arid savannah climate in Botswana, NDVI values had a smaller range and the NDVI ranged from -0.36 to 0.58, with 68% of the values 0.08 and 0.14. These NDVI values correspond with the dominant land cover classifications in Ngamiland, open grassland savannah
51 and woodlands with some dense vegetation around permanent water sources. Once NDVI had been calculated for each image separately, these values were combined to create an aggregate
NDVI across all images. This ensured that data analysis took into account the normal range of variability for this area over this period of time, and also allowed for comparison between DVI values in particular areas with the general average.
The aggregate NDVI values were divided into quantiles, which allocated 25% of the data
(at the aggregate scale) in one of four categories, corresponding with NDVI values and land cover classes. Land cover classes were obtained from a study of the entire Okavango Delta system (OKACOM 2011). This study used 15 land cover classifications that have been generalized into four broader categories for the purpose of this analysis.
Table 4.1: Land Cover Type and NDVI Range
Class Land Cover Type(s) NDVI value range 1 Open Grass/Open Shrub Savannah -1 to 0.094 2 Tree/Shrub Savannah 0.094-0.108 3 Thicket, Open Woodland 0.108-0.127 4 Dense Woodland, Seasonal or Permanent Swamp 0.127-1
After determining the quantile NDVI values, and their corresponding land cover types, the original Landsat images were then reclassified into those categories and statistics were generated. To ensure equal area weighting, pixel counts were translated to percentage values by dividing by the total pixel values in each concession area. These results were then combined based upon the concession area and date of Landsat image.
Despite the coarse nature of the reclassification, clear patterns can be seen both in terms of change over time at the aggregate level, as well as change between concession areas. This indicates spatial variability across Northern Botswana with important implications for policy making and resource management.
52
4.3 Results
A number of observations can be made based upon the results of the analysis. First,
NDVI values display a high degree of interannual variability. This is partially a result of the classification scheme, which averages NDVI values from all 10 images, but also an indicator of the dynamism of the ecological system in Northern Botswana. The second major observation concerns variability across space, at the concession level. With the exception of particularly extreme years, NDVI values differ considerably between concession areas. Though only concessions with 100% data coverage are included in this analysis, similar variability can also be observed in all of the concessions covered in some way by the Landsat imagery (for complete listing see Appendix B).
Results of this analysis are displayed in Figures 4.3 (a) and (b). The graphs are organized as follows: Vertical columns are divided by concession area, with each column corresponding to one concession area (see Figure 4.2 for concession locations). Aggregate distributions of NDVI values are also included, to the right side of the black bar. Horizontal rows are divided by
Landsat image, with each row corresponding to one image. Dotted lines indicate the scale, from
0-100%, with a line at every 20% mark.
53
Average
NG41
NG33
Class 3 Class Class 4 Class
NG19 Class 1 Class 2 Class Concession
NG18
1998
NG15 -
1994 Sep 1990 Sep 1992 Sep 1995 Sep 1998 Sep
Figure 4.3 (a): NDVI distribution by distribution NDVI (a): 4.3 Figure 1990 concession,
Date Imagery
54
Average
NG41
NG33
Class 3 Class Class 4 Class
NG19 Class 1 Class 2 Class Concession
NG18
2008 -
NG15
2008 Aug 2006 July 2004 July 2005 Aug 2000 Oct concession, 2000 concession, Figure 4.3 (b): NDVI distribution by distribution NDVI (b): 4.3 Figure
Date Imagery
55
As can be seen in the graphical display, certain images display relatively consistent
NDVI values across concession areas. Both 1990 and 1998 were particularly dry years, and
NDVI values were correspondingly low. On the other end of the spectrum, results from 2004 and 2006 show a distribution of NDVI values skewed toward more lush vegetation. As shown in figure 4.4 below, these NDVI extremes match well with years of below and above average rainfall, respectively. As the rainy season in Botswana is from approximately November-March each year, rainfall amounts from the previous dry season give the greatest hint at NDVI values in
September (i.e for the 1990 image, rainfall data from 1989/90 is a more useful proxy than
1990/91).
Figure 4.4: Ngamiland Annual Rainfall, 1989-2010 (Department of Water Affairs 2010)
The majority of the data, however, does not display a strong skew toward one end of the
NDVI range. These images, from 1990, 1994, 1995, 2000, 2005 and 2008, instead show a more balanced range of NDVI values for the time period. Images from 1994 and 2000 are of particular interest, given the variability of NDVI between concession areas.
In the 1994 results, for instance, the average distribution is 42% class 1 (open savannah),
26.5% class 2 (tree/shrub savannah) 21% class 3 (open woodland), and 9.5% class 4 (dense woodland or swamp). However, in NG15, 65.3 % of the land area falls in class 1 and in NG33
56 this value is 76.8%. Conversely, NG18 has 26% in class 1, with a majority of the land area in classes 2 and 3 (35% and 32% respectively).
The imagery from 2000 displays an even greater degree of variability. Average percentages are 40%, 20.6%, 18% and 22.4% in each class. However, NG15 has 89% in class 1, which NG19 has only 8%. NG 33 shows over 50% of pixels in the class 4 category, while NG15 has only 5%. This striking contrast, particularly between concessions located in very close geographic proximity, indicates a high degree of spatial heterogeneity in NDVI values in
Northern Botswana. This calls in to question the utility of universal resource management practices such as the hunting ban.
4.4 Discussion
These results, while limited by various factors discussed below, do provide evidence for spatial and temporal variability of NDVI values in Ngamiland. Strong evidence of interannual variability is present, along with a wide range of NDVI distribution between concessions in a concentrated geographic area. These findings, while not necessarily surprising for the dynamic system of the Okavango Delta, do indicate that substantial shifts in the NDVI values are not uncommon in Northern Botswana. This variability is also impacted by the extremely narrow range of NDVI values in Northern Botswana, so even very small shifts in NDVI can dramatically impact the classification scheme used.
This variability within and among years is important information to keep in mind while evaluating aerial survey data on wildlife population distribution, as well as comparing those results between years. As suitable habitat for wildlife shifts, populations will respond accordingly. Aerial survey data is typically collected in dry season months, when NDVI values are low in areas without perennial water sources and wildlife counts are likely to be
57 correspondingly concentrated close to areas with water supply and consequently elevated NDVI values. Variable precipitation and flooding rates will thus impact wildlife distribution and abundance. Unfortunately, analysis to more substantially connect wildlife distributions with
NDVI values is not possible because the data is aggregated at different scales. However, other studies have found NDVI to be a useful predictor of suitable habitat for both herbivore and non- herbivore populations, even in sparsely vegetated landscapes (Pettorelli et al. 2011; Young,
Ferreira, and van Aarde 2009; Turner et al. 2003; Oindo and Skidmore 2002).
The variability between concessions, as seen most prominently in images from 1994 and
2000, is also important to keep in mind for resource management policy. As different concession areas displayed at least some degree of variability, a uniform resource management strategy is unlikely to be appropriate in Northern Botswana. This is especially true for wildlife, whose habitat changes so dramatically across space and time. When evaluated in combination with the variability in the social system presented in chapter 3, the spatial variability of NDVI values demonstrated here indicate a heterogeneous and dynamic wildlife habitat which should be monitored at a more detailed level. A universal ban on hunting, therefore, will not account for this heterogeneity and should be evaluated more closely at the concession-level instead of the national-level. Extrapolating results based upon research from one area of the country, even a neighboring concession, should be cautioned in this highly variable natural environment.
Data Limitations
A number of limiting factors can be identified here, based upon data acquisition and analytical methodology. As a preliminary study, these kinds of limitations are to be expected and, when possible, suggestions for improvements in future studies are offered.
First, remotely sensed imagery was not available for similar dates in every year of the study period. When possible, images with similar acquisition dates were selected for analysis,
58 but occasionally this was not possible. For the imagery that was available, there were some minor discrepancies in image extent which resulted in the exclusion of concession areas. For instance, the concession areas NG13, NG22, and NG30 had partial coverage by Landsat in some images but not others, and thus were excluded from the analysis, potentially impacting final results.
In order to eliminate the influence of background areas of the imagery on NDVI classification (all background areas had an NDVI value of 0), all 0 values were eliminated from the image, also potentially impacting final results. Given that most of the data was concentrated between 0.08 and 0.14, this concern does not carry substantial weight but likely had some impact on the final results, however minor.
The final challenge to my methodology was the extreme variability of NDVI classes and subsequent extreme results. Though an aggregate classification scheme was generated based on a combination of all Landsat images, this classification was not suitable for all images. Years of with either large or very small amounts of rainfall translated into NDVI values clustered around one end of the range or the other, and limited the visibility of patterns to emerge. As is, the data provides the most useful analysis of the four images with a more even NDVI classification.
4.5 Conclusions
The data and analysis presented here indicate that Northern Botswana is a dynamic and spatially heterogeneous environment when evaluated by NDVI value. Although many other metrics of landscape condition exist, NDVI is selected here for its relevance to wildlife populations, whose decline motivated the hunting ban. Results indicate a high degree of variability in NDVI values across Northern Botswana, both within and among the years in the
59
1990-2008 range. Though preliminary in nature, these results point out the need for a more detailed and smaller scale spatial analysis of the ecological landscape of Northern Botswana.
National-level resource management governance should therefore be evaluated carefully, and the government instead should examine individual management units more closely before making decisions on resource policy, particularly that concerning wildlife populations. This heterogeneity also has implications for wildlife-based tourism, the main industry of employment in Ngamiland. Spatial variability of NDVI indicates an uneven potential for photographic-based tourism, which is highly dependent on wildlife abundance. This suitability is coupled with uneven social and political histories of conservation, as discussed in chapter 3. Thus, outcomes resulting from the hunting ban and associated transition from hunting to photographic-based tourism will be unequal across space in Northern Botswana. The implications this variability will have for conservation and tourism remain to be seen, yet the mismatch of a homogenous resource management policy with a heterogeneous landscape provides cause for concern and additional research.
60
Chapter 5: Conclusions and Implications
5.1 Socioecological heterogeneity in Ngamiland
As the preceding chapters have demonstrated, the trophy hunting industry in Ngamiland operates in a diverse landscape, both socially and ecologically. Thus, the hunting ban is an issue which impacts a wide range of stakeholders involved in a variety of land management schemes.
The different histories and contemporary circumstances of CBNRM-involved communities along with variable ecological conditions between concessions indicate a degree of socioecological heterogeneity not accounted for with a universal resource management policy like the hunting ban.
Chapter 3 explored the broad range of stakeholders involved in trophy hunting in
Ngamiland, each with their own opinion of the ban and ideas about what will or should result from it. There is a great deal of variability understandings of the ban’s justification, expected outcomes of the elimination of hunting and conceptualizations of what constitutes conservation.
Each group and each individual within the group occupies a different position in this nexus, a positionality which is determined in large part by connections to the international conservation community, and central government, namely President Khama. These perspectives are also explained by associations with particular concessions in particular locations, which have different abilities to transition successfully to photographic tourism. For instance, the community of Khwai was able to convert successfully to photographic tourism well before the hunting ban went into effect as a result of their relationship with the central government and abundance of wildlife. However, in areas like Mababe that have been marginalized by the central government and offer less rich wildlife viewing opportunities, this transition may not be achieved as easily.
61
The degree of spatial heterogeneity in the ecological system is also supported by an analysis of NDVI values across Ngamiland, presented in chapter 4. Though NDVI values are quite low in the semi-arid environment of Botswana, a comparison across concessions from
1990-2008 demonstrates significant spatial and temporal variability. Even neighboring concessions can display dramatic differences in their NDVI values. This again signals the importance of concession-level resource management or at least more flexibility in the policy- making efforts of the central government.
The contrast between the heterogeneity of the socioecological system in Ngamiland with the homogenous nature of the hunting ban becomes particularly problematic when the history of conservation in Botswana, especially the CBNRM program, is taken into account. Conservation has been incentivized by the government through economic development, a relationship that the creation of CBNRM cemented in place. Now that the lucrative hunting industry has been eliminated, the concessions unable to transition successfully to photographic-based tourism will not be able to generate the same revenues or accrue the same benefits from involvement with
CBNRM. Assuming that common property theory holds true, these communities will lose their incentive to practice conservation. The flexibility of CBNRM to accommodate a variety of land uses and wildlife management strategies depending on the particular context was a key strength of the program and the further reduction of this flexibility seems unlikely to bode well for the future of this kind of resource management
This consequence seems utterly unaccounted for by the Government of Botswana or
President Khama, but should be a serious concern. Of course, structural changes could help lessen some of the variability among concessions, at least in terms of revenue losses.
Considering socioecological variability, however, is difficult given the complexity and vast spatial extent of the system. This is not to say that this heterogeneity should be ignored, as it has
62 been in the hunting ban, but that it needs to be acknowledged and accounted for in conservation and tourism policy-making and planning.
I suggest that trophy hunting in Botswana should be approached not from a national or even international ideal of conservation, but instead reflect the heterogeneity inherent in the localized socioecological system of Ngamiland. One useful strategy for achieving this goal is to transition data collection, particularly of ecological data like wildlife populations, away from the regional or arbitrarily defined aerial survey tracts to the concession-level. This strategy has already been employed by other researchers in Botswana, including the 2011 survey so critical to the hunting ban’s justification. Continuing research with this kind of data aggregation in mind is a critical aspect to addressing outcomes of the hunting ban.
This kind of analysis which specifically acknowledges the diverse circumstances among concession areas is an example of a more useful approach to regulating hunting than a universal ban. Work is already being undertaken to assess suitability for photographic tourism in certain concesisons based upon wildlife abundance. Though a useful metric, ideally a suitability analysis of this nature would explicitly integrate data from social and ecological systems to adequately reflect the socioecological landscape of Ngamiland and other parts of Botswana
5.2 Areas for Future Research
These recommendations, of course, need to be backed up by additional research, ideas for which will be outlined here. The most critical area for further inquiry is the relationship between trophy hunting, conservation and livelihood practices. Though much has been theorized about the dynamics which exist between these three factors, there is a relative paucity of data about the observed relationship in practice, either by qualitative or quantitative methods. Establishing more clearly how much revenue is, or was, generated from trophy hunting and how that revenue
63 was distributed is an essential component for future research. The same approach could be applied to an assessment of photographic tourism in the wake of the hunting ban. Monitoring the way that CBNRM is perceived at the community level, particularly in former hunting concessions is another component of this research track. A key question is whether the elimination of hunting reduce participation in CBNRM or the effectiveness of the program.
Understanding this relationship will help greatly with future conservation policy planning in
Botswana.
The lack of information about the relationship between wildlife populations and various management techniques is quite shocking given the central placement in the justification of the hunting ban. Of course, establishing this relationship would be quite complex as a myriad of ecological and social variables are in play. Further research in this area is nonetheless essential, particularly if the hunting ban is to remain permanent or semi-permanent. Especially critical is an examination of landscape-level changes due to drought, bush fires, and fragmentation among other factors which impact wildlife population dynamics.
Along with this continued research, the integration of local knowledge and community- level monitoring of wildlife populations and management would benefit from further scholarly inquiry. This kind of data would be closely tied to the concession level by its nature, and would allow for increased opportunities for local participation in the tourism and conservation industries. A recently introduced update to the Management-Oriented Monitoring System
(MOMS) has the potential to fulfill this research objective, though it remains to be seen how effective this monitoring system will be.
A longer time scale is critical for all of these suggestions of future research. Short-term projects like this can provide some useful indicators at a given point in time, but extended monitoring and evaluation efforts of the hunting ban and other conservation policies are of
64 primary importance. This is especially critical for ecological studies, though some data is available for the last 20-30 years via satellite imagery.
The role of international conservation in national-level policy making is an additional area that would benefit from more substantial inquiry. President Khama seems to have been influenced by these international ideas, but what mechanisms are involved and the extent of this influence in other places is as of yet unknown. Cross-scalar interactions and influences like this are a prominent subject of geographic inquiry and lend a valuable perspective to resource management issues in developing countries, which are often supported with funds from international donors in the conservation community.
5.3 Conclusion
In conclusion, the heterogeneous socioecological landscape of Ngamiland, coupled with a weak tie between hunting and sustainable wildlife management leaves space for an adjustment of the hunting ban. Potential benefits are thus in question, while negative consequences are more apparent, particular in areas such as Mababe with limited potential for a successful transition to photographic tourism. Given the central role of government in Botswana, changes such as these will likely need to stem from the top versus being instigated from the bottom up. However, whether any changes truly take place is uncertain given the president’s staunch opposition to hunting.
A few key suggestions can be made in light of these results. The first is relatively simple; data needs to be aggregated at the same scale in order to facilitate investigation of the connections between wildlife populations, land management techniques and livelihood practices, particularly those associated with CBNRM. A suitability analysis for photographic tourism, or any other kind of land use, can subsequently be undertaken, preferably using a socioecological
65 systems framework. Action to mitigate the most challenging transitions can thus be undertaken, and some of the negative consequences of the hunting ban mitigated. Research at the point of transition is useful but should be continued forward in time to establish impacts of the hunting ban at multiple temporal, as well as spatial scales.
Botswana has long been a critical area of the world for conservation efforts. The success in wildlife management, supported through a combination of hunting and photographic tourism, is something to be celebrated. However, the elimination of trophy hunting as a livelihood practice and conservation strategy is a dramatic change which will benefit and disadvantage particular concession areas depending on social and ecological circumstances. This socioecological heterogeneity is not recognized by Botswana’s hunting ban, and thus the consequences of the policy will be unevenly distributed across the landscape.
66
References
Adams, W. M. 2009. Sportsman’s Shot, Poacher's Pot: Hunting, Local People and the History of Conservation. In Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelhoods, eds. B. Dickson, J. Hutton, and W. M. Adams, 127–140. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Agrawal, A., and C. C. Gibson. 1999. Enchantment and disenchantment: The role of community in natural resource conservation. World Development 27 (4):629–649.
Arntzen, J., B. Buwani, T. Setlhogile, D. L. Kgathi, and M. . Motsholapheko. 2007. Community-Based Resource Management, Rural Livelihoods, and Environmental Sustainability.
Arntzen, J., D. . Molokomme, E. . Terry, N. Moleele, O. Tshosa, and D. Mazambani. 2003. Final Report of the Review of Community-Based Natural Resource Management in Botswana Volume 1 : Main findings A study carried out for the National CBNRM Forum September 2003. Gaborone, Botswana.
Baker, J. E. 1997. Development of a model system for touristic hunting revenue collection and allocation. Tourism Management 18 (5):273–286.
Baker, J. E. 1997. Trophy Hunting as a Sustainable Use of Wildlife Resources in Southern and Eastern Africa. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5 (4):306–321.
Barnes, J. I. 2001. Economic returns and allocation of resources in the wildlife sector of Botswana. South African Journal of Wildlife Research 31 (3&4):141–153.
Boggs, L. 2004. Community-based natural resource management in the OKavango Delta. In Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-Based Natural Resource Managment in Southern Africa, eds. C. Fabricius and E. Koch, 147–159. London: Earthscan.
Boggs, L. P. 2000. Community Power, Participation, Conflict and Development Choice: Community Wildlife Conservation in the Okavango Region of Northern Botswana.
Booth, V. R., and D. H. M. Cumming. 2009. The Development of a Recreational Hunting Industry and its Relationship with Conservation in Southern Africa. In Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelhoods, eds. B. Dickson, J. M. Hutton, and W. M. Adams, 282–295. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Chase, M. 2011. Dry season fixed-wing aerial survey of elephants and wildlife in northern botswana.
Cumming, G. S., D. H. M. Cumming, and C. L. Redman. 2006. Scale Mismatches in Social-Ecological Systems : Causes , Consequences , and Solutions. Ecology and Society 11 (1):14.
Department of Wildlife and National Parks. 2011. "About us". www.dwnp.gov.bw. Accessed March 18, 2014.
------. 2012. Aerial Census of Animals in Botswana: 2012 Dry Season. Republic of Botswana.
67
------. 2004. Aerial Census of Animals in Botswana: 2004 Dry Season. Republic of Botswana.
Department of Lands. 2009. Ngamiland Integrated Land Use Plan. Republic of Botswana.
Department of Water Affairs, 2010. Annual Climate Statistics Report. Republic of Botswana.
Deere, N. J., and N. Yorkshire. 2011. Exploitation or Conservation? Can the Hunting tourism Industry in Africa be Sustainable? Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 53 (4):20– 32.
Emerton, L. 2001. The Nature of Benefits & the Benefits of Nature: Why Wildlife Conservation has not Economically Benefited Communities in Africa. In African Wildlife and Livelihoods: The Promise and Performance of Community Conservation, eds. D. Hulme and M. W. Murphee, 208–226. Oxford: James Currey Ltd.
Folke, C., T. Hahn, P. Olsson, and J. Norberg. 2005. Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 30 (1):441–473.
Gressier, C. 2014. An Elephant in the Room: Okavango Safari Hunting as Ecotourism? Ethnos 79 (2):193–214.
Jones, B. T. B. 2009. Community Benefits from Safari Hunting and Related Activities in Southern Africa. In Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelhoods, eds. B. Dickson, J. M. Hutton, and W. M. Adams, 157–177. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Jones, B. T. B., and M. W. Murphree. 2004. Community-Based Natural Resource Management as a Conservation Mechanism: Lessons and Directions. In Parks in Transition: biodiversity, rural development and the bottom line, ed. B. Child, 63–103. London: Earthscan.
King, B. 2010. Conservation Geographies in Sub-Saharan Africa: The Politics of National Parks, Community Conservation and Peace Parks. Geography Compass 4 (1):14–27.
Leader-Williams, N. 2009. Conservation and Hunting: Friends or Foes? In Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelhoods, eds. B. Dickson, J. Hutton, and W. M. Adams, 9–25. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Lindsey, P. a, L. G. Frank, R. Alexander, a Mathieson, and S. S. Romañach. 2007. Trophy hunting and conservation in Africa: problems and one potential solution. Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology 21 (3):880–3.
Lindsey, P. A. Economics of the safari hunting industry.
Lindsey, P. a., R. Alexander, L. G. Frank, a. Mathieson, and S. S. Romanach. 2006. Potential of trophy hunting to create incentives for wildlife conservation in Africa where alternative wildlife-based land uses may not be viable. Animal Conservation 9 (3):283–291.
68
Lindsey, P., P. Roulet, and S. Romanach. 2007. Economic and conservation significance of the trophy hunting industry in sub-Saharan Africa. Biological Conservation 134 (4):455–469.
Lovelock, B. 2008. An introduction of consumptive wildlife tourism. In Tourism and the Consumption of Wildlife, ed. B. Lovelock, 3–30. New York: Routledge.
Loveridge, A. J., and J. C. Reynolds. 2006. Does sport hunting benefit conservation ? In Key Topics in Conservation Biology, 224–240.
Madzwamuse, M., and C. Fabricius. 2004. Local Ecological knowledge and the Basarwa in the Okavango Delta: The case of Xaxaba, Ngamiland District. In Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-Based Natural Resource Managment in Southern Africa, eds. C. Fabricius and E. Koch, 160–173. London: Earthscan.
Magome, H., and C. Fabricius. 2004. Reconciling biodiversity conservation with rural development: The Holy Grail of CBNRM? In Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community-Based Natural Resource Managment in Southern Africa, eds. C. Fabricius and E. Koch, 93–114. London.
Mbaiwa, B. Y. J. E., and O. I. Mbaiwa. 2006. The Effects of Veterinary Fences on Wildlife Populations in Okavango Delta , Botswana. International Journal of Wilderness 12 (3):17–24.
Mbaiwa, J. E. 2013. Community-Based Natural Resource Managment (CBNRM) in Botswana: CBNRM Status Report of 2011-2012.
Mbaiwa, J. E. 1999. Prospects for Sustainable Wildlife Resource Utilisation and Management in Botswana: A Case Study of east Ngamiland.
Mbaiwa, J. E. 2005. Wildlife resource utilisation at Moremi Game Reserve and Khwai community area in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of environmental management 77 (2):144–56.
Mbaiwa, J. E., and A. L. Stronza. 2010. The effects of tourism development on rural livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 18 (5):635–656.
Ministry of Environment, Wildlife, and T. 2007. Community Based Natural Resources Management Policy.
Norton-griffiths, M. 2007. How Many Wildebeest Do You Need? World Economics 8 (2):41–64.
Novelli, M., J. I. Barnes, and M. Humavindu. 2006. The Other Side of the Ecotourism Coin: Consumptive Tourism in Southern Africa. Journal of Ecotourism 5 (1-2):62–79.
OKACOM, 2011. Cubango-Okavango River Basin Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis. Maun, Botswana.
Ostrom, E. 2009. A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological systems. Science (New York, N.Y.) 325 (5939):419–22.
69
Oindo, B.O. and A. K Skidmore. 2002. Interannual variability of NDVI and species richness in Kenya. International Journal of Remote Sensing. 23 (2):285-298.
Pabst, Mark. 2013. Botswana: Trophy Hunting to Ecotourism. The Financialist. http://www.thefinancialist.com/botswana-moves-to-eco-tourism-from-trophy-hunting/. 3/15/13. Access 11/24/13.
Pettorelli, N., S. Ryan, T. Mueller, N. Bunnefeld, B. Jedrzejewska, M. Lima, and K. Kausrud. 2011. The Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI): unforeseen successes in animal ecology. Climate Research 46 (1):15–27.
Pollock, K. H. and W. Kendall. 1987. Visibility Bias in Aerial Surveys: A Review of Estimation Procedures. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 51 (2): 502-510.
Repblic of Botswana 2007. Community Based Natural Resources Management Policy. Gaborone, Botswana.
------. 1992. Tourism Policy. Gaborone, Botswana
------.1990. Tourism Act. Gaborone, Botswana
------.2000. Tourism Master Plan. Ministry of Wildlife, Environment and Tourism.
Scott, J. 1998. Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have failed. Yale Univesity press.
Schuster, B. 2006. Towards Vision 2016 : CBNRM’s potential to contribute and CBNRM Status Report 2006. In Proceedings of the Fourth National CBNRM Conference. Gaborone, Botswana.
Thakadu, O. T. 2005. Success factors in community based natural resources management in northern Botswana: Lessons from practice. Natural Resources Forum 29 (3):199–212.
Turner, W., S. Spector, N. Gardiner, M. Fladeland, E. Sterling, and M. Steininger. 2003. Remote sensing for biodiversity science and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 18:306–314.
U.S Geological Survey Landsat Imagery. http://glovis.usgs.gov. Accessed September 25, 2014
Wall, B., and B. Child. 2009. When Does Hunting Contribute to Conservation and Rural Development? In Recreational Hunting, Conservation and Rural Livelhoods, eds. B. Dickson, J. M. Hutton, and W. M. Adams, 255–265. West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
Young, K. D., S. M. Ferreira, and R. J. van Aarde. 2009. Elephant spatial use in wet and dry savannas of southern Africa. Journal of Zoology 278 (3):189–205.
West, Paige. 2006. Conservation is our Government Now: the Politics of Ecology in Papua New Guinea. Duke University Press.
70
Appendix A: Wildlife Populations in Ngamiland, 1989-2012 (Department of Wildlife and National Parks 2004, Chase 2011)
Species 1989 1990 1991 1992 1994 1995 1996 1999 Buffalo 24881 47811 60614 41612 24643 19162 33209 80440 Eland 481 118 1237 990 610 325 388 1205 Elephant 31709 41280 35534 30867 53652 49095 56744 77003 Impala 21391 20991 34724 22631 42602 49876 57014 45006 Kudu 1687 3539 13570 6696 14188 11896 9579 6631 Lechwe 22818 60919 83181 64823 70499 70421 77985 77917 Ostrich 786 896 10476 9019 9642 7023 10068 7441 Tssessebe 3720 9699 13962 10550 10915 8108 13834 10832 Warthog 2844 4721 12423 5756 10449 13087 10006 4634 Wildebeest 20025 19027 25388 28042 22788 26178 18990 22992 Zebra 8899 44357 32141 15920 21643 25499 23324 24595
Species 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2010 2012 Buffalo 72533 36985 17697 15457 48802 40832 31489 53424 Eland 725 625 360 209 1912 868 290 909 Elephant 67568 65438 57381 27885 88626 80262 61621 126474 Impala 21960 15880 26419 22382 30156 43292 44640 69898 Kudu 5131 6471 3693 4780 5552 4779 2011 5624 Lechwe 56390 70030 48628 35509 37947 37725 32482 26344 Ostrich 9010 8681 4868 5887 6644 6716 497 5485 Tssessebe 3079 5812 4560 2330 3109 3128 2240 1750 Warthog 2451 2866 1148 1008 1529 2167 1951 1558 Wildebeest 12675 14065 5765 5359 5367 4663 1985 13876 Zebra 30769 19734 17447 32514 21042 25137 11426 62956
71
Appendix B: NDVI distribution across all concessions, 1990-2008
1990 1992 CHA 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 CH_1 69.635 14.838 6.739 8.788 92.139 3.766 1.439 2.656 CH_11 45.487 16.360 10.714 27.440 71.176 1.615 0.049 27.161 CH_2 7.803 16.559 36.546 39.092 72.604 20.580 6.498 0.318 CH_3 61.261 22.068 13.791 2.880 90.193 7.607 1.513 0.687 CH_7 40.096 20.782 18.727 20.394 76.284 6.973 0.381 16.361 NG_14 57.983 22.293 11.910 7.814 86.840 8.163 3.058 1.940 NG_15 74.450 13.141 5.733 6.677 90.201 5.489 1.856 2.454 NG_16 67.958 21.079 8.390 2.573 96.076 2.884 0.540 0.499 NG_17 23.298 9.391 10.975 56.336 51.885 13.106 15.018 19.991 NG_18 70.785 18.914 7.265 3.035 92.652 6.235 0.933 0.180 NG_19 45.957 29.836 16.843 7.364 92.434 5.899 1.259 0.408 NG_20 70.663 14.211 6.848 8.277 88.452 5.976 3.397 2.175 NG_21 15.927 5.945 9.952 68.176 38.210 11.550 15.980 34.260 NG_28 33.049 14.393 16.127 36.430 68.713 10.922 8.378 11.987 NG_31 58.191 9.225 9.293 23.291 78.540 7.862 6.611 6.987 NG_32 66.792 10.715 8.985 13.508 88.487 6.152 3.617 1.744 NG_33 73.911 7.796 7.533 10.759 86.338 6.212 4.227 3.223 NG_34 53.513 21.651 16.165 8.670 80.540 11.973 4.464 3.023 NG_41 85.896 9.654 3.978 0.472 99.321 0.629 0.043 0.007 NG_42 89.089 7.014 1.095 2.802 96.413 0.763 0.036 2.788 NG_43 89.472 7.768 2.581 0.178 99.649 0.340 0.011 0.001 NG_47 81.018 9.216 2.734 7.032 93.175 0.142 0.004 6.679 Average 62.351 16.613 11.221 9.815 87.981 6.682 2.569 2.769
-1 1 72
1994 1995 CHA 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 CH_1 73.226 17.713 7.342 1.719 82.192 9.103 4.054 4.651 CH_11 15.616 26.663 30.872 26.850 67.866 10.948 7.607 13.579 CH_2 64.182 9.652 17.882 8.284 52.396 26.053 17.373 4.179 CH_3 40.733 24.260 25.203 9.804 72.909 13.422 8.114 5.555 CH_7 19.971 23.258 33.328 23.443 82.871 7.204 1.816 8.109 NG_14 59.421 22.049 12.033 6.498 85.548 8.051 3.505 2.896 NG_15 65.318 22.157 10.187 2.337 81.088 9.354 4.250 5.308 NG_16 57.416 26.784 13.087 2.713 85.737 8.725 3.504 2.033 NG_17 34.060 12.034 17.019 36.887 30.321 8.167 12.104 49.408 NG_18 26.610 35.694 32.089 5.607 70.424 19.407 7.743 2.426 NG_19 36.975 30.870 25.084 7.071 58.440 21.405 13.324 6.830 NG_20 50.594 29.388 13.234 6.783 74.864 10.237 5.862 9.037 NG_21 37.626 10.482 14.121 37.772 28.980 6.760 9.118 55.142 NG_28 35.531 16.525 20.384 27.561 39.632 14.806 13.624 31.938 NG_31 52.522 11.067 11.883 24.528 53.462 9.094 9.907 27.537 NG_32 71.789 10.338 8.268 9.605 72.641 8.592 7.934 10.833 NG_33 76.883 9.205 7.181 6.731 65.125 9.734 9.771 15.370 NG_34 43.761 23.264 20.500 12.475 47.283 16.847 16.361 19.509 NG_41 37.873 37.050 22.311 2.766 86.155 7.367 4.518 1.960 NG_42 22.145 42.097 29.684 6.073 93.484 3.271 0.797 2.448 NG_43 42.548 36.451 19.389 1.612 90.608 6.139 2.747 0.507 NG_47 53.796 30.789 11.383 4.032 89.227 6.114 1.924 2.735 Average 42.412 26.571 21.446 9.571 72.592 11.888 7.375 8.145
-1 1 73
1998 2000 CHA 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 CH_1 94.381 1.568 1.169 2.882 89.104 3.886 1.804 5.205 CH_11 79.520 8.573 0.672 11.235 40.143 8.606 4.545 46.707 CH_2 73.040 16.307 9.666 0.986 9.545 13.410 28.738 48.307 CH_3 94.341 4.551 0.713 0.396 47.512 20.558 17.227 14.703 CH_7 83.713 6.787 0.860 8.640 16.679 25.440 29.119 28.762 NG_14 96.363 1.281 0.794 1.562 81.849 11.063 2.796 4.292 NG_15 97.916 0.798 0.525 0.761 89.078 4.931 1.179 4.812 NG_16 99.472 0.382 0.106 0.040 59.254 26.081 11.210 3.455 NG_17 43.809 14.902 16.714 24.574 14.972 7.634 9.311 68.083 NG_18 97.672 1.443 0.635 0.250 33.788 34.995 23.626 7.591 NG_19 98.088 1.608 0.254 0.050 8.861 16.191 40.056 34.892 NG_20 94.959 2.752 1.547 0.742 36.848 30.005 19.814 13.333 NG_21 50.515 9.198 12.478 27.809 7.007 4.346 9.137 79.511 NG_28 65.920 12.681 9.172 12.228 18.126 14.829 18.115 48.929 NG_31 77.274 7.575 7.160 7.991 27.108 13.364 13.447 46.081 NG_32 98.637 1.028 0.293 0.042 39.022 16.184 15.249 29.545 NG_33 94.414 3.785 1.393 0.408 12.818 12.141 19.219 55.822 NG_34 87.252 9.050 2.929 0.768 41.397 27.218 17.087 14.298 NG_41 97.053 2.751 0.188 0.007 32.100 26.169 24.060 17.670 NG_42 91.776 5.428 0.366 2.429 23.865 20.868 22.415 32.852 NG_43 96.754 3.088 0.157 0.001 31.583 25.384 23.836 19.197 NG_47 95.094 1.607 0.057 3.241 3.594 7.353 16.651 72.401 Average 90.351 5.191 2.144 2.313 39.950 20.590 17.977 21.483
-1 1
74
2004 2005 CHA 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 CH_1 7.383 3.943 6.692 81.982 63.923 18.414 13.230 4.434 CH_11 0.309 0.021 0.272 99.398 23.240 30.474 19.340 26.946 CH_2 0.012 0.009 0.024 99.956 6.159 16.079 33.087 44.675 CH_3 0.831 0.976 2.395 95.797 43.588 24.725 21.414 10.272 CH_7 0.295 0.413 1.793 97.500 13.926 21.068 29.950 35.056 NG_14 2.547 0.810 3.276 93.367 51.395 27.667 15.221 5.717 NG_15 0.706 0.857 2.715 95.722 69.328 20.539 7.544 2.589 NG_16 2.992 1.719 5.309 89.979 65.096 23.855 9.002 2.047 NG_17 0.395 0.490 1.673 97.443 32.557 15.205 19.845 32.393 NG_18 0.086 0.252 2.023 97.639 47.541 31.654 17.692 3.113 NG_19 0.948 1.274 3.539 94.239 67.503 20.813 9.268 2.416 NG_20 0.981 1.471 5.532 92.016 59.246 22.135 12.149 6.470 NG_21 4.250 2.579 4.947 88.224 48.509 10.005 12.990 28.497 NG_28 5.276 4.495 8.079 82.150 52.654 16.850 14.452 16.043 NG_31 4.714 8.419 18.475 68.391 81.706 6.511 5.315 6.468 NG_32 2.432 4.694 13.300 79.574 94.545 3.481 1.466 0.507 NG_33 0.875 1.676 6.177 91.272 73.254 16.576 7.998 2.172 NG_34 0.894 2.264 7.314 89.528 42.425 23.571 22.584 11.419 NG_41 0.486 0.986 3.098 95.429 80.272 11.765 6.103 1.859 NG_42 0.078 0.201 2.316 97.405 77.374 12.583 5.590 4.453 NG_43 0.199 0.719 5.484 93.597 85.768 10.054 3.781 0.398 NG_47 0.188 0.469 3.980 95.363 74.421 12.252 5.119 8.208 Average 1.389 1.348 3.822 93.441 54.999 20.491 15.105 9.404
-1 1
75
2006 2008 CHA 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 CH_1 12.474 8.258 12.962 66.306 23.785 15.388 26.169 34.658 CH_11 0.342 0.854 7.146 91.658 1.608 8.796 27.197 62.399 CH_2 0.012 0.028 0.205 99.755 0.071 0.235 1.195 98.498 CH_3 2.340 2.757 6.637 88.265 14.346 11.970 21.650 52.035 CH_7 0.178 0.065 0.460 99.298 0.407 1.167 6.130 92.295 NG_14 5.301 3.741 8.875 82.084 15.787 12.178 23.957 48.078 NG_15 1.294 1.510 5.814 91.383 13.176 16.509 30.337 39.977 NG_16 4.530 2.242 4.890 88.337 19.654 20.739 35.408 24.199 NG_17 1.624 2.559 7.309 88.508 16.746 10.298 10.913 62.043 NG_18 0.142 0.308 2.715 96.835 9.780 21.360 38.825 30.035 NG_19 1.691 1.469 5.365 91.475 9.227 13.460 31.442 45.871 NG_20 1.474 1.286 2.652 94.588 8.037 16.118 33.930 41.915 NG_21 8.041 4.383 9.746 77.830 13.431 6.636 10.041 69.892 NG_28 5.687 4.620 9.599 80.094 18.794 10.247 17.308 53.651 NG_31 5.856 8.199 18.161 67.784 46.045 10.871 9.503 33.581 NG_32 1.924 1.826 8.657 87.593 27.903 21.593 20.680 29.824 NG_33 0.782 2.793 13.873 82.552 27.471 28.604 27.849 16.076 NG_34 0.296 0.978 5.388 93.337 8.400 13.300 24.295 54.005 NG_41 3.108 2.287 3.580 91.025 25.659 24.939 29.801 19.601 NG_42 0.157 0.546 5.485 93.813 3.968 15.637 35.484 44.911 NG_43 0.079 0.454 4.325 95.142 12.371 21.506 30.050 36.072 NG_47 0.095 0.119 2.321 97.465 3.313 18.317 38.046 40.325 Average 2.338 2.178 5.784 89.700 13.337 14.452 25.244 46.968
-1 1
76