Pre-feasibility study on the listing of Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

June 2014 Prepared by Centre for Applied Research for National MAB Committee Botswana & the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Contents List of Tables ...... 3 List of Figures ...... 3 List of Boxes ...... 3 Acknowledgements ...... 4 Exchange Rate ...... 4 List of abbreviations ...... 5 1 Introduction ...... 6 2 The Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme ...... 8 2.1 The global programme ...... 8 2.2 The southern African Programme...... 10 3 Examples of international biosphere reserves relevant to Botswana ...... 12 4 Benefits of biosphere reserves and comparison with other global certification programmes .... 15 5 Identification and initial ranking process of potential Botswana Biosphere Reserve sites ...... 18 5.2 Synopsis of possible BR sites ...... 19 5.2.1 Greater Gaborone ...... 19 5.2.3 Makgadikgadi Wetlands ...... 20 5.2.4 Southern Sua Pan ...... 21 5.2.5 Northern Forest Reserves ...... 22 5.2.6 Botswana part of the Kalahari Transfrontier Park and surrounding area ...... 22 5.2.7 Okavango Delta Ramsar Site ...... 23 5.2.8. Khutse Game Reserve – Western Kweneng ...... 23 5.3 Ranking of the sites ...... 25 6 Description of the preferred BR site: Makgadikgadi wetlands ...... 29 6.1 Background assessment ...... 29 6.1.1 Biophysical characteristics ...... 29 6.1.2 Socio-economic characteristics ...... 33 6.1.3 Governance/Management Framework ...... 33 6.2 Stakeholder consultations ...... 35 6.2.1 Introduction and scope ...... 35 6.2.2 Stakeholders’ views...... 36 6.2.3 General views ...... 37 6.4 Conclusion ...... 37 7 Summary, conclusions and recommendations ...... 38 7.1 Review of potential BR sites ...... 38 7.2 Pre-feasibility assessment for nomination of the Makgadikgadi wetlands as a BR ...... 39 7.3 BR related activities for other potential BR sites ...... 41 References ...... 42

2 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Annex I: Terms of Reference for a Prefeasibility Study on UNESCO Biosphere Reserves in Botswana 44 Annex II: List of people participating in community consultations, April 2014...... 46 Annex III: Schedule of Makgadkgadi wetlands local consultations ...... 48 Annex IV: List of important support documents...... 49 Annex V: Makgadikgadi wetlands BR listing endorsements ...... 50

List of Tables

Table 1: Criteria for BR site ranking and weights used...... 25 Table 2: Unweighted criteria scores by potential BR site ...... 26 Table 3: An overview of the villages under each cluster: ...... 35

List of Figures

Figure 1: An indicative outline of the boundaries of the eight potential biosphere reserves...... 19 Figure 2: Ranking of the BR site options (1 = highest scores; 8 is lowest scores) ...... 27 Figure 3: Provisional Makgadikgadi wetland area ...... 30 Figure 4: Land use in the Makgadikgadi wetlands ...... 30

List of Boxes Box: 1: Designation procedure for biosphere reserves ...... 9

3 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Acknowledgements

This study has been carried out by a team of the Centre for Applied Research CAR (Batsumi Rankokwane, Jaap Arntzen and Kabelo Senyatso) with valuable inputs and contributions to this report by Thomas Schaaf of Terra-Sana Environmental Consulting.

The study has been financed by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN).

The authors are grateful to the National Man and Biosphere Committee (NMABC), chaired by Moemi Batshabang, for their guidance on this assignment. We are indebted to the Department of Environmental Affairs for their large support during the community consultations.

We thank the local community cluster representatives from across the Makgadikgadi, and chiefs of Nata, Mosu, and Rakops for hosting our community consultations, and for their inputs. Similarly, we would like to thank other contributors such as BotAsh, Debswana, and various committees dealing with the Makgadikgadi wetlands.

The contributions of so many institutions and individuals demonstrate the interest in and support for the biosphere listing process in Botswana.

Exchange Rate 6th of May 2014; www.fx.rate.net

BWP 1 = Euro 0.0825658 BWP 1 = US$ 0.1149 BWP 1 = Rand 1.19686

4 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

List of abbreviations

AfriMAB African Man and Biosphere Programme BfN Federal Agency for Nature Protection (German Government) BR Biosphere Reserve CAR Centre for Applied Research CBNRM Community Based Natural Resources Management CBO Community Based Organisation DDP District Development Plan DLUPU District Land Use Planning Unit GIZ German Agency for International Cooperation IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature MAB Man and Biosphere Programme MIC MFMP Implementation Committee MFMP Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan MWMC Makgadikgadi Wetland Management Committee NDP National Development Plan NMABC National MAB Committee ODMP Okavango Development Management Plan PA Protected Area TAC Technical Advisory Committee ToR Terms of Reference UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization WMA Wildlife Management Area

5 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

1 Introduction

According to the Terms of Reference (ToR) for this study (Annex 1), the overall objective of the prefeasibility study is ‘’to support the National Man and Biosphere (MAB) Committee in order to identify the potential for the establishment of iosphere Reserves (R) in otswana’’/ The specific objectives of the prefeasibility study include:

a. Screening and ranking of potential sites for Biosphere Reserves on the basis of defined criteria; b. Introduction of the BR concept and the testing of its acceptance and implementation potential in the most suitable area; and c. Formulation of recommendations for the establishment of BRs in Botswana in general and for the selected areas in particular.

The following specific tasks are listed in the ToR:

i. Form an interdisciplinary study team of experts that, apart from natural and social science, also covers expertise in community development; ii. Define a set of criteria for the selection of potential BR sites in Botswana that reflect the specific situation in Botswana as well as the potential for local acceptance of and support for a BR; iii. Site identification and selection:  Develop a matrix of a maximum of ten potential sites considering the defined criteria and expert knowledge and indicate why the specific site would be suitable for nomination as a UNESCO BR.  Select a maximum of six potential sites for which a more detailed desk analysis and description is carried out.  Rank the sites and, in accordance with representatives of the National MAB Interim Committee, select one site as a pilot site. iv. Carry out a prefeasibility study in the selected site, considering the following aspects:  Natural and cultural endowment;  Land use;  Development activities;  Institutional set up and stakeholders;  Research and monitoring. v. Submit a report on the potential for the establishment of Biosphere Reserves in Botswana in general and for the selected area in particular. The report should also include recommendations on how to foster MAB implementation in Botswana. vi. Present the results of the study to the National MAB Interim Committee.

Biosphere Reserves are sites established by countries and recognised under UNESCO's MAB Programme to promote sustainable development based on local community efforts and sound science. The MAB programme is an Intergovernmental Scientific Programme aiming to set a scientific basis for the improvement of the relationships between people and their environment globally. The programme seeks to reconcile conservation of biological and cultural diversity with economic and social development through partnerships between people and nature. BRs can be used to test and demonstrate innovative approaches to sustainable development from local to international scales.

Biosphere reserves are thus globally considered as:

6 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

i. Sites of excellence where new and optimal practices to manage nature and human activities are tested and demonstrated; ii. Tools to help countries implement the results of the World Summit on Sustainable Development and, in particular, the Convention on Biological Diversity and its Ecosystem Approach; and iii. Learning sites for the United Nations Decade on Education for Sustainable Development.

In order to qualify for designation as a biosphere reserve, the area needs to meet the following general criteria (see MAB website for details, http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural­ sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/). The area: a. Should encompass a variety of ecological systems1 that represent major bio-geographic regions, including a gradation of human interventions. It should be of significance for biological diversity conservation and provide an opportunity to develop and showcase sustainable development on a regional scale. b. Should have an appropriate size to serve the three functions of biosphere reserves:  Conservation: contribute to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation;  Sustainable development: foster economic and human development which is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable;  Logistic support: support for demonstration projects, environmental education and training, research and monitoring related to local, regional, national and global issues of conservation and sustainable development. c. It should include the above functions, through appropriate zonation, recognising:  a legally constituted core area (or areas) devoted to long-term protection, according to the conservation objectives of the biosphere reserve, and of sufficient size to meet these objectives;  A buffer zone (or zones) clearly identified and surrounding or contiguous to the core area (or areas), where only activities compatible with the conservation objectives can take place;  An outer transition area where sustainable resource management practices are promoted and developed. d. Organizational arrangements should be provided for the involvement and participation of a suitable range of, among others, public authorities, local communities and private interests in the design and carrying out the functions of a biosphere reserve. e. In addition, provisions should be made for:  Mechanisms to manage human use and activities in the buffer zone(s);  A management policy or plan for the area as a biosphere reserve;  A designated authority or mechanism to implement this policy or plan; and  Programmes for research, monitoring, education and training.

1 An ecological system (‘ecosystem’) is defined as a dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit, as per the definition used in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD; see http://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/default.shtml?a=cbd-02).

7 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

2 The Man and Biosphere (MAB) Programme

2.1 The global programme

Sites listed under the “World Network of iosphere Reserves” are widely considered as model regions for sustainable development/ They are part of UNESO’s M! Programme, an intergovernmental scientific initiative launched in the early 1970s. The MAB Programme aims at setting the scientific basis for the improved relationship between people and their environment globally by promoting an interdisciplinary research agenda to maintain ecosystem services and to conserve biodiversity. Moreover, the MAB Programme fosters sustainable development at the local level. Concerned with problems at the interface of scientific, environmental, societal and development issues, the MAB Programme integrates in its approach natural and social sciences, economics and education to improve human livelihoods and to safeguard natural ecosystems. In this light, the MAB Programme promotes innovative approaches to an economic development that is socially and culturally appropriate and environmentally sustainable (see UNESCO-MAB homepage at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-bio sphere programme/).

Sub-programmes and research activities of the MAB Programme focus on specific ecosystems: drylands; wetlands; mountains; tropical forests; urban systems; and marine, island and coastal ecosystems. Study results on these ecosystems as well as on topics such as environment and society, governance and policy or environmental/human impacts and changes are widely published by the international UNESCO-MAB Secretariat in order to share this information among the global scientific and environmental community2.

The MAB interdisciplinary research and conservation initiatives are carried out by MAB National Committees. Currently 158 UNESCO Member States have created MAB National Committees with MAB Focal Points involving a large portfolio of different scientific disciplines that are relevant to help improve understanding of human-environmental interrelationships. A MAB National Committee guides the MAB-related work within a country and provides the link to the international level, in particular with the UNESCO-MAB Secretariat3.

The agenda of the MAB Programme is defined by its main governing body, the International Co- ordinating Council, usually referred to as the MAB Council. It consists of 34 Member States elected by UNESCO's biennial General Conference. The role of the MAB Council is to:

a. Guide and supervise the MAB Programme; b. Review the progress made in the implementation of the Programme; c. Recommend research projects to countries and to make proposals on the organisation of regional or international cooperation; d. Assess priorities among projects and MAB activities in general; e. Co-ordinate activities with other international scientific programmes; and, f. Consult with international non-governmental organizations on scientific or technical questions

2 (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural - sciences/ environment/ecological-sciences/related-info/ publications). 3 A directory of all MAB National Committees and MAB focal points is available at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural­ sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/biosphere-reserves/mab/mab-national-committees.

8 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

The MAB Council also decides upon the approval of new biosphere reserves (Box 1) and takes note of recommendations on periodic review reports of biosphere reserves.

Box: 1: Designation procedure for biosphere reserves

The International Coordinating Council (ICC) of the UNESCO MAB Programme is responsible for designating biosphere reserves for the inclusion in the World Network of Biosphere Reserves in accordance with the following procedure: 1) States forward proposals for biosphere reserve nominations through the National MAB Committee, together with supporting documentation, to the UNESCO-MAB Secretariat after having reviewed potential sites, taking into account the designation criteria (the deadline for receiving biosphere reserve proposals by the UNESCO-MAB Secretariat are normally set on 30 September of a given year); 2) The Secretariat verifies the content and supporting documentation. The Secretariat requests missing information from the nominating State in case of incomplete nomination; 3) The international Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves considers biosphere reserve proposals and makes recommendations thereon for the ICC (meetings of the Advisory Committee usually take place in February of March of the year following the submission of a biosphere reserve proposals) ; and 4) The ICC decides on the designation of new biosphere reserves (meetings of the ICC are held in May or June of a given year) and the Director-General of UNESCO notifies the State accordingly

For implementation of its interdisciplinary work on the ground, the MAB Programme relies on individual biosphere reserves that are nominated by UNESCO to serve as model regions for sustainable development and which are an important component of the MAB Programme. Collectively, biosphere reserves constitute the World Network of Biosphere Reserves, which as at April 2014 included 621 sites (including twelve trans-boundary BRs) in 117 countries.

Many BRs collaborate within the framework of thematic and regional or sub-regional networks for knowledge-sharing, research and monitoring, education and training, and participatory decision­ making. There are three sub-regional MAB networks for Asia, one for Latin America, one for Europe and Northern !merica, one for the !rab States and one for !frica, entitled “!friM!”/

The AfriMAB Network consists of most sub-Saharan African countries. It was created by the "Regional Conference for Forging Cooperation on Africa's Biosphere Reserves for Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Development" which took place in Dakar (Senegal) in 1996. The network promotes regional co-operation in the fields of biodiversity, conservation and sustainable development through trans-boundary projects, which are primarily based in biosphere reserves.

Given the size of Africa, and to increase efficiency, several thematic sub-networks were created which correspond to:

a. Zoning and improving biosphere reserve functioning; b. Biosphere reserves and local communities, stakeholders/social actors; c. Participation and income-sharing; d. Trans-boundary biosphere reserves; and e. Logistical support function of biosphere reserves.

The current Chairperson of AfriMAB is Mr Daniel Amlalo (Executive Director of the Environmental Protection !gency of Ghana and hairman of the country’s M! National ommittee), who also participated in the international workshop “UNESO iosphere Reserves – Added Value for Sustainable Development and onservation in Southern !frica” (Gaborone, otswana, November 2013). In fact, it is one of the strengths of the MAB Programme and its regional or thematic networks,

9 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

to provide resource persons and to exchange expertise on issues related to environmental conservation and sustainable development within the various networks.

The Chairperson of AfriMAB is currently assisted by four sub-regional coordinators as follows:

i. Coordinator for Central Africa: Mr Hessana Djibrilla, Cameroon ii. Coordinator for East Africa: Mr Paul Makenzi, Kenya iii. Coordinator for Southern Africa: Ms Skumsa Mancotywa, South Africa iv. Coordinator for West Africa: Ms Martine Gauze Nee Touao Kah, ôte d’Ivoire

AfriMAB meets on a biennial basis. The Third General Assembly of the African Network of Biosphere Reserves (AfriMAB) took place in Accra (Ghana, September 2013).

2.2 The southern African Programme

While many biosphere reserves exist in Central, Eastern and Western Africa (there are currently 64 biosphere reserves in 28 African countries, including two trans-boundary biosphere reserves in Western Africa), there are relatively fewer biosphere reserves in the Southern African sub-region.The following countries (using SADC membership to define the sub-region) have BRs and/or national MAB Focal Points:

While Angola has no BRs as yet, the government has appointed Ms António Lôa of the Ministry of Urbanism and Environment, National Director of Nature Resources, as the country’s M! Focal Point/

The Democratic Republic of Congo has three BRs: Yangambi and Luki (both BRs designated in 1976), and Lufira BR (1982). M. René-Médard Bakenga Mbaya is the Secretary Director of the MAB National Committee in his function as the Chef de service de la Programmation, Formation et Relations internationales.

No BRs exist in Lesotho as yet, although the country would have great potential given its varied mountainous environment and scenery as well as its regionally important ecosystem services, for instance as a supplier of freshwater resources to South Africa. Two representatives from Lesotho attended the international workshop “UNESO iosphere Reserves – Added Value for Sustainable Development and Conservation in Southern !frica” (Gaborone, November 2013)/

Malawi counts two BRs: Mount Mulanje BR (2000) and Lake Chitwa Wetland BR (2006). Dr Sambo of the University of Malawi is the chairperson of Malawi’s M! National ommittee/

As early as 1977, Mauritius had the Macchabee/Bel Ombre site internationally designated as a biosphere reserve; this remains the only BR in the country. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Environment and Urban & Rural Development serves as the country’s Focal Point for the M! Programme.

No biosphere reserves exist in Namibia as yet. However, the Secretary-General of the National Commission for UNESCO in Namibia, and the Namibian delegation to the UNESCO General Conference in November 2013, have expressed keen interest for the establishment of a MAB National Committee as well as for the designation of biosphere reserves in this country. Thanks to financial support provided by UNESCO, the Namibia Nature Foundation (NFF), the Namibian Government, and the UNESCO National Commission are currently working on setting up a MAB National Committee and identifying pertinent sites for biosphere reserve designation involving various tourism operators within Namibia.

10 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

South Africa (together with Kenya) has the largest number of biosphere reserves in sub-Saharan !frica/ The country’s six biosphere reserves are. Kogelberg R (1998), ape West oast (designated in 2000, extended in 2003), Waterberg and Kruger to Canyons (both designated in 2001), Cape Wine lands (2007) and Vhembe (2009). Mr Kallie Naude at the Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism in Pretoria is the Focal Point of South !frica’s M! Programme/ Proposals for two new biosphere reserves have been submitted to the MAB Secretariat at UNESCO regarding Gouritz Cluster and Magaliesberg; a decision on the two proposed sites will be taken at the 26th session of the MAB Council to be held in Sweden in June 2014.

The United Republic of Tanzania has three biosphere reserves: Lake Manyara BR (1981), Serengeti- Ngorongoro (1981) and East Usambara (2000). Dr. Ruzika, Director for Environmental Planning and Research at the National Environment Management Council (NEMC) is the focal Point of the MAB Programme in the U.R. of Tanzania.

In Zambia, Dr. Mwenya of the National Science and Technology ouncil is the country’s Focal Point for the MAB Programme. No biosphere reserves exist in the country as yet.

Zimbabwe had its first BR – the Middle Zambezi BR – approved in 2010. Prof. Magadza of the University of Zimbabwe at Harare is the country’s chairperson for the M! Programme/

Mozambique, the Seychelles and Swaziland are not actively involved in the MAB Programme.

In Botswana, the expressed wish for the creation of a MAB National Committee as well as biosphere reserves was voiced at the international workshop “UNESO iosphere Reserves – Added Value for Sustainable Development and onservation in Southern !frica” (Gaborone, November 2013)/ This wish was realised when the interim MAB committee was formalised late 2013.

11 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

3 Examples of international biosphere reserves relevant to Botswana

At the global level, some 25 to 30 proposals for new BRs are annually submitted by countries to UNESCO for international approval. Out of these, about 15 to 20 new BRs are then designated by UNESCO following a rigorous selection process demonstrating that the proposed sites have:

a. High value in biodiversity conservation; b. Potential for sustainable development through the active involvement of local people in the management of their biosphere reserve; and c. An existing scientific infrastructure to carry out application-oriented research on human­ environment interactions so as to foster sustainable development in line with nature conservation.

This relatively large number of new sites proposed for international “biosphere reserve designation” by UNESCO speaks about the success of the MAB Programme and its World Network of Biosphere Reserves. In the following paragraphs, some case studies from across the world testify the relevance of BRs, which may be of interest to Botswana and other Southern African countries.

In the Kruger to Canyons Biosphere Reserve (South Africa), characterised by savannas, dry forests and grass landscapes, German cooperation assistance work focuses on traditional healers from the Bushbuckridge Traditional Health Practitioners Association to develop a bio-cultural community protocol for the area in order to support the participatory management of natural resources. A bio­ cultural community protocol is a document in which members of a community record their collective traditional knowledge of the landscape and how they utilize its resources. The protocol is the basis for reaching agreements with scientists and private businesses which intend to research or commercially exploit biological resources or traditional knowledge belonging to the local population. Furthermore, the bio-cultural protocol regulates the equitable sharing of any benefits or profits generated by exploitation of such resources.

Having such a basis for negotiation is critical for socio-economic development in the biosphere reserve: the majority of the poor rural population living in the area depend on traditional healers for their health care. The healers act as custodians of the complex knowledge about the medicinal plants that grow in the biosphere reserve. They also play an important part in the transmission of traditional values. Traditional and sustainable uses of medicinal plants will in the future not only help to improve the health situation in the region, but also create new income-earning opportunities. For instance, the Bushbuckridge health practitioners aim to produce plants sustainably and market them commercially. A cooperation venture already exists with the South African cosmetics manufacturer SilkSA for the production of cosmetics based on natural silk fibres.

Bosawas Biosphere Reserve (Nicaragua) links up with three other biosphere reserves in Honduras, including the Rio Platano BR; together they form the meso-American bio-corridor, the largest contiguous area of protected tropical rainforests in Central America. More than 270 plant species occur in the reserve, which also hosts some 200 animal species (including pumas, jaguars and tapirs).

The buffer zone of Bosawas is relatively densely populated which puts considerably strain on its conservation function: original forest is turned into arable land and pastures and hardwood timber from the protected area is being traded illegally. In order to reverse this trend, international and national experts sourced through the R’s networks worked jointly with the local population to draw up plans for the management of the site, including strategies for environmentally and economically sustainable management. All stakeholders now work collectively within a network of state, non-state and private actors to implement the management plan. This means that decisions that are taken

12 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

collectively are also implemented and followed-up in partnership. At the same time, ecological management models within a belt of sustainably managed lands in the buffer zones surrounding the core areas have been developed in collaboration with the local farmers. In this endeavour, an important aspect is not just to produce sustainably but also to find markets for locally-manufactured products such as for cocoa consumers overseas. The indigenous population is also benefitting from alternative sources of income: inhabitants of the reserve can meet their own needs for staple food using traditional methods of husbandry. By selling non-timber products, such as nuts or fruits, they earn additional income, which is used to pay for a variety of purposes like their children’s schooling/ Bosawas BR is a fine example of joint and coordinated action by inhabitants, local and central administrative structures, NGOs and the international community.

With its mangroves, Viet Nam’s Kien Giang’s Biosphere Reserve helps to mitigate the effects of climate change/ Located in the country’s Mekong Delta, the biosphere reserve is rich in biodiversity and performs key ecosystem services, such as the supply of clean drinking water, food and minimisation of soil erosion. Noted for its mangrove forests, species-rich coral reefs and peat swamp forests, the reserve benefits from a successful trilateral collaboration among Vietnamese, Australian and German experts who assist low-income residents that use the site’s resources for everyday survival.

Efforts aim at supporting local fishermen in the restoration of degraded mangrove forests. The designation of marine protected areas where human use is prohibited, allows these areas to function as spawning and refuge sites, thereby ensuring the preservation and “reproduction” of important fish populations. These measures are backed with environmental education: training sessions inform the fishermen of how the mangrove forest ecosystem works so that overfishing can be minimized. Mangroves also make an important contribution to coastal protection by slowing the erosion associated with sea-level rise, one of the consequences of climate change. Moreover, new dikes have been built and existing structures reinforced to withstand the increasingly strong currents along the coast. Dikes used to be breached year after year, and salt water flooded onto agricultural land with disastrous consequences for harvests and fish production. Kien Giang biosphere reserve is not only contributing substantially to poverty reduction by establishing environmentally-sound fisheries, but is also making an important contribution towards ecosystem-based adaptation to climate change in Viet Nam.

Botswana, like most dryland countries the world over, is confronted with challenges regarding the conservation of its biodiversity due to climate variability, high evapotranspiration rates and in particular poverty among human beings in rural dryland areas who are often compelled to overexploit natural resources for their everyday survival. The interregional UNESCO-M! Project “Sustainable Management of Marginal Drylands” (SUM!M!D) addressed these challenges in different dryland biosphere reserves and also facilitated information-sharing among scientists in Africa, the Arab States, Asia, Europe and Latin America.

Omayed Biosphere Reserve (Egypt) participated in the SUMAMAD Project. Scientists from the University of Alexandria carried out a detailed species inventory of this dryland biosphere reserve which is located in a warm desert and semi-desert ecosystem with coastal calcareous dunes. Equally important, the Egyptian project team focused on a wide variety of activities, including ecosystem studies, soil and water conservation techniques, and the rehabilitation of old Roman cisterns for irrigation. Exploring new ways of generating alternative employment opportunities for local communities was one of the highlights of the SUMAMAD Project. At the Omo BR, women cooperatives were empowered to gain access to health care systems and to produce carpets for the local market as well for tourists. The establishment of innovative and low cost solar-powered desalinization plants

13 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

provided safe drinking water to the edouins living in the biosphere reserve’s transition zone which was praised by the Egyptian press all over the country.

In Burkina Faso, the Hippopotamus Pond Biosphere Reserve was yet another SUMAMAD Project success story. Its conservation value derives in particular from its hippopotamus population that has survived in a shallow lake within this West African savannah/dryland ecosystem. However, environmental degradation through pressure from an ever-growing human population and the use of pesticides in nearby cotton farms outside the biosphere reserve has had its toll on the integrity of the site. Therefore, the National entre for Scientific and Technological Research (NRST) and the ‘Inter­ village Association of Natural Resources and Fauna in the Hauts-Bassins (AGEREF-H)’ - a local socio­ professional organization that includes farmers, breeders, fishers, hunters, women, mutual aid associations - acted as an intermediary for activities carried out by the SUMAMAD Project with local producers, in order to ensure the sustainable and participatory management of natural resources in the area. Environmental education and training seminars using the Accelerated Method of Participatory Research brought about notable changes in behaviour among those cotton producers who had been trained on the sustainable management of natural resources. Using theatre plays, school children “educated” their parents by alerting them on the threats of environmental degradation and over-use of pesticides.

Dana Biosphere Reserve in Jordan is the country’s largest protected area comprising four different biogeographic zones. Hefty variations in annual precipitation pose challenges to proper land management, as does over-exploitation of natural resources from overgrazing, wood collection, and hunting, and a general unsustainable use of the drylands: large areas of drylands that were previously unsuitable for agriculture are used now for agriculture. These issues were addressed at Dana BR by Jordan’s Royal Society for the Conservation of Nature (RSCN) as part of the SUMAMAD Project. Awareness raising and training seminars on the sustainable management of the fragile environment and its natural resources were conducted for the local Bedouin tribes. In order to diversify income opportunities for the Bedouin so that the protection of the core zones of the biosphere reserves would be enhanced, a production facility was created so that women could produce organic olive oil soap that is marketed to luxury hotels. Other successful activities included the upgrading of overnight tents and guest facilities for visitors using an explicit ecotourism approach: visits of the spectacular scenery are complemented with experiencing Bedouin traditional culture, and marketing of local organically­ produced herbs, teas, capers and olives. Dana BR is also supporting a silver jewellery workshop in Dana village which uses polished stones produced by the local women’s cooperative- RSN is buying 80% of their jewellery products and sells them in its nature visitors’ centre in the country’s capital city of Amman.

However, increased income opportunities do not only apply to developing countries when a biosphere reserve is internationally designated by UNESCO. This was evidenced in Switzerland by a joint study published by the Federal Technical University (ETH) Zurich and the management of the Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve (Switzerland) which had calculated the added value that is generated within the region due to summer tourism thanks to the biosphere reserve’s activities and the name UNESCO Entlebuch Biosphere Reserve. An annual amount of about 5.2 million Swiss Francs (roughly the same amount in US Dollars) as added value came to the fore, and daily expenditures of visitors amounting to a direct income of 35.8 million Swiss Francs were estimated for the summer period between June and October 2011. If benefits from winter tourism are added, the figures will be even higher. The study concludes that the label “UNESO biosphere reserve” greatly enhanced the marketing potential of the site. Although similar studies do not yet exist for the majority of other biosphere reserves, it is safe to argue that the designation of a site as a “UNESO biosphere reserve” entails substantial benefits that largely outweigh lengthy nomination procedures.

14 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

4 Benefits of biosphere reserves and comparison with other global certification programmes

There are strong perceived and real benefits for countries once their conservation sites are internationally recognised as biosphere reserves. One benefit is that internationally recognised biosphere reserves are more prone to receiving financial assistance from national and international funding sources. For example, the Global Environment Facility (GEF; administered by UNDP, UNEP and the World Bank) is providing substantial funding to projects inter alia related to biodiversity, many of which are implemented in biosphere reserves. The reasoning for selecting BRs as priority sites for GEF – as well as for other donor agencies – is that they:

a. Have proven their value for biodiversity conservation at the international level; b. Have been selected through a rigorous selection process (recommended by the twelve members of the International Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves, and politically approved by the MAB International Co-ordinating Council); c. In addition to biodiversity conservation they also foster sustainable development at the local level; and d. Are subject to a critical periodic review process every ten years since the date of their designation.

For example, the Maya Biosphere Reserve in Guatemala is the focus of the GEF project “Improvement of the Management Effectiveness in the Maya iosphere Reserve”, currently being implemented by the Inter-American Development Bank in conjunction with a loan operation, together totalling over US$33 million. In India, the project, titled “onservation and Sustainable Use of the Gulf of Mannar Biosphere Reserve’s oastal iodiversity”, was signed in 2002 as a 7-year initiative, with GEF funding of US$7.7 million and co-funding of US$19.1 million from Government of Tamil Nadu, Government of India, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and others.

The German Government with its Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety and its Federal Agency for Nature Protection (BfN) is following a very similar reasoning for the provision of funding to biosphere reserves both in Germany and in developing countries. Biosphere reserves also feature high on the priority list for German-international development cooperation. Published by the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ) in 2011, the brochure “iosphere Reserves – Model Regions for a Green Economy” stipulates UNESO Biosphere Reserves as an ideal instrument for German development cooperation to support partner countries in their efforts towards conservation and sustainable use of their own biodiversity. This publication evidences successful projects in Tai R (ôte d’Ivoire), osawas R (Nicaragua), Kruger to Canyons BR (South Africa), Kien Giang BR (Viet Nam) and the Central Amazon region in Brazil. Other benefitting biosphere reserves are: Pilon Lajas BR (Bolivia); Jaragua-Bahoruco-Enriquillo BR (Dominican Republic); Archipelago de Colon BR, Podocarpus-El Condor, and Sumaco BR (all in Ecuador); Rio Platano BR (Honduras); Huascaran BR, Manu BR, Noroeste BR, and Oxapampa­ Ashaninka-Yanesha BR (all in Peru); Pendjari BR (Benin); Mananara-Nord BR and Sahamalaza-Iles Radama R (Madagascar)- the “W” Region BR (Niger); Ichkeul BR (Tunisia); Gunung Leuser BR (Indonesia); Issyk Kul BR (Kyrgyzstan); and Can Gio Mangrove (Viet Nam).

Comparison with other global certification programmes There are currently four globally-active intergovernmental and international, site-based conservation and/or sustainable development instruments in operation. These are designed to encourage national governments and local communities to identify special places, and to work together in ensuring they are conserved and sustainably used for current and future generations. The four instruments are:

15 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

a. The “onvention on Wetlands of International Importance”, called the Ramsar onvention (2 117 designated wetlands); b. The “Global Geoparks Network” which has strong linkages to the UNESCO Global Geoparks Initiative (90 sites in late 2012); c. The “onvention oncerning the Protection of the World ultural and Natural Heritage”, called the World Heritage Convention of UNESCO (981, mostly cultural sites); and d. The “World Network of iosphere Reserves” under the UNESO Man and the iosphere (M!) Programme (621 sites).

Botswana currently has one Ramsar site (the Okavango delta and surroundings) and one4 World Heritage site (Tsodilo Hills). Botswana currently does not have any Biosphere Reserves. Botswana set up an Interim National MAB Committee in 2011 to introduce the MAB programme and the BR concept in the country. The Interim Committee was formalised late 2013.

With 2,117 sites designated for the List of Wetlands of International Importance, the Ramsar Convention has the largest number of environmentally-important places. However, the Ramsar Convention only deals with one particular ecosystem – wetlands – that leaves out many important conservation areas in other ecosystems. The Ramsar Convention is not administered within the United Nations System; it is managed by a standalone secretariat hosted under contract by IUCN.

In November 2012, the Global Geoparks Network counted 90 sites in 26 countries. It is a voluntary, non-legally binding network of member territories. Although the network is managed under the auspices of UNESCO with a Secretariat (Division of Ecological and Earth Sciences), it is not an intergovernmental endeavour, but enjoys international reputation. Its main objective is to promote the importance and significance of geological heritage through engagement with local communities.

The World Heritage Convention has the highest visibility and reputation in the international scene with 759 cultural sites, 193 natural sites, and 29 mixed properties (both cultural and natural) inscribed on its list/ The onvention’s main objective is to conserve exceptional sites of outstanding universal value requiring the highest possible degree of environmental integrity for natural sites. Many natural sites fail to meet the criterion of exceptional and outstanding universal value which accounts for the relatively small number of natural sites vis-à-vis the convention’s cultural properties/

Counting 621 sites, the World Network of Biosphere Reserves under UNESO’s M! Programme promotes harmonized management of conservation of biological and cultural diversity and socio­ economic development based on local community efforts and sound science. Featuring typical and representative ecosystems of a country, they are raised as the principal internationally-designated areas dedicated to sustainable development in the 21st century.

While all international certification instruments mentioned above have great merit in their own right and according to their specified purposes, the biosphere reserve concept is the one that is most linked to ensuring environmental integrity with sustainable development concerns. In fact, the notion of “green economy” has been practised in biosphere reserves long before the term has been used in the international arena because the provision of benefits and income opportunities to local people is part and parcel of their efforts in conserving biological diversity. Bolstered by natural and social sciences, biosphere reserves are living ‘laboratories’ to make sustainable development a reality on the ground/ Operating in a World Network, all biosphere reserves share their scientific expertise and management experience so as to make each participating biosphere reserve a quality site for local inhabitants but also a demonstration site at the national and global levels.

4 The Okavango Delta has been nominated for listing as a World Heritage Site.

16 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Given their wide portfolios, biosphere reserves contribute to finding solutions of the concerns expressed in several multilateral agreements and instruments, such as the UN Convention on Biodiversity; the UN Convention to Combat Desertification; the Millennium Development Goal 7 – Environmental Sustainability; the UN Decade on Education for Sustainable Development (2005–2014); the UN Decade on Biodiversity (2011–2020); the UN Decade for Deserts and the Fight against Desertification (2010–2020)- and the UN International Decade for !ction “Water for Life” (2005– 2015).

If biosphere reserves were created in Botswana, the country could politically showcase its biosphere reserves within the above-mentioned multilateral agreements through its on-the-ground demonstration sites. Moreover, the national biosphere reserves (as well as a MAB National Committee) would benefit from the exchange of international scientific expertise and good/tested practises regarding conservation management through the MAB Programme. Most importantly, it instils pride and provides recognition to the local people by having “their” biosphere reserve designated internationally in demonstrating that nature conservation and quality of life are inseparable.

17 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

5 Identification and initial ranking process of potential Botswana Biosphere Reserve sites

Based on the suggestions and results of the November 2013 Botswana BR workshop, the consulting team further discussed the options and identified 8 possible Biosphere Reserve sites for preliminary assessment. The exercise was largely guided by the assessment criteria as contained in the MAB BR nomination dossier, complemented by local (i.e. Botswana) criteria. The MAB BR criteria indicate that the potential BR should: a. Encompass a mosaic of ecological systems representative of major biogeographic regions, including a gradation of human interventions; b. Be significant for biodiversity conservation; c. Provide an opportunity to explore and demonstrate Sustainable Development approaches on a regional scale; d. Have an appropriate size to serve the three BR functions; e. Have appropriate zoning; f. Have organisational arrangements for the involvement and participation of a range of stakeholders in the design and carrying out of the functions of a BR; g. Have implementation mechanisms; and h. The country-specific criteria considers the current level of qualification for BR status, on the basis of ease of accession, largely based on prevailing socio-political situations and governance structures in place at the various potential BRs.

The 8 sites considered were Greater Gaborone, Tuli block-Tswapong Hills, Makgadikgadi wetlands, Southern Sua Pan (part of the Makgadikgadi wetland), an area including (one of the) Forest Reserves, Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Okavango Delta Ramsar site and Khutse Game Reserve-Western Kweneng.

An outline of the potential BR boundaries, as used in this report, is shown in Figure 1 overleaf.

A desk-top review of literature (e.g. reports, management plans, and internet searches) was undertaken to collect background information for each site. A brief synopsis and ranking of all the sites is provided in the next section.

The ecological ecosystem classification system used in this analysis is the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) Eco-regions, which is used in the Botswana National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism, 2007), and other national environmental planning documents. This is used because the Udvardy classification system otherwise used by the global MAB (http://www.unep-wcmc.org/udvardys-biogeographical-provinces-1975_745.html) would be too coarse for some of our analysis, especially for some of the smaller sites. By using that system, Botswana would only have ecological ecosystems, which would be insufficient for the current analysis, particularly for criteria 4.1 and 4.2. On the other hand, by using the WWF Eco-region classification, Botswana has seven distinct eco-regions: Kalahari Acacia-Baikiaea woodlands; Southern Africa bushveld; Zambezian and Mopane woodlands; Zambezian Baikiaea woodlands; Zambezian flooded grasslands; Kalahari xeric savanna, and Zambezian halophytics.

18 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Figure Potential1: An indicative outlineBR ofsites the boundaries (boundary of the eight potential definitions) biosphere reserves.

Forest Reserves Okavango Delta Ramsar site Makgadikgadi wetlands

Tuli block- Southern Sua Pan Tswapong Hills

Khutse Game Reserve -Western Kweneng

Greater Gaborone, Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park

5.2 Synopsis of possible BR sites

5.2.1 Greater Gaborone

This is an area covering several large villages (Molepolole, Mochudi, Kanye, and Ramotswa), peri­ urban areas (Tlokweng, Mmopane, Metsimotlhabe, Gabane and Mogoditshane), the town of Lobatse and the city of Gaborone (capital of the country) with an approximate population of 581,812 people (Statistics Botswana, 2012). The area has a fairly modest socio-economic status, even though unemployment rate especially among females is still high (21% for females and 18% for males; Statistics Botswana, 2012). Unemployment is also higher for the village settlements as compared to urban centres. However, poverty levels are generally lower and education levels generally better compared to other parts of the country.

The area falls within the Kalahari Acacia-Baikiaea woodlands and the Kalahari xeric savanna, which creates some ecosystem diversity as well as habitat types strong enough to influence local level ecology (Tyler and Borello, 1998). There are notable IUCN Red Listed species which include Cape Vultures Gyps coprotheres, small populations of globally threatened waterbirds (especially greater Phoenicopterus roseus, lesser flamingos Phoenicopterus minor and Maccoa duck Oxyura maccoa) that are occasionally recorded at some wetlands within the study area, and small rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum and cheetah Acinonyx jubatus populations at Mokolodi Nature Reserve useful for environmental education. The diversity of the habitat types, and of land-use and economic activities, provides ample opportunities for demonstrating sustainable development. The presence of hilly areas

19 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

supports nature- and leisure-based walks/climbs, notably in Gaborone and Otse surroundings. Tourism potential, mining activities, as well as both subsistence and commercial agriculture, provide a rich mix to test a wide spectrum of sustainable development limits within the country.

In terms of appropriate zonation, three core zones (Mokolodi Nature Reserve, Mannyelanong Game Reserve and Gaborone Game Reserve) are too small for self-sustained ecological processes. However, all were created primarily for environmental and conservation education. There are no clearly or easily identifiable buffer zones around the core areas because human settlements immediately border the core zones/ However, some of the major dams and wetlands within the site may qualify as ‘buffer zones’- this particularly applies to Gaborone and okaa Dams/ Some localities such as the Water Utilities Corporation-managed dams (Gaborone, Bokaa and Nnywane) offer opportunities to demonstrate sustainable development through nature-based tourism, recreational fishing, boat rides, botanical gardens, ecological park, etc. The area does not have a management plan and mechanisms to manage human activities are lacking.

5.2.2 Tuli block and Tswapong hills

The area straddles the Bobirwa and Tswapong regions and includes the Tuli block area, presenting a mixture of private and communal land tenure systems. The area encompasses over 17 villages in the Bobirwa region (Central: Bobonong) and over 20 villages in the Tswapong region (Central: Serowe- Palapye). There is evidence of limited participation of local communities, private sector and government in biodiversity conservation projects and Community Based Natural Resource Management (NRM), which is primarily the main avenue through which most of otswana’s communities engage in village-wide biodiversity conservation and use of natural resources for livelihood enhancement; however, some communities, including Motlhabaneng, Lentswe le moriti, Mathathane, Lepokole, and Goo-Moremi have established community based organisations and have entered into joint venture partnerships with private companies, alongside Kgetsi-ya-Tsie Trust, which covers 26 villages in eastern Botswana, many of whom are in the area considered for this potential biosphere reserve.

Agriculture and tourism are the most significant land uses. The area has a rich cultural heritage including the Solomon's wall, Tswapong and Lepokole hills (rock paintings, stone age tools and ancient pottery), Zebra dance troupe (women dancers) in Mathathane, Goat dogs in Lentswe le Moriti, Handicraft shelter built in Motlhabaneng and Moremi Gorge, which is a designated national monument. The area does not have a management plan in place. However, the proposed Shashe/Limpopo Transfrontier Conservation Area provides an opportunity for proper participation of all stakeholders and better management of human activities in a part of this potential BR.

5 .2.3 Makgadikgadi Wetlands

The Makgadikgadi wetlands (provisionally defined as the same areas as covered by the Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan, MFMP) have an estimated population of 57,118 people (Statistics Botswana, 2012) and falls largely within the Zambezian halophytics ecoregion; the eastern edge falls within the Southern Africa bushveld, and the rest of the area is bordered by and transitions into the Kalahari Acacia-Baikiaea woodlands. Hence, at broad ecological scales there is some ecosystem diversity within this potential BR. This site also comprises a wetland and a dryland component, further increasing the mosaic of ecological systems, especially at localised scales. The gradient of human intervention is relatively modest, as the area encompasses only a few large towns (Orapa, Sowa) and large villages (e.g. Letlhakane), with small villages largely interspersed with protected areas, agricultural areas, and several mining operations. The demonstration area has global biological significance, as it supports the second largest flamingo population in Africa and other birds listed as

20 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

globally threatened by the IUN Red List, and otswana’s largest zebra and wildebeest migration route. The Makgadikgadi Pans are also the largest area of saltpans in the world.

Makgadikgadi/Nxai Pan National Parks, Nata Sanctuary, Flamingo Sanctuary and Debswana’s Orapa Park constitute legally designated protected areas, which would form the core areas for this BR. Several Wildlife Management Areas occur in the area, the majority of which adjoin the core areas, and thus serving as buffer areas. The transition zone for this potential BR is defined in the Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan (MFMP). The MFMP is also a product of comprehensive stakeholder engagement and also outlines mechanisms for efficient management of human activities within the area. Within this area, there are several localities where sustainable resource management practices are promoted and developed, which include: Mmakgama Ruins, Kaitshe Escarpment, Unikae Spring, Mosu Escarpment, Tlapana Ruins, Toragara, Makgaba Fossils, Lekhubu Island, Thitaba Ruins, Xanikaga Fossils, Lake Xau, Kwalabe Footprints, oteti River, Greene’s aobab, hapman’s aobab, Nxghaishini Pan, Soda Ash Mine, Sua Pan and Ntwetwe Pan. A number of institutional structures exist to monitor implementation of the MFMP and these are the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA), a MFMP Implementation Committee and Makgadikgadi Wetlands Management Committee. Furthermore, the Makgadikgadi wetlands are part of the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA) with the secretariat based in Kasane, Botswana.

5.2.4 Southern Sua Pan

This area represents a section of the larger Makgadikgadi wetland. It falls largely within the Zambezian halophytics ecoregion, whilst on the eastern edge some of the area coincides with the Southern Africa bushveld, and the rest of the area transitions into the Kalahari Acacia-Baikiaea woodlands. This site comprises a wetland and a dryland component, creating a mosaic of ecological systems, and it has otswana’s only joint government/ommunity ased Organisation-managed park as a no-use and restricted-access zone (areas where the flamingos breed), a buffer around this core expanding into the terrestrial habitat, and including agricultural lands, and unprotected areas where conservation ideals are not necessarily imposed. There are a number of IUCN Red Listed fauna and flora species occurring in the area, as well as species protected in Botswana under CITES Appendix 1 and 2, and otswana’s Wildlife onservation and National Parks !ct (1992), and these are reflected in the Southern Sua Pan Management Plan (BirdLife Botswana and Department of Wildlife and National Parks, 2012). This proposed BR comprises the gazetted, protected core (the Flamingo Sanctuary), a surrounding buffer zone on the pan that includes the rest of CT13 and the Mosu escarpment area south of the pan identified in the MFMP as a biodiversity and archaeological hotspot; which comprises part of CT21 and CT16. All of this area is approximately 5,050 km2, which should be sufficient to meet all of the three functions for a BR.

The area constitutes diverse ethnic groups and cultures which include Batawana, Bambukushu, Baherero, Bayei and the Khoisan-speakers (minority) in the four villages of Mokubilo, Mmea, Mosu and Mmatshumo with a combined population of 5,583 (Statistics Botswana, 2012). Unemployment rate is high amongst females (25%) compared to males (18%). Poverty is above average: 38.5% of the population lives in poverty with a 14.1 poverty gap. While poverty might have decreased since 2002/03, rural poverty has proven to be persistent and difficult to resolve. The four villages fall within communal land, which is administered by the Land Board and the majority of the land is for subsistence arable agriculture. Other important sources of livelihood are veld products, Ipelegeng Programme, informal employment, employment in government institutions, backyard gardening and welfare programmes.

Southern Sua Pan, falling wholly within the Makgadikgadi wetlands, is a part of the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA) with the secretariat based in Kasane, Botswana.

21 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

5.2.5 Northern Forest Reserves

This area spans at least three ecoregions, namely Kalahari Acacia-Baikiaea woodlands, Zambezian Baikiaea woodlands and Zambezian and Mopane woodlands, creating a diversity of ecological systems. The gradient of human intervention is relatively modest, as the area encompasses only one town (Kasane) and a few large villages interspersed with protected areas, forest reserves, Controlled Hunting Areas, large commercial farms, and subsistence agricultural areas. Tourism and natural resource conservation constitute the most predominant land use, which to some extent reduces the diversity and gradient of human interventions, livelihood options and pre-occupation of state agencies, private companies, CBOs/NGOs and individuals. The area supports the largest elephant population in the world, as well as important populations of some endangered and vulnerable mammalian species, including wild dogs, cheetahs and lions. Additionally, at least 128 reptile species and 50 species of amphibians have been recorded in the area. The area supports otswana’s two globally threatened fish species: Threespot Tilapia Oreochromis andersonii and Greenhead Tilapia O. macrochir.

The core of this potential BR would constitute the Chobe National Park (10,600 km2) and the six forest reserves (FR) in the area (Chobe FR, Kasane FR, Kasane Extension FR, Kazuma FR, Maikaelelo FR and Sibuyu FR, all totalling 4,176 km2) and protected through (an outdated) Forest Act of 1968. The buffer zone would largely be constituted by the Controlled Hunting Areas, managed primarily for tourism. The transition zone will benefit largely from several ongoing and planned initiatives that will promote sustainable resource management practices and these include the KAZA Transfrontier Conservation Area; the envisaged BioChobe project (which seeks to establish collaborative governance framework within Protected Areas and buffer zones for co-management by government, private sector, communities, NGOs and other relevant stakeholders); an ongoing World Bank-funded Department of Wildlife and National Parks-led Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project; and the development (and eventual roll-out) of forestry and ecotourism guidelines, led by the Department of Forestry and Range Resources.

5.2.6 Botswana part of the Kalahari Transfrontier Park and surrounding area

The original inhabitants of this area are the Basarwa (San), who were later joined by the Bakgalagadi. Presently, there are also non-Bakgalagadi communities e.g. Batlharo, Balala, Nama, Herero and Coloureds. Bakgalagadi are the largest group (22.3%), followed by Basarwa (20.3%) and Batlharo (17.9%). Others are Balala (11.3%), Coloureds (11.4%), Nama (7%) and Herero (1.1%). This potential BR is characterised by low literacy and education levels: 53% of people over 18 years old are illiterate (Statistics Botswana, 2012). The gradient of human intervention is relatively modest, as the area encompasses only a few large villages (Tsabong, Kang, Hukuntsi) and many small villages, interspersed with several Wildlife Management Areas and a very large protected area (Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park), commercial cattle and wildlife ranches, and subsistence agricultural areas (mostly livestock­ based, with minimal arable farming due to the aridity of the area). Tourism and natural resource conservation, as well as livestock keeping, constitute the most predominant land use, which to some extent reduces the diversity and gradient of human interventions, livelihood options and pre­ occupation of state agencies, private companies, CBOs/NGOs and individuals.

All of this area falls within the Kalahari Xeric savannah. The diversity of ecosystems is low at broad spatial scales. However, four habitat types are generally recognised at localised scales within this broad vegetation zone (Makhabu et al., 2002): fossil river valley and pan habitat predominantly comprising grasslands on low-elevation clay soils; gently undulating dune; interdunal (valleys between dunes) habitats, both comprising mosaics of woodland, shrub lands and grasslands on sandy soils; and

22 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

plain habitats comprising mixed shrubs and grasslands with few large trees on mainly loamy soils. The area supports at least ten globally or nationally threatened birds which are protected according to the 7th Schedule of the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act, 1992. At least four plants, 37 mammals, eight amphibians and 62 reptile species are threatened, on the basis of the IUCN Red List (WhiteCap Agencies, 2006). The core area would be the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP). The area has eight WMAs (all of which are ungazetted) and these could act as buffer zones. The development of the KTP TFCA Integrated Development Plan, the ongoing UNDP/GEF-funded ORASECOM-facilitated Orange-Senqu River Basin project, and Department of Forestry and Range Resources projects that seek to control alien invasive trees that negatively impact on the region’s agricultural productivity are some of the opportunities available for livelihood enhancement linked to sustainable development. If this site is to be selected as a candidate biosphere reserve, a future “trans-boundary biosphere reserve” with Namibia and South Africa could be envisaged.

5.2.7 Okavango Delta Ramsar Site

The Okavango Delta is one of the largest Ramsar sites (also includes land around the Delta) in the world, covering approximately 68,640 km2. It is one of only two inland deltas in sub-Saharan Africa and supports a diversity of habitats from perennial swamp to semi-arid scrubland. Much of this area falls within Kalahari Acacia-Baikiaea woodlands, Zambezian Baikiaea woodlands, Zambezian and Mopane woodlands, and Zambezian flooded grasslands, creating a diversity of ecological systems. This wetland is identified as an area of exceptional biodiversity and vital for vulnerable species with over 87 IUCN Red Listed species. The Delta represents a critical wetland ecosystem of national, regional and global importance. The core area for this BR would be the Moremi Game Reserve (4,888 km2), which is the only legally protected conservation area in the Ramsar site, reasonably large enough to support most ecological processes. The Ngamiland district has around 29 WMAs (average size 1,332 km2), of which 27 are gazetted, and two are not; almost all of these WMAs intersect the Ramsar site. These WMAs will provide buffer to the core zone. Tourism, livestock and arable agriculture, fishing, and gathering of veld products and crafts are the mainstay of the local economy. The diversity of ecoregions, as well as different land-use types (parks, controlled hunting areas, commercial farms), and especially the presence of some of the top-earning CBOs in Botswana, offers an opportunity to demonstrate Sustainable Development, particularly linked to CBNRM. In spite of these opportunities, Ngamiland (within which the site falls) is one of the poorest districts in the country (47.3% poverty incidence according to 2009/10 Botswana Core Welfare Indicator Survey, 2009).

The Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP) has been developed to cover the area. A number of mechanisms to manage human activities in the area include: the development of management zones and regulatory guidelines; Okavango Delta Ramsar Site designation and the consequent convention obligations; planning zones, land use zoning, and application of Limits of Acceptable Change within the tourism industry; Fish Protection Regulations developed to discourage unacceptable fishing practices; and guidelines developed on the management and utilisation of vegetation resources, quarrying and sand excavation, fire management, and water quality. DEA coordinates and monitors implementation of the ODMP. The Department works together with the District Land Use Planning Unit (DLUPU), Okavango Wetland Management Committee (OWMC) and the District Development Committee (DDC). Coordination of the implementation of the ODMP is being strengthened through enhanced collaboration between DEA and Okavango Research Institute to provide the required technical support, with international coordination facilitated by the close cooperation between DEA and the Okavango Commission (OKACOM) secretariat.

5.2.8. Khutse Game Reserve – Western Kweneng

23 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

More than 95% of this area falls within the Kalahari Xeric savanna, with the remainder falling within the Kalahari Acacia-Baikiaea woodlands ecoregion. At large spatial scales the diversity of ecosystems is low, but at small spatial scales, some ecosystem diversity does exist. The gradient of human intervention is relatively modest, as the area encompasses only a few large villages (e.g. Letlhakeng) and many small villages, interspersed with several Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs), a small protected area (Khutse Game Reserve), with the majority of the area used for subsistence agricultural areas (mostly livestock-based, with minimal arable farming due to the aridity of the area). Livestock keeping, and veld product use, constitute the most predominant livelihood options, which to some extent reduces the diversity and gradient of human interventions. However, tourism and natural resource conservation are increasingly being explored, largely led by the Botswana Tourism Organisation.

The area consists of various ethnic groups with distinct norms, customs and beliefs that are specific to each group. The Bakgalagadi and Basarwa are the most predominant groups. Other groups include Bakwena, Bakgatla, Bahurutshe and Balete. Poverty and unemployment rates are high, while educational levels are low. Relative to other districts, the area has a poor natural resource base and no significant industrial activity. Lack of telecommunications infrastructure and other services makes the area unattractive to investors hence hampering commercial and industrial development in many villages. However, a major advantage (and hitherto not fully utilised opportunity) within this area, from a wildlife perspective, is that it sits in between the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (CKGR) and the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP), and thus could exploit (non-consumptively, as consumptive use has been banned from January 2014), the large herbivores that migrate between CKGR and KTP.

The core area would be the legally protected Khutse Game Reserve, which is approximately 2,600 km2, and is to the east, south, and west, bordered on farmland, most of it communally-owned tribal land. Khutse Game Reserve on its own is possibly not large enough to support most ecological processes, but its proximity to CKGR to the north enhances it conservation effectiveness. The Kweneng district has four WMAs, all of which are ungazetted and these may act as buffer zones. There are not many area-specific sustainable resource management projects or programmes that could be used to leverage the BR concept in this area; however, perhaps the most significant opportunities include (1) implementation of the sustainable livelihood options developed and prioritised by the recently completed Western Kalahari Conservation Corridor project; (2) Given the importance of rangelands and pastoral farming to the local economy, considerable efforts outside protected areas has to be targeted at providing farmers with a range of management options and tools to ensure sustainable veld management, including minimising human-wildlife conflicts; and (3) There are increasing efforts, and especially including tourism promotion outside of parks, led by the Botswana Tourism Organisation, which should support and complement the MAB programme should this site be declared a BR.

24 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

5.3 Ranking of the sites

The eight sites were ranked as per the criteria contained in the MAB-BR nomination dossier (see above) using an Excel-based multi-criteria analysis (MCA). Added to that are local criteria which looked mostly into the readiness and speed of submission for each site.

The criteria and assigned weights are listed in Table 1. Seven criteria are derived from the MAB-BR nomination dossier and one is ‘otswana added’/ Each criterion (1-8) is given the same weight (15 out of 120); next the weight is divided over the sub criteria. For example, if there are two sub-criteria, they get a weight of 7.5 each. If there are 3 sub criteria, they get a weight of 5. The impact score are shown in Table 2. The impact score were based on the baseline description of the options and the opinions of the team (scores were mostly yes (1) or no (0) impact).

Table 1: Criteria for BR site ranking and weights used.

UNESCO Nomination Form Criteria (see section 4) Units Assigned weight 4.1 Mosaic of ecological ecosystems 4.1.1 Presence of different ecological systems (bio geographic regions) yes (1)- no (0) 7.5 4.1.2 Gradient of human interventions yes – no 7.5 4.2 Be significant for Biological Diversity conservation 4.2.1 Endemic, rare or IUCN red listed species Yes – no 7.5 4.2.2 Habitats with unique land use practices yes – no 7.5 4.3 Explore and demonstrate Sustainable Development (SD) approaches on a regional scale 4.3.1 Ecological, economic and social unique land use practices 7.5 4.3.2 Potential to become SD promotion site yes – no 7.5 4.4 Appropriate size for three BR functions 4.4.1 Large enough for long term conservation objectives (core area/buffer zone) yes – no 7.5 4.4.2 Large enough for testing sustainable natural resource uses with local yes – no 7.5 population 4.5 Appropriate zoning 4.5.1 Legally constituted core area of sufficient size yes - no 5 4.5.2 Clearly identified buffer zone around core area consistent with core zone yes - no 5 objectives 4.5.3 Development zone with sustainable natural resource practices yes - no 5 4.6 Organisational arrangements 4.6.1 Earlier participation of local communities, private sector & government in yes - no 3.75 design & implementation of BR functions 4.6.2 Planned participation as above yes - no 3.75 4.6.3 Previous social & cultural impact assessments Yes – no 3.75 4.6.4 Other tools Yes –no 3.75 4.7 Implementation mechanisms 4.7.1 Mechanisms for management of human activities in buffer zone yes - no 3 4.7.2 Management plan in place for area yes - no 3 4.7.3 Designated authority or mechanisms for plan implementation yes- no 3 4.7.4 Programmes for research, education, monitoring & training in place yes - no 3 4.7.5 Programmes for research, education, monitoring & training planned 3 1 Botswana specific criterion High current level of qualification for BR status - fast nomination Yes – no 15

25 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Table 2: Unweighted criteria scores by potential BR site

Urban- peri urban Makgadikgadi Wetlands Entire Forest Reserves & Okavango Unit of scores Greater Gaborone Tswapong Hills + Tuli wetlands Southern Sua Pan Pandamatenga KTP RAMSAR site Khutse 4.1 Mosaic of ecological ecosystem 4.1.1 Yes - no 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 4.1.2 Yes - no 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.2 Be significant for BD conservation 4.2.1 yes - no 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 4.2.2 yes - no 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 4.3 Explore and demonstrate SD approaches on a regional scale 4.3.1 Yes­ no 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 4.3.2 yes - no 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.4 Appropriate size for three BR function 4.4.1 Yes - no 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.4.2 Yes - no 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.5 Appropriate zoning 4.5.1 Yes - no 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.5.2 Yes - no 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 4.5.3 Yes - no 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.6 Organisational arrangement 4.6.1 Yes - no 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 4.6.2 Yes - no 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 4.6.3 Yes- no 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 4.6.4 Yes – no 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 4.7 Implementation mechanisms 4.7.1 Yes - no 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 4.7.2 Yes - no 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 4.7.3 Yes- no 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 4.7.4 Yes - no 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 4.7.5 Yes - no 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 Botswana country criterion 1 Yes - no 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0

26 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Four different ranking situations have been carried out:

a. Situation 1 & 2: ranking with all criteria (MAB and Botswana specific), weighted and un­ weighted; and b. Situation 3 & 4: ranking with MAB criteria only, un-weighted and weighted.

Table 3 and Figure 2 show scores and ranking on the basis of abovementioned criteria, scores and weights.

Table 3: Scores of potential BR sites

Delta Delta

vango vango

akgadikgadi Greater Greater Gaborone Hills Tswapong Tuli + M wetlands Sua Southern Pan Reserves Forest & Pandamatenga KTP & surroundings Oka RAMSAR & Khutse western Kweneng 1.All criteria UW 6 9 21 20 20 13 21 8

2.All criteria W 42.5 55 120 112.5 112.5 85.5 120 54.25 3.MAB criteria UW 6 9 20 19 19 13 20 8 4.MAB criteria W 42.5 55 105 97.5 97.5 78 105 46.75

Figure 2: Ranking of the BR site options (1 = highest scores; 8 is lowest scores)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

All criteria UW All criteria W MAB criteria UW MAB criteria W

27 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

The assessment of the four rankings leads to the following conclusions:

a. Makgadikgadi wetlands and the Okavango Ramsar site scored the highest (equally ranked); b. Southern Sua Pan and the Forest Reserves/ Pandamatenga are the next high scoring sites; c. The other sites clearly score much lower; and d. The ranking is stable: weighing of results and incorporation of Botswana specific criteria do not change the ranking.

Discussions at the National MAB Committee meeting of 28th February 2014 resulted in the decision to choose Makgadikgadi wetland as the preferred site for further assessment. The main reason was that the Okavango Ramsar site is already internationally recognised (as Ramsar site and most likely soon as a World Heritage site) and the Makgadikgadi wetlands are not. Therefore, more benefits are expected from the nomination of the latter for BR. However, it should be noted that one international designation would not exclude other international designations at a specific site.

28 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

6 Description of the preferred BR site: Makgadikgadi wetlands

6.1 Background assessment

This section provides baseline information about the Makgadikgadi wetlands area. The information is based on a desktop study of key documents, which include amongst others: the Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan (MFMP), National Parks Management Plans (Makgadikgadi and Nxai), Population Census Reports, Environmental statistics, and Core Welfare Indicator Surveys. The information is presented according to biophysical and socio-economic characteristics of the area, which help to espouse the applicability of the assessment criteria as contained in the nomination dossier as well as the added local criteria.

6.1.1 Biophysical characteristics

6.1.1.1 Geographic description

Location The Makgadikgadi wetlands are located in north-eastern Botswana, south-east of the Okavango Delta and south of the Chobe River Front. However, the catchment area extends into Zimbabwe (DEA & CAR, 2010). The provisional boundary (similar to the MFMP area) covers an area of 36,452 km2 as illustrated at Figure 3. Ecologically, the area falls largely within the Zambezian halophytics ecoregion, whilst on the eastern edge some of the area falls within the Southern Africa bush veld, and the rest of the area is bordered by and transitions into the Kalahari Acacia-Baikiaea woodlands. Thus, there is some diversity in the ecological ecosystems of the area at broad ecological scales. Furthermore, this site comprises a wetland and a dryland component, further increasing the mosaic of ecological systems, especially at localised scales.

Zonation Present land use is shown in Figure 4 (Flamingo Sanctuary not yet shown; source: DEA & CAR, 2010). Legally constituted core areas include the Makgadikgadi and Nxai Pan National Parks (gazetted in 1970 and 1971 with areas of 5,040 km2 and 2,480 km2, respectively), Nata and Flamingo Sanctuaries covering 250 km2 and 585 km2, respectively, and Debswana’s Orapa Game Park covering an area of 108 km2. Several Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) occur in the area, and are established purposely for wildlife conservation and sustainable wildlife utilisation for economic returns (Rozemeijer, 2009). The majority of these WMAs adjoin the core areas, and thus serving as buffer zones and protecting wildlife migratory routes. One of the aims of WMAs is to engage local communities more fully in biodiversity conservation outside Protected Areas (PAs) through directly linking livelihoods to biological resources, largely through trophy hunting5 and wildlife-based tourism.

Outside the WMAs are several localities where sustainable resource management practices are promoted and developed. These are areas adjacent and in the vicinity of human populations. Examples of such natural and cultural sites include: Mmakgama Ruins, Kaitshe Escarpment, Unikae Spring, Mosu Escarpment, Tlapana Ruins, Toragara, Makgaba Fossils, Lekhubu Island, Thitaba Ruins, Xanikaga Fossils, Lake Xau, Kwalabe Footprints, oteti River, Greene’s aobab, hapman’s aobab, Nxghaishini Pan, Soda Ash Mine, Sua Pan and Ntwetwe Pan. Management of these sites could be further enhanced with the MFMP area becoming a BR.

5 Trophy hunting is banned effective January 2014, until further notice. 29 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Figure 3: Provisional Makgadikgadi wetland area

Source of figures 3 & 4: DEA and CAR, 2010

Figure 4: Land use in the Makgadikgadi wetlands

30 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

In brief, the National Park and Sanctuaries are the core areas. The WMAs are the buffer zones together with (yet to be determined and agreed upon) parts of the pans. The other land and drier parts of the area with villages and human activities would be the development zone. The exact identification of the three zones needs to be in line with the MFMP and agreed upon as a follow up during the preparation of the nomination dossier.

6.1.1.2 Biological diversity

The Makgadikgadi wetlands have global biological significance as they are important for the conservation of several taxa, of both flora and fauna. The area supports the second largest flamingo population in !frica, and otswana’s largest zebra and wildebeest migration route/ Ten biodiversity hotspots have been identified in the MFMP, and these include the Boteti River, Makgadikgadi and Nxai Pan National Parks, Nata Sanctuary, Nxai and Kudiakam Pan, Nata River, Boteti Delta, NG47 (WMA), Lake Xau, Mosu and Rysana Pans. Biodiversity conservation in unprotected hotspots has been identified as a priority for the MFMP.

Plants Out of the 43 plant species on the country’s Red Data List (Setshogo & Hargraves, 2002), two are found in the Makgadikgadi area and these are Hoodia currorill sbsp lugardili (Vulnerable) and Panicum coloratum (Data Deficient). Other plants of conservation concern and tourist attraction value include Sesamothamnus lugardii, Adansonia digitata, Aloe litoralis and Salvadora persica. They all have restricted geographic distributions in southern Africa with some such as Adansonia digitata found in very high densities in the Makgadikgadi area/ Sua Pans’ phytoplankton community is similar to some few other large shallow saline lakes in the region (e.g. Etosha Pan in Namibia and Lake Chilwa in Malawi), with high and variable salinity and pH. Cyanobacteria species Anabaena, Oscillatoria, Arthrospira, and the diatom species Navicula and Nitzschia are dominant (McCulloch, 2003). These phytoplankton provide an important base for the wetland food chain and a food for some of the threatened bird species such as the Lesser Flamingo.

Birds The Makgadikgadi area supports over 20,000 waterbirds on a regular basis, often with more than 1% of entire global populations for some bird species occurring there seasonally (DEA & CAR, 2010). Some of the bird species found within the Makgadikgadi Pans are considered to be globally threatened, or of national conservation concern (see Table 4).

Mammals There are relatively few medium and large-sized wildlife in the Makgadikgadi Pans compared to other conservation areas in the country due to a combination of a long history of over-hunting and over­ grazing. An exception is the elephants which are re-establishing in the area, especially in south-western Makgadikgadi. However, the Makgadikgadi/Nxai National Parks support a wider diversity and abundance of medium to large wildlife due to their larger geographic size. Some of the species protected in Botswana on the basis of their vulnerability include: Aardwolf (Proteles cristatus), Honey Badger (Mellivora capesis), Antbear (Orycteropus afer), Giraffe (Giraffa Camelopardalis), and Steenbok (Raphicerus campestris; Government of Botswana, 1992). In addition to these species, the Wild Dog (Lycaon pictus) and Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) are protected in accordance with the African Convention, 1968, Class A, and are protected from hunting throughout Africa by mutual consent among African nations. Furthermore, African Elephant (Loxodonta africana), Leopard (Panthera pardus), Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), and Brown Hyena (Hyaena brunnea) which are also reported in the area, are protected under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

31 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Table 4: Key bird species in the Makgadikgadi wetlands and their IUCN threat status

Common name Scientific name Global IUCN Threat Protection status status* Globally Grey Crowned­ Balearica regulorum EN Protected Threatened crane Birds White-backed Gyps africanus EN Protected Vulture Hooded Vulture Necrosyrtes monachus EN Protected Lappet-faced Torgos tracheliotus VU Protected Vulture Cape Vulture Gyps coprotheres VU Protected Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni VU Protected Wattled Crane Bugeranus carunculatus VU Protected Southern Ground Bucorvus leadbeateri VU Protected Hornbill White-headed Trigonoceps occipitalis VU Protected Vulture Martial Eagle Polemaetus bellicosus VU Protected Secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius VU Protected White-headed VU Protected Trigonoceps occipitalis Vulture Birds of Black-winged Glareola nordmanni NT Protected conservation Pratincole concern in Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa NT Protected Botswana Lesser Flamingo Phoeniconaias minor NT Protected Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber LC Protected Bateleur Terathopius ecaudatus NT Protected Pallid Harrier Circus macrourus NT Protected Kori Bustard Ardeotis kori NT Protected Great White Pelecanus LC Protected Pelican onocrotalatus Chestnut banded Charadrius pallidus NT Protected plover Notes: EN = Endangered; VU = Vulnerable; NT = Near Threatened *Protected according to the 7th Schedule of the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act, 1992 in Botswana Source: BirdLife International, 2004.

Amphibians Seventy-two species of amphibians and reptiles have been recorded in the Nata Sanctuary, including Leopard Tortoises (Geochelone pardalis) which are the largest tortoises in Africa. The Python is also protected on the basis of vulnerability. When flooded, Sua Pan has large populations of invertebrates, particularly crustaceans such as Fairy Shrimps. Dominant species of crustaceans include Branchinella spinosa, Moina belli, Lovenula africana and Limnocythere tudoranceai. They are very important food for birds, especially Greater Flamingos. Two of the dominant shrimp species in Sua pan, B. spinosa and L. africana, have not been found elsewhere in southern Africa while others such as the Sclerocypris exserta makarikarensis is endemic to Makgadikgadi Pans (McCulloch, 2003).

Fish Fish species are seen when brought into Sua Pan by the Nata River. The most important fish are Barbel (Clarius qariepinus), with Tilapia or Cichlid species, and a Barbus (minnow) species also occurring. They are very tolerant to saline water and some, particularly the barbel, are reported to aestivate in the sand and clay beds of the dry Nata River in order to survive the dry season.

32 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

6.1.2 Socio-economic characteristics

6.1.2.1 Livelihoods

Agriculture is the main source of livelihood with 72% of households benefiting from arable farming and 54% on livestock farming (DEA & CAR, 2010). Government welfare and informal employment benefits 33% and 23.7% of households, respectively; formal employment is scarce and limited to 18.8% of households. Veld products gathering represents another livelihood avenue with firewood, grass and wild fruits/berries being relied upon by 90%, 70% and 40% of households, respectively. Tourism (especially linked to Community Based Natural Resources Management) still thrives on a limited scale with only three Community Based Organisations (CBOs) operational and these are Gaing-O Community Trust, Nata Sanctuary Community Trust and Xhwauxhatubi Trust. Several mining operations for diamonds (Debswana and Karowe) and soda ash (Botash) exist and extensive areas are currently devoted to prospecting for coal-bed methane. Hence, the gradient of human intervention is relatively modest as the area encompasses a few towns, interspersed with protected areas (those forming the core) and several mining operations, as indicated above.

6.1.2.2 Land use

Three different land tenure systems (state, private and tribal lands) occur in the area. The combination of a “private” community-managed Game Reserve (Nata Sanctuary), a “private” company-managed (Debswana’s Orapa Park), a sanctuary co-managed by government and local communities (Flamingo Sanctuary), all in close proximity to state-managed national parks (Makgadikgadi/Nxai NP) provide a rare opportunity to demonstrate synergies between the private sector, local communities and government in improving park management effectiveness, whilst also demonstrating the value that these core areas can provide to rural livelihoods across the buffer areas and transition zones in the region. The large size of the protected areas and the WMAs in the area, and their juxtaposition, offers ample opportunities and a large enough surface area required to meet the long term conservation objectives of the core areas and the buffer zones, with enough geographic space of areas suitable for working with local communities in testing and demonstrating sustainable uses of natural resources.

6.1.2.3 Population, Poverty and Education

With the implementation of the MFMP and on-going poverty reduction efforts, there is sufficient scope for working with local populations to test sustainable natural resources uses. The MFMP area had a population of 57,118 people in 2011 (Statistics Botswana, 2012) with Rakops being the largest village followed by Nata, Gweta, Mopipi, and Sowa. The inhabitants of these villages (and other smaller villages not mentioned here) are diverse ethnic groups and cultures which include Batawana, Bambukushu, Baherero and Bayei. The San constitute the minority (DEA & CAR, 2010).

Poverty is widespread in the MFMP area with 38.5% of the population living in poverty. This is exacerbated by poor education levels. Most household heads have very limited education which adversely affects household decision making. Approximately 48% of the household heads have never attended school before whereas only 20% and 7% of the household heads have junior and secondary school qualification respectively, and only 2% attained tertiary education (DEA & CAR, 2010).

6.1.3 Governance/Management Framework

6.1.3.1 Management plan

33 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

The Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan (MFMP) has been developed for the area, with the primary objective of providing a starting point for the implementation of activities and recommendations for further work under the Makgadikgadi Integrated Management Plan. It was completed in 2011 and implementation has started, led and coordinated by the Department of Environmental Affairs, Serowe office. The preparation of the MFMP benefited from comprehensive participation by local communities, private sector and the government. Extensive consultations were undertaken with the aim of: a. Informing stakeholders on developments towards the formulation of the plan; b. Establishing contacts with relevant stakeholders and soliciting input and buy-in of the plan; c. Understanding the communities’ perspectives on policies, strategies and plans that are driven by different government departments; d. Understanding other relevant dynamics (socio-economic or environmental) within the MFMP area; e. Providing updates on the MFMP findings. Internal communications were held through the Project Steering Committee, Project Management Committees, Project team, DEA management and staff meetings; and f. External communications involved Kgotla meetings, briefing sessions, project reports, field trips, workshops, website, publications, and other publicity materials.

The plan was based on a detailed assessment of the biophysical and socioeconomic conditions in the area, including: ecological assessment, hydrogeological assessment, wildlife resources assessment, livelihood assessment, analysis of land use patterns and conflicts, assessment of the economic value of the wetland, and assessment of various economic sectors (with a detailed tourism sector and potential assessment) and an assessment of the policy and legislative environment. Inter alia, biodiversity hotspots (in protected and unprotected areas) were identified together with ‘wet spots’6, land use conflict areas and areas with high tourism potential/value. Different future development paths were analysed through multi-criteria analysis and in various rounds of discussions with stakeholders, the sustainable development scenario was selected as the preferred future development path.

The MFMP contains a detailed plan of activities, whose implementation requires participation of government ministries, the private sector and communities. The activity plan was developed with the stakeholders and covers detailed activities in the following areas:

a. Ecosystem management; b. Management of land, wildlife, water resources and rangelands; c. Waste management and pollution control; d. Hazard management; e. Biodiversity hotspot management; f. Environmental monitoring and research; g. Strategies for specific economic sectors: mining, tourism, livestock and crop production and gathering of natural products; h. Livelihood improvement strategies; i. Land resources management strategies; and j. Water resources management strategies.

A clear institutional structure for the implementation of the MFMP was agreed upon as well as strategies towards capacity building, awareness raising and stakeholder participation and funding. Further details can be found in the reports (download from www.car.org.bw). Implementation is

6 These are spots that hold water most of the years- much of the “wetland” is dry/ 34 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

always hard and to ensure proper implementation, an institutional structure has been established to lead, coordinate and monitor implementation (see below). Implementation progress reports are regularly submitted to the Office of the President.

6.1.3.2 Institutional arrangement

The implementation of the MFMP is based on the principles of good governance, decentralisation and participation of all stakeholders. A number of institutions have been established, and functions to ensure that the activities stated under the plan are effectively implemented. The Department of Environmental Affairs is the designated authority responsible for coordinating the activities under the MFMP. An MFMP Implementation Unit has been established to focus on monitoring the plan implementation. The DEA acts as the Secretariat to the Implementation Unit, and is responsible for the day-to-day project execution and management of the plan through its existing district office in Serowe.

A Stakeholder Participation Committee (SPC) known as the Makgadikgadi Wetlands Management Committee (MWMC) has been established at district-level and has representation from communities, the private sector, local and central government, Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) and academia. The MWMC has to ensure that all sectors participate and carry out their responsibilities, and offer advice on progress with implementation and the need for any modifications of the plan. There are thirty-two villages in the MFMP area and these are categorised into five clusters. The Clusters are ‘centered’ in the following villages. Dukwi, Nata, Mosu, Rakops and Moreomaoto/ Each village under each cluster has one representative who represents the interests of all stakeholders in that particular village. In preparing this report, all representatives of the five clusters have been consulted on behalf of the communities (Annex 1). The private sector is important because it supports the implementation of the MFMP activities by bringing local benefits to communities by investing to boost the development of the area. Finally, NGOs act as a link between communities and the other stakeholders such as government and private sector. NGOs such as BirdLife Botswana and Kalahari Conservation Society have been active in the area promoting community conservation of important conservation sites such as the Flamingo Sanctuary and the Nata Bird Sanctuary.

6.2 Stakeholder consultations

6.2.1 Introduction and scope

This section captures the views expressed by stakeholders during consultations for the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve in Botswana, and the Makgadikgadi in particular. Consultations have been undertaken from April to June 2014 with the Boteti sub-district Technical Advisory Committee7; Makgadikgadi Wetlands Management Committee (MWMC); MFMP Implementation Committee (representing a number of government departments such as DWNP, DEA, Tourism, Lands and local authorities); and the private sector represented by Debswana and BotAsh. Furthermore, community representatives (organised into 5 clusters representing 32 villages) were also consulted.

Table 3: An overview of the villages under each cluster:

Community Cluster Names of villages Cluster 1 Rakops, Xere, Toromoja, Mmadikola, Xhumo, Kedia, Mokoboxane, Mopipi

7 The Tutume sub-district Technical Advisory Committee cancelled their 23 April 2014 meeting a day before the scheduled date. However, they were subsequently consulted (i) indirectly through the Makgadikgadi Wetlands Management Committee in May 2014 (as some of the TAC members attend this meeting) and should also be (ii) directly consulted during the follow up consultations (e.g. with the DEA), when the entire TAC should be consulted. 35 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Cluster 2 Letlhakane, Khwee, Mmea, Mokubilo, Mosu, Mmatshumo Cluster 3 Phuduhudu, Makalamabedi, Motopi, Moreomaoto, Khumaga Cluster 4 Dukwi, Mosetse, Kutamogore, Lepashe, Matsitama Cluster 5 Gweta, Tsokotshaa, Sepako, Zoroga, Nata, Maposa, Manxotai

The objectives of the consultations were to:

a. Develop an understanding among the stakeholders about a BR and its potential benefits; b. Present the assessment of the Makgadikgadi area; c. Solicit views on the idea of listing the Makgadikgadi area as a BR; and d. Obtain comments on who else needed to be consulted in the latter stages of listing the Makgadikgadi as a BR.

To ensure that the above objectives were effectively achieved, a background paper to the study (mainly capturing objectives a. and b. above) and a PowerPoint presentation were prepared and shared with all stakeholders. The presentations to the community representatives were delivered in Setswana (national language) so as to facilitate common understanding and these meetings were held at the kgotla (traditional setting, also known as ward). The background paper was sent to the TAC a week before commencement of consultations to ensure that the information was internalised adequately to allow for generation of positive feedback. To further reinforce the linkages between the Makgadikgadi as a potential BR and the implementation of the MFMP, the consultants were accompanied by the DEA (competent authority) throughout the consultations, which also provided an indication of the commitment from the government to establish a BR in Botswana.

6.2.2 Stakeholders’ views

Developing an understanding among the stakeholders about a BR and its potential benefits Community representatives and the TAC acknowledged that the concept of a Biosphere Reserve was indeed new to them and as such it is not always easy to embrace a new concept or idea. However, based on the explanation and the benefits of a BR presented and the links with the MFMP, there was total agreement that listing the Makgadikgadi as a BR will have positive conservation impacts and also improve livelihoods in the area. There was a positive feeling that community trusts operating in the area will be able to benefit in terms of marketability of their products and to some extent financing and skills acquisition and transfer. On the other hand, the private sector also welcomed the idea of a BR and found it to be in line with their activities and plans for conservation and livelihood improvements within the Makgadikgadi wetland area. For instance, Debswana saw the positive role of a BR in enhancing their plans for the development of a mine museum; development of technical university, a business park and the overall expansion of the Orapa Township.

Presentation of the assessment of the Makgadikgadi wetlands All the stakeholders were in agreement with the assessment of the Makgadikgadi wetlands.

Views on the idea of listing the Makgadikgadi wetlands as a BR Most community representatives felt that the selection of Makgadikgadi amongst all the other areas considered for listing as BR brought a sense of honour and prestige to them. This view was also shared by other stakeholders (MWMC and the private sector). The MWMC and the MFMP Implementation Committee welcomed the listing of the area, and saw that as an opportunity to facilitate implementation of activities under the framework management plan. The Chairperson of the Implementation Committee was particularly worried about the ineffective implementation of the MFMP; as such he hoped that the listing of the area as a BR would present some benefits in terms of a more coordinated approach, funding and skills acquisition to drive the implementation of the Plan. The Botswana Tourism Organisation, as a member of the Implementation Committee acknowledged 36 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

the role played by science and research in promoting innovation, and systematic and focused decision making. Hence, all stakeholders indicated that the process and activities leading to final listing of the area as a BR should be fully supported.

However, one common fear that was raised by community representatives was that declaring the Makgadikgadi wetlands a BR might result in the seizure and subsequent relocations from their arable and pastoral land. They demanded assurance that declaring the Makgadikgadi area a BR will not affect their livelihood sources. All stakeholders, especially community representatives and the private sector, were of the opinion that initiatives as good as a BR always takes long to be implemented thus crippling the community momentum and also create a sense of disillusionment amongst the community. Hence the competent authority was encouraged to ensure effective implementation of agreed tasks.

Comments on further consultations in the latter stages of listing the Makgadikgadi wetlands as a BR Community representatives strongly felt that individual villages should be consulted and that the Dikgosi (village chiefs and herdmen) should also be fully enlightened on the concept of a BR and its benefits. It was also suggested that elderly people who are knowledgeable about the area should be consulted, together with the political leadership (Members of Parliament and Councillors), Village Development Committees, Village Extension Teams, District Development Committees, Land Board (both elected representatives and the secretariat), Farmers Committees and community trusts. Furthermore, there was a specific suggestion to ensure that the MEWT Public Relations Unit is fully aware of the process to list a BR, and their support obtained to ensure wider dissemination of what this programme entails.

6.2.3 General views

Cluster representatives complained to the DEA that they were not being fully supported or empowered to play their role effectively. They indicated that they were not able to meet and perform their functions because of unavailability of transport. They felt that for the BR to succeed, clusters needed to be supported. Furthermore clusters felt the need to collaborate among themselves especially as they report back to their respective communities on the BR concept. They desired to hold joint meetings as they addressed their communities. Additionally, there was a view by community representatives that government departments have hitherto not fully integrated and synergised their work programmes, despite the MFMP encouraging that; however there was optimism that maybe through the BR, government departments will better coordinate their programmes and minimise conflicts between government policies and actions.

6.4 Conclusion

Consultation for the pre-feasibility phase has been held with all the identified stakeholders in the Makgadikgadi wetlands. The general feeling about being listed as a BR is that of appreciation and a cultivated level of anticipation on the potential benefits to be realised/ In spite of a few ‘fears’ raised, all stakeholders accepted the idea of a BR and are willing to support the process and activities of listing the Makgadikgadi wetlands as a BR. Stakeholders called for a speedy process towards the listing of the Makgadikgadi wetlands for a BR status.

37 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

7 Summary, conclusions and recommendations

This section presents the findings of the pre-feasibility study on Biosphere Reserves in Botswana, as well as recommendations for their future BR development and actions by the National MAB Committee.

The study started after the November 2013 Workshop “UNESCO Biosphere Reserves – Added Value for Sustainable Development and Conservation in Southern Africa”. Workshop participants expressed a keen interest in exploring the feasibility of establishing Biosphere Reserves (BR) in Botswana. This is in line with other SADC countries that either have BRs (e.g. South Africa and Zimbabwe) or are in the process of establishing them (e.g. Namibia and Lesotho). The then Botswana Interim MAB Committee was formalised late 2013.

The ultimate goal of the BR identification and review process is to nominate and establish at least one BR in Botswana. The steps are shown in Box 1, starting with a review of potential sites, taking into account the designation criteria, leading to nomination by Botswana through its National MAB Committee of the most suitable BR site with supporting documentation site. The proposed nomination is then verified by the UNESCO MAB Secretariat, which may request additional information in case the nomination dossier is incomplete. After provision of the requested additional information, the Advisory Committee for Biosphere Reserves considers the nomination proposal and makes recommendations thereon to the International Coordinating Council, which decides on the nomination. If successful, the Director General of UNESCO notifies Botswana of the result.

The specific objectives of this prefeasibility study are:

a. Screening and ranking of potential sites for Biosphere Reserves on the basis of defined criteria; b. Introduction of the BR concept and the testing of its acceptance and implementation potential in the most suitable area; and c. Formulation of recommendations for the establishment of BRs in Botswana in general and for the selected areas in particular.

As per ToR, this report reviews the potential for the establishment of Biosphere Reserves in Botswana in general and for the selected area (i.e. Makgadikgadi Wetlands) in particular; the report also includes recommendations on how to foster MAB implementation in Botswana.

7.1 Review of potential BR sites

The prefeasibility study reviewed and ranked eight potential BR sites. The sites emerged from discussions at the November MAB-BR workshop and follow-up discussions. The 8 sites considered were Greater Gaborone, Tuli block-Tswapong Hills, Makgadikgadi wetlands, Southern Sua Pan (part of the Makgadikgadi wetlands), an area including (one of the) Forest Reserves, Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Okavango Delta Ramsar site and Khutse Game Reserve-Western Kweneng.

A desk top rapid assessment of each site was carried out, and the sites were ranked with the use of MAB-BR criteria and local criterion, mostly related to the readiness of nomination submission. High level of readiness implies that site nomination can be faster. The results are summarised in Table 3 and Figure 2. Two sites emerged as preferred ones with identical scores: Okavango Delta Ramsar site and the Makgadikgadi wetlands. The Northern Forest Reserves and the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park emerged at a distance as strong third and fourth sites.

38 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

The results were discussed with the National MAB Committee in its late February 2014 meeting. The committee decided that the suitability of the Makgadikgadi wetlands needed to be investigated in more detail as the preferred site. The choice in favour of the Makgadikgadi wetlands over the Okavango Delta was informed by the fact that the Okavango Delta is already certified under the Ramsar Convention and it has been nominated for certification as a World Heritage Site. In contrast, the Makgadikgadi wetlands have not been nominated for a global certification scheme and yet government is implementing an ambitious integrated Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan with local stakeholders (e.g. mines, farmers and communities) based on the concept of sustainable development and balancing resource conservation with development and livelihood improvements.

7.2 Pre-feasibility assessment for nomination of the Makgadikgadi wetlands as a BR

The results of the pre-feasibility study show that the Makgadikgadi wetlands meet the BR designation criteria of UNESCO.

The area encompasses a mosaic of ecological systems (e.g. wetlands and drylands as well as supporting several eco-regions, based on the World Wildlife Foundation Eco-regions), whilst including a gradation of human interventions (e.g. few towns, interspersed with smaller villages, and conservation areas).

The area is of significance for biological diversity conservation, with several globally threatened (IUCN Red and CITES-listed) species of flora and fauna, many of whom are also legally protected in national laws and regulations.

Community Based Organisations exist in the area and are involved in community-based natural resource management.

An integrated management plan has been developed for the area and is currently being implemented (Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan), coordinated by the Department of Environmental Affairs. In addition, the area is part of on-going and planned conservation initiatives, such as encouraging co-management in National Parks such as the Makgadikgadi and Nxai Pans National Park, the Kavango Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (of which the area is part), the recently established Flamingo Sanctuary and plans to considerably expand the current Debswana-operated Orapa Game Park with community involvement as part of the mine closure plan. These on-going and planned conservation and development initiatives provide excellent opportunities to explore and demonstrate approaches to sustainable development on a regional scale.

The size (36,452 km2), means that the Makgadikgadi wetlands are sufficiently large to support the three key functions of BRs, i.e. conservation, development and logistics support. The MFMP has appropriate land-use planning and zonation recognising legally constituted (i) core areas (Makgadikgadi/Nxai National Parks, Nata Sanctuary, Flamingo sanctuary, Orapa Game Park), devoted to long-term protection according to the conservation objectives of the BR, and sufficient size to meet these objectives; (ii) Buffer zones (being Wildlife Management Areas in the MFMP) clearly identified and surrounding or contiguous to the core, where only activities compatible with conservation objectives can take place; and (iii) Transition areas where sustainable resource management practices are promoted and developed, largely through community-based projects and CBNRM.

The MFMP already has organizational arrangements for the involvement and participation of a suitable range of, inter alia, public authorities, local communities and private interests, in the design and carrying out the functions of a biosphere reserve; these are realised largely through the MFMP Implementation Committee, and the Makgadikgadi Wetlands Management Committee. In addition, the MFMP has provisions for:

39 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

a. Mechanisms to manage human use and activities in the buffer zone, largely through WMAs, and the activities permitted within these land-use zones. b. A management policy and management plan for the area, being the MFMP, which would serve as a useful BR-compliant management policy and management plan should this site be declared a biosphere reserve. c. A designated authority (being the Department of Environmental Affairs) to coordinate implementation of this policy and plan. d. Programs for research, monitoring, education and training, led by government agencies working in collaboration with local communities, private researchers, academia, the private sector and interested and affected individuals.

Apart from this pre-feasibility study, there is ample supporting documentation available, including:

1. Area specific management plans:  Makgadikgadi and Nxai Pans National Parks Management Plan  Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan with economic sector and resource management plans  Southern Sua Management Plan  Nata Sanctuary Management Plan  Okavango Delta Management Plan (for north western part of the Makgadikgadi wetland) 2. Community Based Natural Resources Management Policy and CBO management plans 3. District Development Plans for Central District, Ngamiland District and Chobe District 4. Land use Plans for Central District and Ngamiland District 5. Tourism Plan Ngamiland District 6. Botswana KAZA Integrated Development Plan 2013-2017 7. Wildlife management plans: a. Elephant Management Plan b. Predator Management Plan

The next step is that the National MAB Committee (NMABC) develops the nomination dossier with support documentation. Two situations may prevail:

i. The NMABC is not convinced that the Makgadikgadi wetlands are ready for nomination. There may be perceived inadequacies in the information required for nomination and the identified gaps need to be filled through further study, consultation and data collection. There may also be perceived need for more consultation that requires further work, e.g. through the regular DEA-led MFMP consultations with clusters and villages. The NMABC needs to specify which aspects require further work, and ensure that the work is done within a reasonable time. ii. The current level of assessment and support documentation is sufficient to meet all the nomination requirements; in that case, the NMABC needs to guide and oversee the development of the dossier development process. This will involve government with technical assistance if required.

The study’s results and report should be shared widely with agencies that play a role in the realisation of the BR and the MFMP implementation. Consequently, the NMABC (with the DEA) needs to convene workshops for site (Makgadikgadi-level), national and international partners to deliberate on the legal, administrative and operational implications of listing Makgadikgadi wetlands as a BR. It is critical to understand that acquiring BR status and the subsequent activities are integral part of the MFMP implementation, likely to offer additional funding, research and education opportunities as well as piloting or enhancing sustainable development approaches (e.g. CBNRM). Importantly, village-level meetings should be facilitated across all the 32 villages that comprise the MFMP area. Given the role of Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) as coordinator of the MFMP, we recommend that the

40 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

DEA work hand-in-hand with the NMABC to drive this consultation and consensus-building process. This should ideally be done in the period June- August 2014, so as to sustain the momentum built up thus far, and should ensure that by September 2014, all major stakeholders have been consulted.

If the current information and support documentation is considered to be adequate by the NMABC, the main task will be to prepare the nomination dossier between June and September so that the submission deadline of 30th September can be met. This requires significant efforts on the part of the NMABC.

If the current information and support documentation is considered not yet fully adequate or the time too little to prepare the nomination dossier, September 2015 is the next submission deadline. The NMABC needs to identify the inadequacies and gaps and initiate further study (e.g. full feasibility study). It is recommended that inadequacies are identified in June–July 2014 and that further work be conducted in the period August 2014–February 2015 and that the nomination dossier will be prepared during the period March–August 2015 for submission in September 2015.

An option is the conduct of a full feasibility study and drafting accession/listing documentation for submission to UNESCO secretariat. While this study has identified the Makgadikgadi wetlands as a potential site for otswana’s first R, there may be a need for the NMABC (and DEA) to commission a more detailed assessment to fully explore the feasibility of this process, largely from an operational perspective. A full feasibility study needs to be considered that should at a minimum cover the five feasibility dimensions (as up-dates of the MFMP): a. Natural and cultural potential: should discuss among others what the major threats to biodiversity and culture are, and what could realistically be conserved through BR designation. b. Sustainable development and land-use: should identify among others the primary objectives of the sustainable development programmes within the Makgadikgadi wetlands BR, the key sectors to be targeted, secondary/supporting sectors, value chains, and targets and concept for minimising negative impacts on the natural resources on which sustainable development projects will be based; c. Stakeholder participation: This aspect should consider among others a centralised and coordinated means to keep all partners informed (i.e. a communication plan and strategy), how to assure continuous public relations on BRs (and the Makgadikgadi wetlands BR) among local citizens (at site, national and international levels), how to assure information flow between the Makgadikgadi wetlands BR and other BRs in the sub-region and globally, how to strengthen the MFMP governance structures to ensure the participation of all stakeholders, discussions on access and benefit sharing from the Makgadikgadi BR. Importantly, a Vision and objective statements would have to be developed and adopted for the Makgadikgadi wetlands BR, so that all stakeholders work towards the same goal; d. Research and monitoring: This should consider among others research needs for the site, how research results from the BR will be published and shared, document ongoing (and planned) environmental monitoring programmes (and how they could be better synergised as part of the Makgadikgadi wetlands BR) and international/national research cooperation in work pertaining to the Makgadikgadi wetlands BR; e. Legal framework: This should among others detail plans to assure long-term safeguarding of core areas (Makgadikgadi/Nxai National Parks, Nata Sanctuary, Flamingo sanctuary, Orapa Game Park) and buffer zones (WMAs), and how/where BRs may be anchored in legislation. 7.3 BR related activities for other potential BR sites

On the basis of Table 3, the potential BRs are presented below (in order of decreasing points), with our recommendations on the prospects for listing these other potential sites. Apart from further work on the preferred site, the NMABC needs to focus its BR activities on the northern Forest Reserves and the

41 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park. The latter site should be developed for medium term BR nomination as a transfrontier BR (with Namibia and/or South Africa, or both).

Rank Site Recommended next steps, over the period 2014 to 2020 1 Okavango Ramsar Although joint-first with the MFMP, we do not recommend that this be site considered for BR listing soon. This is largely because the site is currently being considered for listing as a World Heritage Site, and given the extensive community consultations over the last few years, there may be stakeholder fatigue should the site be proposed for another listing and the concomitant consultations undertaken again. Moreover WHS listing (and to some extent Ramsar listing) needs to be allowed some time to get traction within local communities, and the lead government agencies (most of whom would also have capacity constraints should they be requested to facilitate BR listing). Specific action for MAB committee: None 2 Southern Sua Pan This is a part of the MFMP, thus would be fully covered under the MFMP BR Specific action for MAB committee: None 3 Forest Reserves This site offers the best prospects of being otswana’s second R, whose and Pandamatenga listing process could commence as early as 2015/2016. Specific action for MAB committee: the committee needs to engage with the project team leading the BioChobe project to explore the possibility of this GEF/UNDP-funded project serving as an anchor for a feasibility study on the listing of this site as a BR. The BioChobe project includes the DEA as a co­ implementer, which should facilitate the information flow and discussions. 4 Kgalagadi We recommend this site as a possible third BR for the country; the listing Transfrontier Park process could commence as early as 2017/2018. & surroundings Specific action for MAB committee: During 2014–2017, we recommend that the committee (a) identify and designate an appropriate lead to coordinate possible listing of this site as a BR; (b) build the capacity of concerned and relevant stakeholders in Kgalagadi district on the MAB programme8, (c) facilitate the formation of an ad hoc committee to coordinate the listing of KTP as a BR, (d) explore interest of Namibia/South-African colleagues/authorities to also create a BR at the border which in the future may become a transboundary biosphere reserve, thus enhancing joint collaboration between the national MAB Committees. 5 Tswapong Hills and Over the aforementioned time-period, not much can be done to realistically Tuli Block get this site to meet many of the BR designation criteria. Specific action for MAB committee: None 6 Khutse & western Over the aforementioned time-period, not much can be done to realistically Kweneng get this site to meet many of the BR designation criteria. Specific action for MAB committee: None 7 Greater Gaborone Over the aforementioned time-period, not much can be done to realistically get this site to meet many of the BR designation criteria. Specific action for MAB committee: None

References

BirdLife International (2004) Threatened birds of the world 2004. CD-ROM. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International and updates from the BirdLife website, www.birdlife.org.

8 Stakeholders to be targeted include government departments and agencies, NGOs/CBOs, private sector, media, development partners and international agencies working in the Kgalagadi District, who may have an interest in sustainable development. All these institutions would need to be supported so that they develop an understanding about the MAB programmes, BRs, requirements of the listing process and the potential benefits from the MAB and BR schemes. 42 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

(DEA) Department of Environmental Affairs and (CAR) Centre for Applied Research (2010). The Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan. Government of Botswana, Gaborone.

Government of Botswana, 1992. Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act. Government of Botswana, Gaborone.

Makhabu, S.W., Marotsi, B. & Perkins, J. (2002). Vegetation gradients around artificial water points in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve of Botswana. African Journal of Ecology 40, 103–109.

McCulloch, G.P (2003). The ecology of Sua Pan and its flamingo populations. Submitted as a PhD Thesis to the University of Dublin, Trinity College, Ireland.

Rozemeijer, N. (2009). CBNRM in Botswana. In: Suich, H., B. Child and A. Spenceley (eds.) 2009. Evolution and Innovation in Wildlife Conservation: Parks and Game Ranches to Transfrontier Conservation Areas, pp. 243–256. Earthscan, London.

Setshogo, M.P. and Hargreaves, B (2002). Botswana. In: J.S. Golding (ed.), Southern African Plant Red Data Lists. Southern African Botanical Diversity Network Report No.14: 16-20. SABONET, Pretoria, South Africa.

Statistics Botswana (SB) (2012). The Botswana Population and Housing Census 2011.

Tyler, S.J. & W. Borello (1998). Birds of the Gaborone area and where to find them. Botswana Bird Club, Gaborone, Botswana.

WhiteCap Agencies (2006). Inventory of endangered species in Bobirwa sub-district and Kgalagadi District. Report prepared for Desert Margins Programme, Botswana College of Agriculture.

43 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Annex I: Terms of Reference for a Prefeasibility Study on UNESCO Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Below are the relevant parts of the ToR.

1 Background and Rationale

UNESCO Biosphere Reserves are model regions for sustainable development. They form part of UNESO’s Man and the iosphere Program (M!), an intergovernmental scientific initiative launched in 1970. The program aims to set a scientific basis for the improvement of the relationship between people and their environment at the global scale by promoting an interdisciplinary research agenda and capacity building to maintain ecosystem services and biodiversity and to foster sustainable development locally. Biosphere Reserves nominated by UNESCO serve as model regions and are an important component of the program. Today 621 UNESCO Biosphere Reserves have been nominated in 117 countries across the world. They constitute the World Network of Biosphere Reserves. In each member state a National MAB Committees is set up to guide the MAB related work within a country and to provide the link to the international level.

Germany became a MAB member state and established a National MAB Committee in 1972. Since then fourteen Biosphere Reserves have been nominated in the country. In addition, and with support of the UNESCO MAB Secretariat and various UNESCO offices, Germany cooperates with other member states and regional networks to strengthen the MAB program. A focus is put on African partner countries as well as the AfriMAB network. In 2011, AfriMAB declared Southern Africa as a focus area.

2 Prefeasibility Study

Botswana is a country with an extraordinary natural endowment that, however, is partly threatened by degradation. Human beings in rural areas across the country largely depend on natural resources and sustainable development is generally still a major challenge in these areas. In this situation Biosphere Reserves may be a suitable tool to link conservation of natural resources and development efforts and to supplement existing concepts, like Community Based Natural Resource Management with a tool that not only combines development with conservation in model regions, but also links to an international network for capacity building, research and outreach.

In 2011, Botswana set up a National MAB Interim Committee to introduce MAB and the concept of Biosphere Reserves in the country.

2.1 Objectives

The overall objective of the prefeasibility study is to support the National MAB Interim Committee in order to identify the potential for the establishment of Biosphere Reserves in Botswana. More specifically this includes:

a. Screening and ranking of potential sites for Biosphere Reserves on the basis of defined criteria; b. Introduction of the Biosphere Reserve concept and the testing of its acceptance and implementation potential in the most suitable area; and c. formulation of recommendations for the establishment of Biosphere Reserves in Botswana in general and for the selected areas in particular.

2.2 Scope and Deliverables 44 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

The study should be carried out within a period of four months, preferably starting in November 2013. To achieve the above mentioned objectives, the following tasks should be accomplished:

a. Form an interdisciplinary study team of experts that, apart from natural and social science, also covers expertise in community development. b. Define a set of criteria for the selection of potential Biosphere Reserve sites in Botswana (including the criteria for Biosphere Reserves set out in the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves) that reflect the specific situation in Botswana as well as the potential for local acceptance and support for a Biosphere Reserve. c. Develop a matrix of a maximum of ten potential sites considering the defined criteria and expert knowledge and indicate why the specific site would be suitable for nomination as a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Select a maximum of six potential sites for which a more detailed desk analysis and description is carried out. Rank the sites and, in accordance with representatives of the National MAB Interim Committee, select one site as a pilot site. d. Carry out a prefeasibility study in the selected site, considering the following aspects: natural and cultural endowment, land use, development activities, institutional set up and stakeholders, research and monitoring. For this part of the study a field work component should be included that allows for consultations with local stakeholders, if necessary data collection etc. and the testing of the acceptance for a Biosphere Reserve. e. Submit a report on the potential for the establishment of Biosphere Reserves in Botswana in general and for the selected area in particular. The report should also include recommendations on how to foster MAB implementation in Botswana. f. Present the results of the study to the National MAB Interim Committee.

45 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Annex II: List of people participating in community consultations, April 2014.

Nata, 22-April-2014 organisation George Maphane MWC, Nata cluster, Chairman Rambo N. Seganeng MWC, Nata cluster, Secretary Jenamiso Tholi MWC, Nata cluster, member Smarts Morwata MWC, Nata cluster, member Mojwadi Lebang MWC, Nata cluster, member Venda Makhoka MWC, Nata cluster, member Keiphang Sechele MWC, Nata cluster, member Kesaolopa Morage DEA, Serowe Mingie Masuga DEA, MWMC secretariat, Gaborone Kuda Mpolokang DEA, MWMC secretariat, Gaborone

Botswana Ash (Pty) Ltd, 22-April-2014 Sollies Bommotse Safety, Health and Environment Manager

Makgadikgadi/Nxai National Park, 23-April-2014 Obert Gwapela Makgadikgadi/Nxai National Park Manager

Letlhakane Sub Technical Advisory Committee, 23­ April-2014 Frank Dexter Committee Chair & Division of Economic Planning Motingwa Motingwa Committee Secretary & Department of Wildlife and National Parks Kabo Phirinyane Rakops Landboard Letileng Mika Department of Forestry Maiketso Simane Intern, District Administration Masa Matshaba Social & Community Development Margaret Dongwana Intern, Department of Wildlife & National Parks Kesaolopa Marage DEA, Serowe Mingie Masuga DEA, MWMC secretariat, Gaborone Kuda Mpolokang DEA, MWMC secretariat, Gaborone Mosu, 23-April-2014 Onkagetse Moreetseng MWC, Mosu cluster, member Balefi Gobuamang MWC, Mosu cluster, member Obonetse Maoto Department of National Museum, Field Assistant David Kenaleone Seabe MWC, Mosu cluster, Chairperson T.R Peremole Chief, Mosu village Kesaolopa Marage DEA, Serowe Mingie Masuga DEA, MWMC secretariat, Gaborone Kuda Mpolokang DEA, MWMC secretariat, Gaborone Rakops, 24-April-2014 Mphapi Dikaelo MWC, Moreomaoto cluster, Chairperson Lebopo Dongo MWC, Moreomaoto cluster, Secretary Letso Maswabi MWC, Moreomaoto cluster, member Gaone Motsumi MWC, Moreomaoto cluster, member Maikutlo Kenosi MWC, Rakops cluster, Chairperson Bonyere Jane MWC, Rakops cluster, Secretary Tlamelo Letlhakane MWC, Rakops cluster, member Diane Jacob MWC, Rakops cluster, member Gakeratege Popego MWC, Rakops cluster, member

Debswana Diamond Company, 24-April-2014 Hisso Mbakiso Sebina Community and Mine Closure Planning Coordinator 46 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Makgadikgadi Wetlands Management Committee, 20-May-2014 D. Kgathi-Thite Deputy Director, DEA Mbakiso Sebina SHE Coordinator, Debswana D. Seabe Gumakutshaa Conservation Trust M. Dikaelo Moreomaoto Village Representative V. Mokhokha Kutamogore Village Representative B. Jane Mokoboxane Village Representative P. Resetse Mokubilo Village Representative K. Mokgoro Dukwi Village Representative G. Maphane Chairperson, Nata Village Cluster M. Masuga DEA, MWMC secretariat, Gaborone K. Mpolokang DEA, MWMC secretariat, Gaborone V. Kootsositse BirdLife Botswana T. Ntsatsi DEA Lebopo Dongo MWC, Moreomaoto cluster, Secretary Molosiwa District Administration E. Nyenye Department of Wildlife and National Parks B. L Srado Mokori extremes S. David Boteti Sub Council M. Keafentse Department of Forestry and Range Resources Mphapi Dikaelo MWC, Moreomaoto cluster, Chairperson Jane Chairman, Letlhakane Sub-landboard Seoleseng Letlhakane Sub-landboard Samakabadi Boteti Sub-District Council Dimakatso Segolame Diphoko Animal Production C. Supang Animal Production MFMP Implementation Committee, 22-May-4014 M. Thutwa Department of Animal Production B. Baratedi Department of Crop Production O.K.D Makgosa Department of Town and Regional Planning D. K Kgathi-Thite Department of Environmental Affairs K. Ooke Department of Town & Regional Planning O. Pule Department of Water Affairs O. Ntebang Department of National Museum & Monuments A. Tema Department of Forestry & Range Resources M. V. Kootsositse BirdLife Botswana S. Bommotse BOTASH M. Sebina Debswana G. Gaopatwe Department of Veterinary Services T. K Segaetsho Botswana Tourism Organisation M. Ngwenya Department of Tourism M. R. Malesu Botswana Tourism Organisation T. Ntsatsi DEA B. E Nyenye Department of Wildlife & National Parks M. Mackennie Botswana Tourism Organisation T. L. Lucas Botswana Tourism Organisation Sennye Neo-Mahupeleng Department of Wildlife & National Parks Mary Ngwenya Department of Tourism Moabi Keaikitse Orapa, Letlhakane, Damtshaa Mines Ikageng Seoleseng Letlhakane Sub-landboard Maikutlo Kenosi Chairperson, MWMC Kudukwashe Theophilus Mpolokang Department of Environmental Affairs Botsalo Thamuku Department of Water Affairs

47 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Annex III: Schedule of Makgadikgadi wetlands local consultations

Trip 1:

Date Time Stakeholder consulted 22.4.2014 10 00 – 14 00hrs Dukwi & Nata community clusters 22.4.2014 15 30 – 16 00hrs Botswana Ash (Pty) Ltd 23.4.2014 09 00 – 12 30hrs Boteti sub-district Technical Advisory Committee 23.4.2014 14 00 – 17 00hrs Mosu Community Cluster & DWNP Makgadikgadi NP 24.4.2014 10 00 – 14 00hrs Rakops & Moreomaoto community clusters 24.4.2014 15 00 – 16 00hrs Debswana Diamond Company

Trip 2:

Makgadikgadi Wetlands Management Committee, 20-May-2014

MFMP Implementation Committee, 22-May-4014

48 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Annex IV: List of important support documents

1) Area specific management plans: a. Makgadikgadi and Nxai Pans National Parks Management Plan b. Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan with economic sector and resource management plans c. Southern Sua Management Plan d. Nata Sanctuary Management Plan e. Okavango Delta Management Plan (for north western part of the Makgadikgadi wetland) 2) Community Based Natural Resources Management Policy and CBO management plans 3) District Development Plans for Central District, Ngamiland District and Chobe District 4) Land use Plans for Central District and Ngamiland District 5) Tourism Plan Ngamiland District 6) Botswana KAZA Integrated Development Plan 2013-2017 7) Wildlife management plans: a. Elephant Management Plan b. Predator Management Plan 8) Other general supporting documents: a. Botswana Population and Housing Census 2011 b. Botswana Core Welfare and Indicator Survey 2009 c. National Development Plan 10 d. Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act, 1992 e. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (The World Conservation Union)

49 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

Annex V: Makgadikgadi wetlands BR listing endorsements

50 | P a g e

Prefeasibility study for Biosphere Reserves in Botswana

51 | P a g e