CBNRM STOCKTAKING IN BOTSWANA
OCTOBER 2011
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by DAI in collaboration with World Wildlife Fund, Inc. (WWF).
CBNRM STOCKTAKING IN BOTSWANA
Program Title: Capitalizing Knowledge, Connecting Communities Program (CK2C)
Sponsoring USAID Office: USAID/Office of Acquisition and Assistance
Contract Number: EPP-I-00-06-00021-00/01
Contractor: DAI
Date of Publication: October 2011
Author: Joseph E. Mbaiwa, PhD
Collaborating Partner: COPASSA project implemented by World Wildlife Fund, Inc. (WWF); Associate Cooperative Agreement Number: EPP-A-00-00004-00; Leader with Associate Award Number:LAG-A-00-99-00048-00
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. Cover: Photo of a chalet at Santawani Lodge owned by the Sankoyo Community, Okavango Delta. CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS ...... VII
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... IX
PART 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.2 APPROACH, METHODOLOGY AND STUDY LIMITATIONS ...... 1 1.3 NATURE, WEALTH & POWER FRAMEWORK ...... 2
PART 2: HISTORY & CURRENT STATUS OF CBNRM ...... 5 2.1 PRE-CBNRM ERA IN BOTSWANA ...... 5 2.2 ORIGINS OF CBNRM IN BOTSWANA ...... 6 2.3 MAJOR PROGRAMMATIC MILESTONES ...... 7 2.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE CBNRM POLICY OF 2007 ...... 8 2.5 NAMES OF KEY CBNRM INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS ...... 8 2.6 KEY SOURCES OF FUNDING ...... 10 2.7APPROXIMATE LEVELS OF FUNDING ...... 10 2.8 BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CBNRM PROGRAM ...... 11
PART 3: SCALE OF CBNRM PROGRAM ...... 13 3.1 GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF CBNRM ...... 13 3.2 NUMBER OF HECTARES UNDER CBNRM MANAGEMENT ...... 13 3.3 DESCRIPTION OF TYPES OF CBNRM ACTIVITIES ...... 14 3.3.1 Wildlife Resources ...... 14 3.3.2 Veld Products ...... 14 3.3.3 Fisheries ...... 15 3.3.4 Forestry Resources ...... 15
PART 4: IMPACTS OF CBNRM PROGRAM TO DATE ...... 17 CHANGES IN RIGHTS TO BENEFIT FROM NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 17 4.1 WILDLIFE RESOURCES ...... 17 4.2 VELD PRODUCTS ...... 17 4.3 LAND RIGHTS ...... 17 4.4 CHANGES TO NATURAL RESOURCE BASE STATUS & TRENDS ...... 18 4.4.1 CBNRM and the Conservation of Natural Resources ...... 18
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA i 4.4.2 Wildlife Resources ...... 18 4.4.3 Management Oriented Monitoring System & Escort Guides ...... 20 4.4.4 The low levels of illegal hunting ...... 21 4.5 CHANGES IN BENEFITS ...... 22 4.5.1 Collective Income to CBOs ...... 22 4.5.2 Cash Income to Individuals...... 24 4.5.3 Game meat ...... 24 4.5.4 Intangible Benefits ...... 25 4.6 CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES AND PROGRAMS ...... 25 4.6.1 Poverty Alleviation and the millenium development goals (MDGs) ...... 25 4.6.2 Employment generation and economic growth ...... 25 4.6.3 Provision of Social Services ...... 27 4.6.4 Reinvestment of revenue generated from CBNRM ...... 30 4.6.5 Contributions to other national Needs ...... 31 4.7 CHANGES IN RURAL REPRESENTATION AND GOVERNANCE ...... 31 4.7.1 Number of people Supported through CBNRM ...... 31 4.7.2 Number of CBOs Formed/Operational ...... 32 4.7.3 Gender and Equity ...... 33 4.7.4 CBO Governing Structure ...... 34
PART 5: ANALYSIS OF CBNRM DIFFERENCES IN BOTSWANA ...... 37 5.1 CBNRM IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF BOTSWANA ...... 37 5.2 WILDLIFE VS LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION ...... 38
PART 6: ANALYSIS AND FUTURE ORIENTATION ...... 41 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT ...... 41 6.1 OVERARCHING POLICY ENVIRONMENT ...... 41 6.2 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT WITH RESPECT TO NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 41 6.3 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT WITH RESPECT TO ECONOMIC AND LIVELIHOOD BENEFITS ...... 41 6.4 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNANCE AND RIGHTS ...... 42
PART 7: BEST PRACTICES ...... 43 7.1 WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNANCE AND RIGHTS ...... 43 7.2 WITH RESPECT TO NATURAL RESOURCES ...... 43 7.3 WITH RESPECT TO ECONOMIC AND LIVELIHOOD BENEFITS ...... 44
PART 8: LESSONS LEARNED ...... 45 8.1 POLICY ...... 45
ii CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 8.2 BENEFITS GENERATION & MANAGEMENT ...... 45 8.3 GOVERNANCE ...... 46 8.4 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING ...... 48
PART 9: SCALING UP ...... 49 9.1 SCOPE OF CBNRM ...... 49 9.2 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS TO TARGET ...... 49
PART 10: CHALLENGES & BARRIERS OF CBNRM ...... 51 10.1 CHALLENGES ...... 51 10.2 BARRIERS ...... 54 10.3 THREATS ...... 54
PART 11: LINKS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PROGRAMS ...... 57 11.1 POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND THE MDGS...... 57 11.2 ECONOMIC GROWTH ...... 57 11.3 GENDER EQUALITY ...... 57 11.4 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATON AND CBNRM ...... 57 10.5 COMBATING DESERTIFICATION ...... 57 11.6 FOOD SECURITY ...... 58
PART 12: RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 59
PART 13 SUMMARY, SYNTHESIS, CONCLUSION ...... 61 13.1 SUMMARY ...... 61 13.2 CONCLUSION ...... 62
REFERENCES ...... 63
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE ...... 67
ANNEX 2: MAP OF BOTSWANA SHOWING LOCATION OF CBOS AND COMMUNITY UTILIZATION AREAS ...... 69
ANNEX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR ...... 71
ANNEX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR ...... 73
ANNEX 5: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NGOS ...... 75
ANNEX 6: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CBOS ...... 77
ANNEX 7: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED ...... 79
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA iii TABLES AND FIGURES
TABLE
Table 1: Donor Funding for Kgetsi Ya Tsie (in Pula*) ...... 10
Table 2: Donor Funding Obtained by STMT ...... 11 Table 3: Forest Reserves in Botswana ...... 15 Table 4: Annual Wildlife Takeoff Quota for NGAMILAND ...... 19
Table 5: Annual Wildlife takeoff quotas for NG 34 (2000–2006) ...... 19 Table 6: Reported Cases of Illegal Hunting in Ngamiland District ...... 21 Table 7: income from wildlife-based tourism in Botswana Pula (BWP) ...... 24 Table 8: Employment in CBNRM Projects by Activity Type ...... 25 Table 9.a, b Employment by CBOs in Ngamiland, 2009/10 ...... 26 Table 10: Employment in CBNRM projects in SankUyo, Khwai & Mababe ...... 27 Table 11: Assets Owned by CBOs, 2007 ...... 29 Table 12: Number of CBOS Registered in Botswana ...... 32 Table 13: Comparison of Income from CBOS in Botswana (BWP) ...... 37 Table 14: Economic Viability of Game and Cattle Farming in Kgalagadi (BWP) ...... 39 Table 15: Economic Returns from Livestock & Wildlife Systems in Ngamiland, 2000 ...... 39
FIGURE Figure 1: The nature, wealth and power framework ...... 2 Figure 2: Map of Protected Areas in Botswana ...... 13 Figure 3: Aggregated Revenues from CBNRM Activities, 2006–2009 ...... 23 Figure 4: Aggregated CBNRM Revenue from CBNRM Activities, 2008 ...... 23 Figure 5: Registration of CBOs, 1993–2009 ...... 32 Figure 6: Active CBOs per district, 2009...... 33
iv CBNRM IN BOTSWANA TEXT BOXES Box 1: Acts, Regulations & Policies with relevance for CBNRM ...... 7
Box 2: Organization that provide Support to CBOs in 2006/08 ...... 9 Box 3 Donors/Funds that supported CBOs in Botswana, 2006-09 ...... 10 Box 4: Management Oriented Monitoring System (MOMS) ...... 20
Box 5: Escort Guides, Gender Equality & Resource Management ...... 21 Box 6: Breakdown of Revenue from CBOs 2006-2009* ...... 22 Box 7: Gudigwa Lodge & Why it Collapsed ...... 27
Box 8: Social Services Provided by CBOs (amounts in BWP) ...... 28 Box 9: Water Supplied by CBOs in Homesteads ...... 30 Box 10: CBOs Donates to National Appeal Funds ...... 31
PHOTOS Escort Guides at Khwai Village ...... 21 Waitresses at Gudigwa Lodge ...... 27 A House Built for an Elderly Woman at Khwai ...... 28 A House Built for an Orphan at Khwai...... 28 A One-Room House at Mababe built by One of the CBNRM Employees ...... 29 A Truck Used for Transport at Khwai ...... 29 A Man at Sankuyo Now Able to get Water From a Standpipe in his Compound ...... 30 Members of Sankuyo Board of Trustees Presenting a Check of P 25,000 to the HIV/AIDS Fund...... 31
A Chalet at Santawani Lodge, Owned by Sankuyo Community ...... 31 A Restaurant at Kaziikini, a Campsite Owned by the Sankuyo Community ...... 31 Kgetsi Ya Tsie Signboard ...... 34
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA v
ABBREVIATIONS
ADF African Development Fund (of the African Development Bank, AfDB) AfDB African Development Bank
AWF African Wildlife Fund BHC British High Commission BOCOBONET Botswana Community-Based Organization Network
BTB Botswana Tourism Board (now the BTO) BTO Botswana Tourism Organization (formerly BTB) BWFH Botswana Women’s Finance House BWP Botswana Pula CECT Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management CBO Community Based Organization CCF Community Conservation Fund (DWNP) CDF Community Development Fund CEG Community Escort Guide CHA Controlled Hunting Area CTT Cgaecgae Tlhabololo Trust CI Conservation International CFDP Community Forestry Development Programme DCEC Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime DC District Council DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom) DFRR Department of Forestry and Range Resources DOT Department of Tourism DWNP Department Of Wildlife and National Parks GEF Global Environment Facility
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA vii GTZ Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (German Government Technical Cooperation Agency) KCS Kalahari Conservation Society KDT Khwai Development Trust
KYT Kgetsi ya Tsie MDG Millennium Development Goal MEWT Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism
MFDP Ministry of Finance and Development Planning MOMS Management Oriented Monitoring System MZCDT Mababe Zokotsana Community Development Trust NRMP Natural Resources Management Project NWP Nature, Wealth and Power NGO Non-governmental Organization OCT Okavango Community Trust OJCT Okavango Jakotsha Community Trust OKMCT Okavango Kopano Mokoro Community Trust PCT Permaculture Trust SNV Netherlands Development Organization STMT Sankuyo Tshwaragano Management Trust UNDP United Nations Development Programme USAID United States Agency for International Development VDC Village Development Committee
VTC Village Trust Committee XDT Xhauxhwatubi Development Trust WAD Women’s Affairs Department WMA Wildlife Management Area WWF World Wildlife Fund
viii CBNRM IN BOTSWANA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study of Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) in Botswana is part of a participatory review and analysis of CBNRM programs in five southern African countries; the other countries include Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. These ‘stocktaking analyses’ were conducted under the Capitalizing Knowledge, Connecting Communities (CK2C) Program financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The goal of this study is to understand the successes, failures, challenges and way forward for CBNRM development in Botswana. The principal methods for collecting data and information included a desktop review of various published and unpublished (gray literature) documents and stakeholder interviews. Following are some of the key findings.
• Since the inception of CBNRM activities in Botswana, a number of Community-Based Organizations (CBOs) have been established. CBOs are registered trusts that provide a locally controlled institutional framework for CBNRM development. Although some of these CBOs are involved in natural resources- based activities unrelated to wildlife, most of them are engaged in wildlife-based initiatives located in northern Botswana.
• CBNRM was designed with the goals of achieving both rural development and conservation. While some CBNRM projects in Botswana have failed to achieve either goal, others have been successful to varying degrees in achieving both.
• With regard to rural development, the study found that some CBNRM projects are effective in generating socio-economic benefits such as income, employment, food (game meat), and revenues for infrastructure development, aid to vulnerable groups, and other services. These benefits have contributed significantly to economic diversification, greater livelihood security and poverty alleviation in rural areas.
• CBNRM has also been responsible for improving conservation in some areas. For example, poaching levels have declined in CBNRM areas as compared to non-CBNRM areas. In addition, CBNRM has strengthened custodianship of natural resources by local communities; some CBOs have adopted rules and practices to enhance conservation in their concession areas, and Community Escort Guides (CEGs) monitor the status of wildlife populations and other resources.
• CBNRM activities in rural areas have clearly defined governance structures. Communities establish CBOs to ensure their participation in natural resource management and tourism development in their local environment. They provide leadership in community use of land and resources, such as wildlife, for tourism purposes and enable communities to benefit from the growing tourism industry.
• Where CBNRM projects have collapsed or failed to achieve their intended goals, the failures are partly a result of the following factors:
− Lack of entrepreneurial skills within the CBOs; − Lack of equitable distribution of benefits from CBOs; − Lack of re-investment and mismanagement of funds;
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA ix − Lack of true Joint Venture Partnerships (JVPs) between CBOs and safari companies. CBNRM faces the following challenges:
• Mismanagement and misappropriation of funds by CBOs remains one of the greatest challenges to CBNRM development in Botswana. Numerous cases have been reported in CBOs across the country. This has prompted the Government to place CBO funds into holding accounts. In these cases, CBOs do not have direct access to their funds and can only get such access after submitting a justification to the District Commissioner, the highest ranking government official at the District level.
• CBO capacity constraints also pose a challenge to CBNRM development, especially when considering the problem of mismanagement and misappropriation of funds. The lack of capacity by CBOs to effectively manage CBNRM projects and the revenues they generate hinders their success.
• The Government has introduced a ban on safari hunting within a 25 km radius around National Parks and Game Reserves. Communities can now only engage in photographic tourism activities in such areas. This will reduce the income they derive from local wildlife and negatively affect employment and other potential community benefits, such as the provision of social services.
• The CBNRM Policy of 2007 includes a problematic clause that states that “thirty-five percent (35%) of the proceeds of the sale of natural resource concessions and hunting quotas may be retained by the CBO. Sixty-five percent (65%) shall be deposited in the Fund for financing community based environmental management and ecotourism projects throughout the country”. This clause, if implemented, could complicate CBNRM development in the country. The findings from this study suggest that CBNRM can be used as a tool to improve both conservation and livelihoods. The CBNRM program in Botswana has demonstrated its potential to put into practice the three fundamental approaches upon which it is based: giving economic value to natural resources, devolving power to local communities and establishing collective proprietorship by communities in resource management and tourism development. However, it should be noted that, while some CBNRM projects have succeeded, others have collapsed. This is a caution against drawing general conclusions. As such, CBNRM programs should be evaluated and judged based on their specific socio-economic and political contexts.
x CBNRM IN BOTSWANA PART 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND The Government of Botswana officially launched the (CBNRM) program in Botswana in 1989 as a joint effort with USAID. To promote CBNRM, the Government and USAID initiated a joint Natural Resource Management Project (NRMP) housed in the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) within the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism (MEWT). The Government introduced CBNRM after recognizing that the conservation of wildlife resources is not possible without the active involvement of rural communities who reside within or adjacent to designated conservation areas, such as Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) and Controlled Hunting Areas (CHAs). CBNRM is an incentive-based approach to conservation that rests on the recognition that local communities must actively participate in the management of natural resources (such as wildlife and veld products) and derive a livelihood from them in order to value and use them sustainably. CBNRM in Botswana is thus a strategy for achieving both conservation and rural development; it involves community mobilization and organization, institutional development, comprehensive training, enterprise development and monitoring of the natural resource base. CBNRM is based on three foundational concepts, namely:
• Economic value: a resource such as wildlife must have a specific value that can be tapped by the community or land owner;
• Devolution: it is necessary to devolve management decisions from the government to local communities and land users in order to create positive conditions for sustainable wildlife management; and
• Collective proprietorship: a group of people who hold joint user rights over resources are able to manage the resources according to their own rules and strategies. CBNRM in Botswana has had varying degrees of success in achieving natural resource conservation and rural development. However, much of the information about its performance has not been recorded or documented. The challenge for CBNRM, therefore, is to demonstrate the successes, failures and lessons learned to date. As a result, the objective of this study is to undertake a participatory review and analysis of the CBNRM program in Botswana and to produce a national CBNRM Profile.
1.2 APPROACH, METHODOLOGY AND STUDY LIMITATIONS This study made use of primary and secondary data sources. Secondary sources included both unpublished (gray literature) and published documents, such as end-of-project reports and national CBNRM reports provided by the National CBNRM Forum. The author obtained other documents from libraries at the University of Botswana, relevant government offices and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Primary data collection involved the use of questionnaires to interview key tourism and CBNRM stakeholders such as representatives of the government, private sector, local communities and NGOs. Many of the interviews were informal in nature. Finally, the author conducted qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data collected.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 1 The principal limitation of this study is that much of it is based on desktop analysis. There are limited recorded data on CBNRM projects, especially those in southern, eastern, central and western Botswana. CBNRM projects in these areas are not highly developed when compared to those in northern Botswana, partly because CBNRM is not as lucrative outside the northern areas. Conversely, much has been researched and recorded about CBNRM in northern Botswana, particularly in the Okavango and Chobe regions where CBNRM is lucrative and largely based on wildlife. As a result, this report gives more detail and examples related to CBNRM development in the Okavango and Chobe regions of Botswana.
1.3 NATURE, WEALTH & POWER FRAMEWORK The general approach to analyzing the CBNRM program in Botswana is informed by the Nature, Wealth and Power (NWP) framework presented in Figure 1. The NWP framework links nature, wealth and power as a way of understanding rural development and natural resource conservation.
FIGURE 1: THE NATURE, WEALTH AND POWER FRAMEWORK
Nature Resources – Land, water, forests, wildlife-are dynamic, socially embedded, economic and political. Human institutions define resources and their use.
Power Wealth Environmental governance is Natural capital serves as the the distribution, exercise, and basis for rural production and sustainability of power and economic systems. In most authority over nature. For rural African economies, it is the Africans the major governance single most important economic issue is control and access to asset in the country. resources. Investments in natural capital have a high rate of return at a national level. Source: Anderson (2005) According to Anderson (2005), nature, wealth, and power form a flexible framework for looking at the relationship among the following:
• sound natural resource management,
• economic growth and poverty alleviation, and,
• empowerment and enfranchisement.
2 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA Anderson (2010) argues that consideration of the resource, economic, and governance dimensions of natural resource management is critical for success. Natural resource management rests on the interaction of resource characteristics, policies, institutions, skills, and economic signals. According to Anderson, experience demonstrates that programs that integrate nature (environmental management), wealth (economic concerns), and power (good governance) have promising results. The NWP framework has links with the following ten CBNRM principles in Botswana, identified by the National CBNRM Forum: 1. Decision-making authority must be at the community level 2. Decision-making must be representative 3. The community must be as small as practical 4. Leadership must be accountable 5. Benefits must outweigh costs 6. Benefits must be distributed equitably 7. Benefit distribution must be linked to natural resources conservation 8. Planning and development must focus on capacity-building 9. Planning and development must be coordinated 10. The CBNRM process must be facilitated
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 3
PART 2: HISTORY & CURRENT STATUS OF CBNRM
2.1 PRE-CBNRM ERA IN BOTSWANA Botswana is one of the few countries in Africa that are still endowed with an abundance of natural resources such as wild mammals, birds, natural forests, insects, reptiles, fish and countless other organisms. Wildlife resources played a significant role in sustaining the livelihoods of traditional societies. Apart from meat, game animals provided people with skins and fur for clothing, sinews for rope and thread, fat for fuel, antler for tools, horns for drinking vessels and musical instruments, and bone for many purposes ranging from tools to weapons. Traditionally, natural resources such as wildlife were communally owned. As a result, sharing their use among all members of a community was an important aspect of local culture. Community ownership ensured that no individual could maximize personal gains from using a resource to the detriment of communal property. Communities exercised control of their natural resource base through their leaders and conducted communal policing. Communities were able to harvest natural resources from their local environment in a fairly sustainable manner because each individual was expected to respect traditional institutions and religious practices governing their use (Tlou 1985; Campbell 1995). Each member of the community was also expected to act as a “game ranger”, reporting any over-harvesting of resources and illegal hunting activities to the chief; heavy fines were imposed on anyone caught hunting illegally or involved in resource destruction (Tlou 1985). Societal norms, religious practices and institutional structures headed by the chief, such as the kgotla (the village square, which serves as a forum for decision making), provided a framework for resource management. For example, community members engaged in intensive hunting in winter after a declaration by the chief; they could only hunt old male animals during this period; and no one could hunt an animal considered to be a totem (Tlou, 1985; Mbaiwa 2002). The kgotla was the principal institution through which communities debated laws and took decisions deemed appropriate for the community as a whole. The kgotla also served as a court where the chief, assisted by village elders, tried legal offenders. The chief, as custodian of the law and of the community’s resources, was expected to implement all rules adopted by the community at the kgotla. It should be noted that there was no commercialization of natural resources at this time, either for tourism or other purposes, so pressure on natural resources was rather low and resource degradation was minimal.
The centralization of natural resources management began during the colonial and post-colonial periods. The introduction of trade with Europe and the subsequent colonization of Botswana by the British (1885- 1966) significantly affected rights to natural resources (particularly wildlife) and the role of local institutions in conserving them. The Bechuanaland Protectorate Game Proclamation of 1925 was one of the key laws passed during the colonial period. It called for the creation of National Parks, Game Reserves, and Wildlife Sanctuaries, which protected wildlife species and areas or species within a defined area. The 1925 Proclamation led to the establishment of Gemsbok National Park (1948), Chobe Game Reserve (1961), the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (1961) and Moremi Game Reserve (1965). It also redefined game into three categories, namely “royal game”, “small game”, and “large game”. The British Administration also established the Game Control Unit in 1959 specifically to control the harvesting of
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 5 elephants and the management of protected areas. In effect, the Proclamation centralized the management of wildlife and other natural resources in Botswana. The establishment of national parks and game reserves displaced local people, particularly the Basarwa, from their hunting and gathering areas (Bolaane, 2004). The post-colonial government continued the process of centralizing natural resource management. The Fauna Conservation Act of 1979 is a key law adopted during that era; ("The Fauna Conservation Act No.47 of 1979") it abolished separate regulations for each tribal area and consolidated them into a single set of regulations applicable throughout Botswana (Spinage, 1991). The Act served mainly to control licensing procedures for hunting; it unified regulations for all tribal territories, moving towards the nationalization of hunting regulations. The centralization of natural resources management with regard to user rights and ownership antagonized relations between local communities and government resource managers. The loss of access to land and of hunting and gathering rights resulted in the collapse of local resource institutions and the development of negative attitudes by local communities towards conservation (Mbaiwa, 2005). The centralized approach to conservation and privatization of resources that characterized the 1970s and 1980s excluded local communities from resource management and rendered traditional approaches to nature protection ineffective (Gibson & Marks, 1995). Subsistence hunting was treated as poaching because it did not conform to the prevailing approaches to wildlife use. Denying rural communities access to resources increased their poverty levels and caused them to resort to overexploitation and illegal hunting of wildlife (Mordi, 1991; Hitchcock, 1995). The colonial and post-colonial eras in Botswana were thus characterized by a degradation of the natural resource base.
2.2 ORIGINS OF CBNRM IN BOTSWANA The degradation and decline of wildlife and other natural resources prior to the 1980s and the growing local antipathy towards the centralization of natural resources laws can be singled out as the main triggers of CBNRM development in Botswana. As a result, it can be argued that the CBNRM approach in Botswana evolved primarily out of the realization that:
• Local communities living in areas with wildlife and forest resources play a fundamental role as custodians of the environment and are best placed to engage in resource conservation and sustainable use to improve their livelihoods;
• Prior to the formal introduction of CBNRM, the methods and statutory laws introduced and enforced by the State to conserve and protect wildlife and other natural resources were not compatible with the cultures and aspirations of the country’s citizens, who felt alienated from the lands where they lived and were denied access to natural resources, often resulting in conflict;
• CBNRM could, in theory, improve community attitudes towards wildlife by associating it with direct income and other benefits. In consideration of these three points, Botswana has established two fundamental goals for its CBNRM program:
a) Conservation of natural resources and protection of the environment by custodian communities: communities residing in natural resources areas will be custodians of these areas and have
6 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA responsibility for leading conservation activities, particularly in buffer areas between communal lands and National Parks or Game Reserves. b) Attainment of sustainable rural development and long-term improvement of livelihoods at individual, household and community levels within the custodian communities: custodian communities that conserve the resources for which they are responsible are entitled to derive livelihood benefits from them through sustainable harvesting and/or ecotourism activities in order to improve their living standards and offset the costs associated with their conservation.
2.3 MAJOR PROGRAMMATIC MILESTONES The Government’s adoption of the CBNRM Policy in 2007 was a major milestone in CBNRM development in Botswana. For almost two decades prior to2007, numerous acts, regulations and policies affected its implementation (Box 1). The Policy acknowledges that people who live close to natural resources generally absorb the greatest Box 1: Acts, Regulations & Policies with relevance for costs associated with their conservation. Given CBNRM proper awareness and incentives, they are most • Agricultural Resources Conservation Act (1974) likely to successfully benefit from and conserve • CBNRM Policy (2007) such natural resources within their environs. • Community Natural Resources Management Lease For communities to actively engage in natural (2001) resource conservation, the benefits from such • Community-based Strategy for Rural Development resources must exceed the costs of (1997) conservation. The CBNRM Policy aims to • Draft guidelines for the CBNRM policy (2006) achieve this by offering eligible communities opportunities to earn tangible benefits from • Draft Veld Products Regulations (2006) sustainable natural resources management. The • Forest Act (1986) vision and goals of the CBNRM Policy include • National Conservation Strategy (1990) the following: • National Development Plan 9 (2003) • Provide guidance on CBNRM • National Development Plan 10 (2010) implementation on communal and state- • owned land, except in officially gazetted National Strategy for Poverty Reduction (2003) Protected Areas, Forest Reserves, National • Revised Joint Venture Guidelines (2002) Parks and Game Reserves; • Revised Policy for Rural Development (2002)
• Give communities incentives to engage in • The National Ecotourism Strategy (2003) conservation activities leading to sustainable • Wildlife Management Area Regulations (2009) development and poverty reduction; • Tourism Act (1992) • Establish an institutional, regulatory and • Tourism Policy of 1990 (reviewed in 2010, not yet participatory framework for the adopted by Parliament) implementation of CBNRM; and • Wildlife Conservation Policy of 1986 (reviewed in 2010, not yet adopted by Parliament) • Promote and ensure a responsible, • accountable and transparent decision making Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act (1992) process. Source: Johnson (2009)
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 7 2.4 OBJECTIVES OF THE CBNRM POLICY OF 2007 The specific objectives of the CBNRM Policy are to: 1. Specify land tenure and natural resources user rights, which may be devolved to communities; 2. Establish a framework that provides incentives for communities to manage natural resources in a sustainable manner; 3. Create opportunities for community participation in natural resource management; 4. Promote conservation and CBNRM strategies that are based on sound scientific principles and practices; 5. Enhance the relationship between the management of protected areas and CBNRM; 6. Protect the intellectual property rights of communities with regard to natural resources and the management of such natural resources; 7. Encourage communities to participate meaningfully in the monitoring of CBNRM; 8. Facilitate capacity building within communities to engage in natural resources-based tourism; 9. Establish an institutional support framework for the implementation of CBNRM; and, 10. Promote communication, education and public awareness on CBNRM. Two policies in particular facilitated the adoption and implementation of CBNRM in Botswana.
• The Wildlife Conservation Policy of 1986 provides the blueprint for the re-introduction of community involvement in wildlife conservation through the implementation of CBNRM. The Policy is the precursor of virtually all changes to wildlife conservation currently under way. The Policy was designed to promote economic development in rural areas through the implementation of tourism projects. It recognizes the potential value of both consumptive and non-consumptive uses of Botswana’s wildlife resources by people living in wildlife areas. It called for the establishment of WMAs and CHAs, which have become the areas where most CBNRM activities are implemented in Botswana.
• The Tourism Policy of 1990 is one of the key policies creating an enabling environment for CBNRM development. It describes tourism as the new “engine of growth” whose main aim is to diversify the country’s economy away from reliance on diamond mining. The Policy calls for local participation in tourism development, especially in rural areas. It also promotes the idea that tourism should create employment opportunities for local people, thereby reducing rural poverty. Specifically, the Policy calls for: employment generation to raise incomes in rural areas and reduce rural-to-urban migration; the promotion of rural development; and the provision of improved services in remote areas of the country.
2.5 NAMES OF KEY CBNRM INSTITUTIONS AND PROGRAMS As noted above, Community Trusts and CBOs are local institutions that enable communities to participate in and benefit from the growing tourism industry. A number of actors, including NGOs, traditional leaders, donor agencies, District Councils and DWNP, work in close co-operation with, or provide technical and financial support to, these institutions. Most CBOs lack the managerial capacity, entrepreneurial skills, and conservation expertise (in conservation monitoring, for example) to implement
8 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA CBNRM projects. This has proven to be a major constraint on CBNRM development in Botswana. As a result, most communities involved in CBNRM receive support from governmental and non-governmental organizations such as those listed in Box 2.
DWNP pioneered CBNRM development in Box 2: Organization that provide Support to CBOs in Botswana and spearheads CBNRM projects as 2006/08 it is responsible for wildlife utilization and • conservation. DWNP has an Outreach Unit that Botswana Tourism Board (BTB) publicizes and promotes CBNRM to • BOCOBONET (Botswana network of CBOs) communities in WMAs and assists CBOs in • Conservation International (NGO) various ways, including: • Department of Wildlife and National Parks (MEWT) • Providing technical support to CBOs related • Department of Forestry and Range Resources (MEWT) to sustainable management of natural • Department of Tourism (MEWT) resources; • Kalahari Conservation Society (NGO) • Facilitating the establishment of CBOs by • Komku Trust (NGO) providing assistance in drafting organizational constitutions, applications for • Letloa Trust (NGO) user rights, project justifications and • Permaculture Trust (NGO) proposals, and monitoring plans. • Rural Development Division (MoFDP) Technical Advisory Committees (TACs) are • Thusano Lefatsheng (NGO) district-level bodies that include representation • TOCADI (NGO) by various government departments. The TACs • Veld Products Research & Development (NGO) have as one of their key activities the promotion of CBNRM, and they provide a Source: Johnson (2009) variety of advisory services to CBOs. Their functions include the following:
• advice in the review of joint venture proposals;
• monitoring the implementation of joint venture guidelines;
• assisting in the monitoring and implementation of CBNRM programs
• providing technical advice to CBOs on Trust operations, sub-lease agreements, the tendering process and government policies related to CBNRM. According to Johnson (2009), 93.5% of CBOs reported receiving visits by DWNP and/or the Department of Forestry and Range Resources (DFRR), 73.9% reported visits by TACs and 58.7% reported visits by rural development extension officers in 2007/2008. In addition, several NGOs are working with CBOS in different parts of the country; these include BOCOBONET (Botswana Network of CBOs), Conservation International, the Kalahari Conservation Society (KCS), Permaculture Trust, Thusano Lefatsheng, TOCADI, Veld Products Research and Development and the CBNRM Forum. There are also district- level CBNRM Forums and a National CBNRM Forum. These Forums each meet twice a year with all CBNRM stakeholders (including representatives from government, tourism operators and CBOs) to discuss issues affecting CBNRM development.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 9 Box 3 Donors/Funds that supported CBOs in Botswana, 2.6 KEY SOURCES OF 2006-09 FUNDING • Action for Economic Empowerment Trust Many of the CBNRM projects and CBOs in • African Development Fund (AFD, of the African Botswana receive or have received funding Development Bank) from the Government and various donor • Canada Fund agencies. Key donors include the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), USAID, the World • British High Commission (BHC) Wildlife Fund (WWF) and The Netherlands’ • Community Conservation Fund (CCF, in DWNP) SNV. Box 3 shows many of the donor groups • Community Development Fund (CDF, in DWNP) that support CBNRM projects in Botswana. • DED (now GIZ, German Donor/Development Agency) • Department for International Development (DFID) 2.7APPROXIMATE LEVELS OF • European Union (EU) Micro Project Programme FUNDING There is limited data on the amount of funding • Financial Assistance Policy (FAP) CBOs receive from the various donor agencies. • Global Environment Facility (GEF) However, Johnson (2009) notes that CBOs • Standard Chartered Bank received a cumulative amount of P8,831,459 • US Embassy (US Self Help Fund) (USE) (approximately USD 1,471,909) between 2006 and 2009. Kgetsi Ya Tsie (KYT), the oldest and • USAID largest CBO dealing with veld products, • World Bank reportedly received at least P3.8 million (USD • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) 630,000) in financial assistance between 1998 and 2004 (Arntzen et al 2007). The • WWF - SARPO PermacultureTrust (PCT) and the African • European Union Development Fund (ADF) of the African • Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ, Development Bank (AfDB) were the main German Technical Cooperation Agency) donors, accounting for two-thirds of the financial • Department of Women's Affairs assistance. Private companies have also provided • Department of Youth and Culture funding, including Kalahari Management Services, Midland Group Training Services, Source: Johnson (2009) Women’s Finance House, and The Body Shop.
TABLE 1: DONOR FUNDING FOR KGETSI YA TSIE (IN PULA*)
Donor 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 Total PCT 1,161,865 188,849 70,004 1,420,718 ADF 453,846 190,869 91,004 206,047 941,766 BHC 59,290 85,252 144,542 USE 95,542 50,268 145,810 CFDP 399,964 72,424 472,388 WAD 35,200 100,000 78,000 213,200 Labor 37,200 99,500 329,122 465,822 Dept Total 1,199,065 288,349 852,972 190,869 681,000 513,991 78,000 3,804,246 *1 USD = 6.5 BWP (2010), 1 USD was on average equivalent to 4.5 BWP in 2000
10 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA The Sankuyo Trust received donor funding in the amounts of BWP 250,000 and BWP 533,000 in 2003 and 2005 from AWF and ADF, respectively (Table 2). The grants supported the expansion of Santawani Lodge, capacity building for the Trust, and market research for a business plan for the Lodge.
TABLE 2: DONOR FUNDING OBTAINED BY STMT
Year Donor Amount BWP* Details of use 2003 African Wildlife 250,000 Construction of 6 chalets at Santawani Lodge. The Trust Foundation (AWF) contributed an additional BWP250,000 for the construction of a bar, toilets and a restaurant 2005 African Development 533,000 Costs related to capacity building include consultancies Foundation (ADF) related to Trust management and market research for the development of a 5-year business plan for Santawani Lodge. *1 USD = 6.5 BWP (in 2010), 1 USD was on average equivalent to 4.5 BWP in the 2000
2.8 BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CBNRM PROGRAM CBNRM was introduced in southern Africa in response to problems such as declines in wildlife species, a general scarcity of wildlife resources, and land use conflicts (Rihoy, 1995). Despite the intensification of law enforcement in order to combat illegal harvesting of natural resources, the problem continued to grow. The CBNRM policy framework represents a reform of the conventional “protectionist conservation philosophy” and “top down” approaches to development (Rihoy, 1995). Zimbabwe’s Community Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (CAMPFIRE) pioneered the CBNRM concept in the region (Kgathi and Ngwenya, 2005), and the USAID-supported NRMP introduced it in Botswana in 1989. CBNRM began in Botswana as a pilot effort to involve rural communities in areas neighbouring National Parks and Game Reserves in the conservation of natural resources, particularly wildlife, and to thereby reduce human-wildlife conflicts. CBNRM, therefore, started as a conservation effort rather than as a response to the need for social empowerment or rural economic development. The first CBNRM project in Botswana began in 1993 with the registration of the Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust (CECT). The second CBNRM project created the Sankuyo Tshwaragano Management Trust (STMT), registered in 1995. The objectives of these projects centered on the use of natural resources to improve both conservation and rural livelihoods, with emphasis on achieving local participation in natural resource management for conservation purposes. A key weakness in these early initiatives was that they did not give genuine attention to capacity building. The number of CBNRM projects grew rapidly, especially during the 1990’s, and there are now 105 registered and developed Trusts. CBNRM activities are largely based on photographic and non- photographic tourism.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 11
PART 3: SCALE OF CBNRM PROGRAM
3.1 GEOGRAPHIC EXTENT OF CBNRM The CBNRM program is carried out in WMAs and other communal areas. WMAs account for 22% of tribal and State lands (see Figure 2). They are further sub-divided into CHAs, which are administrative blocks used by DWNP to allocate wildlife hunting quotas (Rozemeijer & van der Jagt 2000). CHAs support various types of community resource use, including both consumptive and non-consumptive tourism. Theoretically, all CHAs permit community management. However, not all CBNRM areas are used effectively, except those in the Okavango and Chobe districts. (Annex 2 includes a more updated map of WMAs, indicated as ‘Community Utilized Areas”).
FIGURE 2: MAP OF PROTECTED AREAS IN BOTSWANA
Source: DWNP
3.2 NUMBER OF HECTARES UNDER CBNRM MANAGEMENT There is little data on the number of hectares used for CBNRM in Botswana. There is information about CBNRM activities in WMAs but data on CBNRM outside of WMAs is not recorded. A total of 66,750 square kilometres (11.35% of Botswana’s land surface) is set aside for WMAs and CBNRM can be
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 13 carried out in these areas. A further 62,700 square kilometres (10.8% of Botswana’s surface area) is proposed for designation as WMAs or for CBNRM activities. This would bring the total area with potential to support CBNRM to 129,450 square kilometres, or 22% of Botswana’s land area. While not all CBNRM projects are making full use of designated WMAs, for planning purpose official documents note that 22% of the country’s total land area is reserved (or proposed) for CBNRM.
3.3 DESCRIPTION OF TYPES OF CBNRM ACTIVITIES
3.3.1 WILDLIFE RESOURCES Most CBNRM activities in wildlife-rich regions, such as the Okavango Delta and Chobe, are based on photographic and hunting safaris and involve both consumptive and non-consumptive uses. Consumptive wildlife use involves wildlife offtake and applies to sport and trophy hunting, trophy processing, taxidermy, game farming, and live capture and export or translocation of living animals. Non- consumptive wildlife use does not involve wildlife offtake and includes the use of wildlife for scientific, educational, and recreational purposes, such as photographic tourism. Photographic tourism includes such activities and businesses as photographic safaris, photographic camps and lodges, air charter operators, the wildlife film industry, educational and recreational parks and conservation organizations. CBOs involved in consumptive tourism have leased out their CHAs to hunting safari companies; in this way they obtain revenues from the land rental and benefit from increased employment opportunities. While some CBOs have leased their areas to photographic tourism companies, others are directly involved in the management of photographic lodges. For example, CECT and STMT are directly involved in running ecolodges and campsites.
3.3.2 VELD PRODUCTS KYT carries out a range of activities but the collection, processing, and marketing of veld products and a micro-lending scheme are its core activities. Both individual members and groups collect veld products and have the option to:
• Process veld products themselves (e.g., jam);
• Sell unprocessed veld products to the Trust for processing, packaging, and marketing (mostly from the Marula tree (Sclerocarya birrea));
• Market and sell veld products directly to third parties, as with mopane worms (Gonimbrasia belina, a catepillar). The regional offices of KYT have equipment that members may use for making products such as jam. This includes stoves with gas cylinders and utensils such as pots and spoons. The veld products include the mopane worm; thatching grass; products from the Mosata tree (Orthanthera jasminiflora); Morogo (three wild green leafy vegetables); Letsoku (an ochre-like powder that women use as a cosmetic); Gala- la-Tshwene (Myrothamnus flabellifolius) and Monepenepe (Cassia abbreviate) (both traditional medicines); clay for pottery; jam, soap and cosmetic oils from the Marula tree; and Tswapong sands. Marula oil and soap products are produced in Lerala and jam from the Lerotse melon (Citrullus lanatus) is produced in various centers. Individual members produce clay pots and sand bottles.
14 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 3.3.3 FISHERIES There are few CBNRM activities based on fish resources in Botswana. There is only one fish syndicate, located at Samochima Village in the Okavango Delta. The low level of fish exploitation within a CBNRM framework indicates that communities situated around permanent water supplies have yet to organize themselves to take advantage of such resources by developing sport fishing or other CBNRM activities.
3.3.4 FORESTRY RESOURCES The Chobe District covers an estimated 21,170 square kilometres. Forest Reserves in the District occupy 4,096 square kilometres while Chobe National Park occupies about 10,590 square kilometres; together they occupy approximately 70% of the District territory. The national average for district forest cover is well under 50%. The local population in Chobe District seeks more communal land for livestock and crop production, both of which are at the core of rural livelihoods in Botswana. Forest Reserves (Table 3) may only be used for subsistence collection of certain species of wood and grass by inhabitants of three villages. No cattle are allowed inside the Forest Reserves.
TABLE 3: FOREST RESERVES IN BOTSWANA
Name Since size in km2 Kasane Forest Reserve 1968 109.9 Kasane ext Forest Reserve 1981 641.1 Chobe Forest Reserve 1981 1485 Kazuma Forest Reserve 1981 156 Maikaelelo Forest Reserve 1981 543 Sibuyu Forest Reserve 1981 1161 Totals 4096
Generally, local communities in the Kasane area do not receive any direct benefits from neighboring Forest Reserves. The use of forest resources for CBNRM development in Botswana is poorly developed. However, the Government is attempting to introduce ecotourism and CBNRM in forests found in the Chobe area. In general, it can be concluded that rural communities in Botswana do not benefit much from the forests around them through tourism or any other type of CBNRM program.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 15
PART 4: IMPACTS OF CBNRM PROGRAM TO DATE
CHANGES IN RIGHTS TO BENEFIT FROM NATURAL RESOURCES
4.1 WILDLIFE RESOURCES Wildlife resources in Botswana are the property of the Government, which continues to manage them in a centralized manner. Communities only receive rights to exploit them when the Land Board, a district- level land management authority, allocates a CHA to their CBO. Game allocated to CBOs through this quota system automatically belongs to the communities, most of whom sell their quota to safari companies. Community members will hunt some small game, such as impala and springbok, for subsistence purposes. The wildlife quota system began in the 1990s upon the adoption of the CBNRM program in Botswana.
4.2 VELD PRODUCTS Communities can harvest veld products in communal areas provided they have permits from the appropriate government department. Permits cost a small fee, paid to an agency such as the Agricultural Resource Board. In CHAs, communities obtain use and commercialization rights to veld products through lease agreements provided by the Land Boards. Veld products commercialized by local communities include Sengaparile, or Devil’s Claw (Harpagophytum procumbens), and others mentioned above in section 3, such as the Mopane worm, thatching grass, Mosata, Morogo, Letsoku, Gala-la-Tshwene, Monepenepe and clay for pottery.
4.3 LAND RIGHTS Before the introduction of CBNRM in Botswana, people living in wildlife areas did not use land for tourism development. The Wildlife Conservation Policy of 1986 and the Tourism Policy of 1990 laid the foundation for CBNRM development in the country. As noted earlier, the Wildlife Conservation Policy of 1986 sub-divided land in wildlife areas into CHAs to allow local communities to participate in CBNRM development. There are 105 registered CBOs in Botswana (Schuster 2007) and most of them have been allocated CHAs for CBNRM purposes. After demarcating CHAs in wildlife areas, the Government ear-marked them for particular communities and villages. When these communities and villages register a CBO, they automatically receive the lease to a particular CHA. The District Land Board issues a 15-year lease to the CBO for the CHA, and the CBO then has management and use rights over the resources in the CHA. After a CBO obtains a lease to a CHA, it decides on how it will use the land in that particular area. CBOs can use CHAs for either hunting or photographic tourism, and they have three options for how they can manage it:
• community management of the CHA;
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 17 • sub-leasing the resource use rights to a safari company at a fee;
• entering into a Joint Venture Partnership (JVP) with a safari company by holding shares in the company. The zoning of wildlife areas for CBNRM purposes involves a partial return of custodial and stewardship rights over natural resources to local communities; it is therefore a form of empowerment with the potential to improve rural livelihoods and the sustainability of natural resource use. However, the lack of expertise and capital to invest in tourism activities on the part of CBOs has so far favored the option of sub-leasing resource rights to safari hunting companies over the JVP option, which promotes the merging of assets. It can only be assumed that this may be because CBOs lack the necessary business acumen for the tourism industry.
4.4 CHANGES TO NATURAL RESOURCE BASE STATUS & TRENDS
4.4.1 CBNRM AND THE CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES The introduction of CBNRM in Botswana was driven by factors such as: the threat of species extinction due to over exploitation, particularly through wildlife poaching; the inability of the State to protect its declining wildlife resources; land use conflicts between rural communities living in resource areas and resource managers, especially wildlife managers; and the need to link conservation and development objectives and activities. Since its introduction, the increased access to land for CBNRM activities and the economic benefits deriving from these activities have led to the development of more favorable attitudes by indigenous communities towards wildlife conservation. Certain government requirements have helped to strengthen conditions for conservation in CBNRM areas. For example, all Trusts must incorporate natural resource management goals in their constitutions and produce management plans that specify how environmental management will be carried out in CHAs or ecotourism areas. Communities must also prepare an annual report describing how they have managed natural resources in their areas before DWNP will allocate annual wildlife quotas. In order to meet these requirements and ensure effective environmental management, communities have appointed Community Escort Guides (CEGs) to patrol CBNRM areas and enforce community resources management regulations. They also escort safari operators and community members during hunting excursions.
4.4.2 WILDLIFE RESOURCES The ability of CBOs in the Okavango and Chobe regions to benefit from the use of wildlife resources for tourism under CBNRM initiatives has resulted in improvements in community attitudes towards conservation (Mbaiwa, 2010). Local communities have accepted the regulation of wildlife hunting through the DWNP quota system. DWNP determines the number of animals that each Trust can hunt each year based on annual wildlife counts. Allocation of wildlife quotas according to population numbers for each species helps conserve the animals and enhances ecological sustainability. DWNP allocates wildlife quotas mostly to CBOs in the Chobe and Okavango regions; only a few CBOs in Kgalagadi and Ghanzi Districts receive quotas. The central, southern, and eastern regions of Botswana and Kgalagadi and Ghanzi Districts have limited wildlife resources when compared to the Okavango and Chobe areas. Table 4 shows annual offtake quotas allocated to CBOs in Ngamiland District and the Okavango Delta for some wildlife species between 2000 and 2011
18 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA TABLE 4: ANNUAL WILDLIFE TAKEOFF QUOTA FOR NGAMILAND
SPECIES 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Baboon 20 20 20 80 80 74 56 28 28 28 25 12 Buffalo 12 40 12 40 38 38 38 38 37 29 38 20 Elephant 24 78 24 78 78 86 94 94 101 109 132 103 Gemsbok 0 60 3 26 26 26 26 26 24 28 25 0 Hyaena spotted 20 80 6 13 11 9 11 12 11 10 4 3 Impala 110 274 90 223 219 219 219 219 217 171 168 40 Kudu 30 195 20 58 58 58 58 58 55 29 20 10 Lechwe 40 272 60 93 93 93 85 85 53 48 43 10 Leopard 7 20 4 9 9 8 8 8 7 5 0 0 Lion 2 6 0 0 0 8 8 7 0 0 0 0 Ostrich 6 65 7 52 50 50 50 51 43 22 15 0 Reedbuck 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Sable antelope 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Steenbok 15 525 45 198 198 167 129 133 140 69 55 0 Tsessebe 40 113 45 103 102 99 80 80 51 31 26 0 Warthog 15 207 20 74 74 71 74 74 70 37 31 10 Wildebeest 9 35 9 29 29 29 30 29 30 18 13 10 Zebra 2 13 4 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 10 10 Totals 357 2007 369 1090 1079 1049 980 956 881 646 605 228 Source: DWNP Table 5 shows the offtake quotas for a number of wildlife species allocated to NG 34, which is a CHA leased by the STMT, during 2000-2006.
TABLE 5: ANNUAL WILDLIFE TAKEOFF QUOTAS FOR NG 34 (2000–2006)
Name 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Baboon 10 10 10 10 10 10 7 Buffalo 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Elephant 12 12 12 12 12 12 14 Spotted hyena 10 10 3 1 1 1 1 Impala 100 100 80 74 74 74 74 Kudu 15 15 10 9 9 9 9 Lechwe 40 40 40 23 23 23 21 Lion 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 Leopard 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 Ostrich 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Steenbok 15 15 15 14 14 14 11 Reedbuck 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tsessebe 40 40 40 36 34 34 27 Warthog 15 15 10 10 10 10 10 Zebra 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Sable 1 1 0 0 0 Wildebeest 9 9 9 7 7 7 7 Totals 287 284 245 211 209 210 197
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 19 Though the extent to which CBNRM contributes to ecological sustainability is still unclear, there are indications of improvements in some of the factors believed responsible for negative impacts on wildlife. For example, there has been a decrease in poaching, and interview data suggest that there is an increased appreciation for the value of wildlife and reduced wildlife-human conflicts in both arable and small stock farming in CBNRM villages. In addition, relations have improved between one time foes: DWNP anti- poaching units and other officials, on the one hand, and communities on the other. There is, however, no quantitative data that game populations have increased due to CBNRM activities, particularly in CHAs.
4.4.3 MANAGEMENT ORIENTED MONITORING SYSTEM & ESCORT GUIDES The Management Oriented Monitoring System (MOMS) and the deployment of community escort guides paid directly by CBOs are key achievements of conservation in CBNRM areas. MOMS is a management tool for collecting valuable resource monitoring data. It involves community participation in monitoring activities rather than more conventional scientific monitoring using hi-tech equipment and highly trained personnel, which is often expensive. DWNP has trained communities how to implement MOMS, including collecting information on game sightings, rare species and problem animals, and village mapping and other Box 4: Management Oriented Monitoring activities (Box 4). The data gathered through MOMS will System (MOMS) also enhance the quality of aerial surveys that provide animal MOMS is a WWF capacity building tool count numbers, the key basis for establishing animal offtake being piloted in a number of CBNRM sites quotas. MOMS provides a useful opportunity to involve such as Sankuyo, Mababe and Khwai. MOMS involves the collection of data communities in setting quotas and making decisions through the use of an event book and regarding wildlife resource management. various types of cards to record wildlife observations. Different cards are used to Schuster (2007) notes that fourteen Trusts in the Okavango record the following types of data: wildlife Delta had a total of 111 escort guides to control poaching and sightings; occurrence of rare and endangered species; mortalities; meat ensure compliance with hunting regulations. Escort guides harvesting and distribution; trophy hunting; accompany hunters on safaris and have proven effective in and problem animals. Information common controlling hunting in CHAs. The effectiveness of escort to all these cards includes: date of observation; species; GPS site coordinates; guides and their desire to conserve resources in their CHAs is and the number of animals/birds observed. further demonstrated by the numerous patrols in their areas. This tool involves physical patrols in the observation area and direct, on-site Escort guides monitor the activities of the joint venture collection of information and data. partners during hunting and photographic safaris and record all animals killed or spotted at specific locations in the CHA. They are also responsible for reporting and apprehending poachers. Ideally they should record GPS coordinates, animal species and number of animals observed. Escort guides also accompany thatch grass harvesters, who are mainly women, making it possible for them to reach more areas than would otherwise be possible. This contributes to enhanced access to resource abundant areas. All these efforts highlight the important role that communities have so far played in natural resources conservation in ecotourism areas.
20 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA There is, therefore, evidence that communities involved in Box 5: Escort Guides, Gender Equality & CBNRM have gained greater awareness of the importance of Resource Management using natural resources in a sustainable manner. There is a Escort Guides at Khwai are both male and general perception in most CBOs that CBNRM has female. Apparently, CBNRM has achieved a contributed to a reduction in poaching. Although the certain degree of gender balance. A number provision of economic benefits to households is not a of women hold different positions in CBNRM projects. Escort Guides play a significant role sufficient condition for the conservation of wildlife resources, in resource monitoring and use by their as the benefits may not be sufficient to offset the costs communities. incurred by the communities, it can be safely concluded that Escort Guides at Khwai Village the benefits have resulted in changes in community attitudes towards wildlife and improved livelihoods in some CBNRM
villages such as Sankuyo, Khwai, and Mababe. Most of the
CBOs and communities involved in CBNRM in northern Botswana have experienced these changes. Based on estimates of active CBOs in Ngamiland and Chobe Districts (Johnson, 2009), this includes three CBOs in Chobe District and ten CBOs in Ngamiland District. There is, therefore, evidence that communities involved in CBNRM have gained greater awareness of the importance of using natural resources in a sustainable manner. There is a general perception in most CBOs that CBNRM has contributed to a reduction in poaching. Although the provision of economic benefits to households is not a sufficient condition for the conservation of wildlife resources, as the benefits may not be sufficient to offset the costs incurred by the communities, it can be safely concluded that the benefits have resulted in changes in community attitudes towards wildlife and improved livelihoods in some CBNRM villages such as Sankuyo, Khwai, and Mababe. Most of the CBOs and communities involved in CBNRM in northern Botswana have experienced these changes. Based on estimates of active CBOs in Ngamiland and Chobe Districts (Johnson, 2009), this includes three CBOs in Chobe District and ten CBOs in Ngamiland District.
4.4.4 THE LOW LEVELS OF ILLEGAL HUNTING Studies (e.g. Arntzen et al 2003; Mbaiwa et al 2008) indicate that there are low rates of illegal hunting in CBNRM areas when compared to Non-CBNRM areas (Table 6).
TABLE 6: REPORTED CASES OF ILLEGAL HUNTING IN NGAMILAND DISTRICT
Area 1998 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 CBNRM areas 4 0 0 0 1 2 2 1 Non-CBNRM areas 23 9 12 13 12 12 10 5 Total 27 9 12 13 13 15 12 6 Source: Arntzen et al. (2003), Mbaiwa (2008) Reducing illegal hunting is critical for effective wildlife conservation. The reduction of illegal wildlife offtake in CBNRM areas suggests a positive relationship between community participation in resources management and conservation effectiveness. That is, when local communities derive economic benefits
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 21 from tourism development in their area, they begin placing a higher economic value on the natural resources around them and become motivated to conserve them.
4.5 CHANGES IN BENEFITS
4.5.1 COLLECTIVE INCOME TO CBOS Although CBNRM involves both wildlife- and non-wildlife based activities, wildlife-based activities seem to be the main source of revenue generation for CBOs in Botswana. They produce income from the following sources:
• sub-leasing of hunting areas,
• wildlife quota fees for game hunted,
• meat sales,
• CBNRM tourism enterprises such as Santawani Lodge and Kaziikini Camp (catering to photographic tourists), and
• other sources such as camping and vehicle rental fees and donations. Johnson (2009) notes that, at a national level, CBNRM activities generated a cumulative total of at least P 52,486,472 million (approximately $7,363,010 at current exchange rates) during the period 2006 to 2009 (Box 6). Eight CBOs in the Okavango Delta and Chobe Districts Box 6: Breakdown of Revenue from CBOs generated 88% of this amount. None of these communities 2006-2009* earned this level of income before CBNRM was adopted in • 2006: P 8,390,606 their areas. This indicates that CBNRM has made a • 2007: P 16,268,289 significant contribution to the economic development of most • 2008: P 16,189,183 rural communities, especially those residing in resource rich areas such as the Okavango Delta and Chobe regions. Data • 2009: P 11,638,464 presented in Figure 3 indicate that CBOs generated income *1 USD = 6.5 BWP during this period from such sources as: trophy hunting, photographic safaris and related tourism activities (e.g. game drives, accommodations, food & beverage services, etc), mokoro (dug-out canoe) safaris, camping, land rentals, craft production, walking safaris, and marketing of veld products.
22 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA FIGURE 3: AGGREGATED REVENUES FROM CBNRM ACTIVITIES, 2006–2009
Source: Johnson (2009)
As shown in both Figures 3 and 4, results aggregated by Johnson (2009) indicate that trophy hunting generates more income than photographic safaris, which are currently being promoted in these areas. For example, between 2006 and 2009, trophy hunting through CBOs generated P 33,041,127 while photographic safaris generated only P4,399,900. This shows that CBOs in the Okavango and Chobe regions have an advantage over those in other parts of Botswana as a result of the abundance of wildlife resources in these areas.
FIGURE 4: AGGREGATED CBNRM REVENUE FROM CBNRM ACTIVITIES, 2008
Source: Johnson (2009) Most of the wildlife-based CBOs are located in the Okavango and Chobe regions. These communities generate huge sums of income when compared with CBOs in other parts of the country. Table 7 shows
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 23 the income generated by CBNRM projects for selected CBOs in the Okavango region of Botswana during the period 1997 to 2010.
TABLE 7: INCOME FROM WILDLIFE-BASED TOURISM IN BOTSWANA PULA (BWP1)
Year Sankuyo Khwai Mababe OCT* OKMCT** CECT*** 1997 298,415 468, 050 464,000 1998 216,420 625,650 464,000 1999 261,288 652,340 680,000 930,000 2000 215,923 1,129,783 687,000 878,993 1,100,000 995,000 2001 227,448 833,525 828,733 1,278,068 1,155,000 963,250 2002 1,496,394 1,214,567 867,917 1,356,631 1,200,000 981,515 2003 1,802,633 446,258 1,121,427 1,579,111 1,300,000 1,001,120 2004 1,734,666 1,250,567 1,183,295 2,453,077 - - 2005 2,127,412 1,564,454 1,319,995 1,766,155 2,090,580 2,106,000 2006 2,321,066 1,691,723 1,335,683 2,500,000 2,193,364 2,176,630 2007 2,507,497 2,426,667 2,426,667 2,457,851 3,121,780 2,375,243 2008 3,314,031 3, 146, 932 3,146,933 2,500,000 4,160,180 3,844,954 2009 2,711,277 2,704,437 1,566,149 2,500,940 4,137,424 - 2010 3,378,061 2,552,417 2,616,172 3, 486,718 - Source: Mbaiwa (2008); DWNP Reports. * Okavango Community Trust, **Okavango Kopano Mokoro Community Trust, ***Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust
4.5.2 CASH INCOME TO INDIVIDUALS Cash income to individuals in Botswana is provided in the form of household dividends. The villages of Sankuyo, Mababe and Khwai in the Okavango Delta provide household dividends. For example, in Sankuyo the household dividends provided by STMT nearly tripled from P 9,250 in 1999 to P 25,000 in 2005. The per capita household dividends also increased by more than 100% in market prices from P200 in 1997 to P500 in 2005. Until 2005, the per capita household dividend varied from year to year depending on the revenue received by the Trust and decisions made by its membership at annual general meetings. Since 2005, the money for household dividends is obtained from the JVP, not from the land rental and quota fees. The Trust disburses it as income from other sources. However, not all CBOs distribute household dividends.
4.5.3 GAME MEAT Households in CBNRM villages also benefit from meat obtained from hunting safaris. CBOs in wildlife areas enter agreements with their JVP to receive the meat from all animals shot as trophies. The meat of the most preferred animal species (e.g. buffalo, impala, and Kudu) is usually given to poor members of the community, while some of it is auctioned, whereas the meat of less preferred animal species (elephant, baboon, hyena and lion) is usually given to people free of charge. A survey of 31 households (out of a total of 49) in Sankuyo village in July 2004 found that most households (52%) preferred meat to other benefits, such as employment and household dividends (preferred by 39%) (Thakadu et al, 2005).
1 I USD = 6.5 BWP (2010)
24 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 4.5.4 INTANGIBLE BENEFITS CBNRM has increased social capital2 in many villages in Botswana. This is demonstrated by the success of many communities in forming Trusts and CBOs that enable them to participate in and benefit from the growing tourism industry. As noted earlier, Trusts are local institutions that provide leadership in the use of land and resources, such as wildlife, for tourism purposes by participating communities. The relative level of social capital varies across communities. However, it can be stated in general terms that the formation of Trusts and their ability to manage CBNRM projects on behalf of their communities is both a contributor to and a reflection of the fact that ecotourism-based CBNRM has increased the level of ‘bridging’ and ‘linking’ social capital in many villages. ‘Bridging’ social capital refers to networks in the form of membership in to local organizations while ‘linking’ capital refers to social ties beyond the community (Narayan, 2002). The formation of local institutions is therefore a form of local empowerment through which communities take decisions to improve their livelihoods.
4.6 CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES AND PROGRAMS
4.6.1 POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND THE MILLENIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS (MDGS) Botswana, like most countries in the world, has adopted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). MDGs represent a global effort to respond to eight development challenges, namely: the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger; universal primary education; gender equality and empowerment of women; reduction of child mortality; improvement of maternal health; combating HIV/AIDS, malarial and other diseases; environmental sustainability; and development of a global partnership for development. This section assesses the extent to which CBNRM activities contribute to the MDGs. It is argued that where CBNRM projects are performing well, as is the case in the Okavango and Chobe regions, they are making a contribution to poverty alleviation and economic development in specific villages and hence contributing to achieving the MDGs in Botswana.
4.6.2 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH This study found that increased employment in participating villages is one of the principal benefits that have improved livelihoods in CBNRM areas. According to Schuster (2007), in 2006 more than 8,000 local inhabitants were employed in a wide range of CBNRM projects and activities in Botswana (Table 8).
TABLE 8: EMPLOYMENT IN CBNRM PROJECTS BY ACTIVITY TYPE
Activity Employment Trophy Hunting 560 Photographic and cultural tourism 420 Veld Marketing At least 3,100 Crafts At least 4,000 Total At least 8,800 Source: Schuster (2007)
2 Social capital involves those features of social life, namely: networks, norms, and trust that enable participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared goals.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 25 In Botswana, the employment of an estimated 8,000 people in CBNRM projects represents a substantial number. This is because most CBNRM projects are carried out in remote parts of the country where there are no industrial and manufacturing sectors to create employment opportunities for local people. In this context, the employment generated by CBNRM is an important factor in improving rural livelihoods. In Ngamiland District, for example, CBNRM has become one of the key sectors providing employment to local communities. Table 9 shows that CBNRM projects in Ngamiland employed a total of 629 people in 2009/10.
TABLE 9.A, B EMPLOYMENT BY CBOS IN NGAMILAND, 2009/10 a. Employment Figures based on Gender
Name of Employed by the Trust Employed by the JVP Employed by JVP (Short Total/ CBO (Full time) (Long Term) Term) CBO Male Female Male Female Male Female 1. KDT 16 5 0 0 11 18 50 2. STMT 20 18 25 35 0 0 98 3. OCT 27 12 15 16 0 3 73 4.OJCT 4 2 0 0 0 0 6 5. OKMCT 17 2 1 1 70 67 158 6. MZCT 11 6 0 0 15 20 52 7. XDT 7 7 0 0 0 0 14 8. CCT 4 0 0 0 4 2 10 TOTALS 106 52 41 52 100 110 461
b. Aggregated Employment Figures in Ngamiland
Description OCT* KDT* OKMCT* STMT* XDT* MZCDT* OJCT* CTT* TOTAL Trust 41 26 21 41 1 20 6 1 157 Employees JVP 196 74 102 65 0 35 0 0 472 Employees Totals 237 100 123 106 1 55 6 1 629 *OCT-Okavango Community Trust, KDT-Khwai Development Trust, OKMCT-Okavango Kopano Mokoro Trust, STMT-Sankuyo Tshwaragano Management trust, XDT-Xhauxhwatubi Development Trust, MZCDT-Mababe Zokotsana Community Development Trust, OJCT-Okavango Jakotsha Community Trust, CTT-Cgaecgae Tlhabololo Trust Employment in Sankuyo, Khwai and Mababe villages has been substantial (see Table 10). Both the safari companies that sub-lease community areas and the village Trusts provide employment in their respective villages. For example, the number of people employed by the STMT and its JVP increased by over 100% in the course of a decade, or from 51 in 1997 to 108 in 2007. Employment by the STMT increased by an even higher proportion than employment by the JVP. This is mainly due to the introduction of two tourism enterprises (Santawani Lodge and Kaziikini Camp), which created additional employment opportunities. At Mababe, the number increased from 52 employees in 2000 to 66 employees in 2007. At Khwai, the number increased from five people in 2000 to 74 people in 2007.
26 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA TABLE 10: EMPLOYMENT IN CBNRM PROJECTS IN SANKUYO, KHWAI & MABABE (NUMBER OF PERSONS EMPLOYED)
Sankuyo Khwai Mababe Year Trust JVP* Total Trust JVP Total Trust JVP Total 1997 10 41 51 1998 11 51 62 1999 11 51 62 2000 11 51 62 5 5 15 37 52 2001 13 9 22 5 5 15 64 79 2002 35 56 91 8 8 16 64 80 2003 42 56 98 10 10 18 64 82 2004 48 56 104 15 40 55 41 18 59 2005 45 56 101 15 50 65 41 25 66 2006 46 56 102 19 55 74 41 25 66 2007 52 56 108 19 57 74 41 25 66 Totals 324 539 863 96 202 296 228 322 550 Source: DWNP and records from study communities * Joint Venture Partnership The percentage of community members employed was 22.8% at Mababe, 21% at Khwai and 28% at Sankuyo. These percentages are very high considering the small populations Box 7: Gudigwa Lodge & Why it of each village: 300 in Mababe, 290 in Khwai and 372 in Collapsed Sankuyo. The employment rates become higher when Gudigwa Lodge was a CBNRM project excluding the elderly (i.e. inhabitants over 60 years), school owned by the people of Gudigwa Village. The project has collapsed due to the lack of children (under 18 years), the sick, and pregnant mothers. management and entrepreneurial skills by Most of the people employed by the Community Trusts and the people of Gudigwa. However, during its existence, it provided employment to a JVPs in Botswana are semi-skilled, working as cooks, number of village inhabitants. In addition, the cleaners, storekeepers and guides. The STMT is an exception project showed that it is possible for in that it has a training fund for those of its members who communities to have a JVP with companies interested in developing lodges. Gudigwa qualify for training in tourism, entrepreneurial skills, and had a partnership with Okavango Wilderness business management. In addition it provides scholarships to Safaris. improve the education of the Sankuyo people. Waitresses at Gudigwa Lodge
4.6.3 PROVISION OF SOCIAL SERVICES CBOs, particularly those in the Okavango and Chobe regions, distribute benefits at individual, household and community
levels (Box 8). Examples of such benefits include housing for the poor, community micro-credit schemes, funeral assistance and scholarships. Funeral assistance in the amount of P 3,000 is provided to all households that experience the death of a person over the age of 16, and P 1,000 is given to households that experience the death of a person under 16. Total expenditures on funeral assistance were P 11,000 in 2002 as compared to P 9,000 in 2005. In addition, the Community Trusts provide various types of assistance to the poor; in 2002, for example, STMT provided allowances amounting to Photo: J.E. Mbaiwa
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 27 P 1,960. However, in 2005, the Trust decided to build seven houses for the poor instead of providing them with allowances, spending a total of P 70,000. At Khwai Village, 18 houses were built and at Mababe, 10 houses were built for the poor and the elderly.
A HOUSE BUILT FOR AN ORPHAN AT KHWAI. A HOUSE BUILT FOR AN ELDERLY WOMAN AT KHWAI
In addition, the JVP provides funds to pay an allowance to Box 8: Social Services Provided by CBOs elderly inhabitants over the age of 60 and to people who are (amounts in BWP) physically or mentally disabled. The amount may vary from • Assistance for funerals (P 200/hh to P year to year, depending on the number of elderly and 3,000/hh) disabled, and is made twice a year. In 2006, a total of P • Support for local sport activities (P 5,000/ 110,000 was set aside to pay 36 people, implying that each village to P 50,000/village) person received P 3,055. STMT also provides micro-credit to • Scholarships (P 7,000 to P members of the Sankuyo community with viable projects. All 35,000/village) community members can apply for credit under this scheme, • Transport services (average P which has a committee that reviews loan applications and 4,000/CBO) makes recommendations to the Board. Information gathered • Construction of water stand pipes during informal interviews suggests that most borrowers • under micro-credit schemes fail to repay their loans; since the Services and houses for elderly people (P150/month/person up to micro-credit schemes operate in small villages where many P300/month/person), villagers are related, prosecution of these who default or • Assistance for orphans (average P misuse the loan funds is rare. 40,000/CBO ) Community vehicles purchased with revenue from CBNRM • Assistance for disabled people (P projects now provide significant benefits to CBNRM villages. 15,000/village) While they are used mainly for CBO business, such as • Provision of communication tools such as collecting construction material, communities also use them televisions and radios to transport the dead and take people to funerals; for medical • Independence fund (P 200/village) emergencies; to carry people to other villages and key centres in their areas; and to collect firewood. Community members can also hire these vehicles to transport their goods from one point to the other. The availability of Trust vehicles has increased the ability of villagers in once remote areas to reach large regional centers in other parts of the country. Transportation in
28 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA formerly remote villages such as Gudigwa, Khwai or Mababe in the heart of the Okavango Delta has improved noticeably since the introduction of CBNRM. Vehicles owned by the Trust may be the only reliable source of transport into and out of remote villages.
In addition to vehicles, many communities have used their CBO funds to purchase television sets, modern computer technology, radios and other internet and communication tools to become connected to local and national processes (see Table 11).
TABLE 11: ASSETS OWNED BY CBOS, 2007
Number of communities that own Assets Total number of assets owned by CBOs these assets DSTV 2 2 Internet Access 8 8 Computers 53 18 Printer 40 20 Cars/vehicles 41 19
The introduction of these assets in remote villages of Botswana is an important aspect of rural development, particularly by keeping people informed of the latest developments not only in Botswana but in other parts of the world. Some CBOs in the Okavango Delta have opened offices in Maun to serve as coordination centers for community processes and as marketing outlets for their tourism activities. These centers have become important social institutions that enable communities to feel a sense of pride and involvement in mainstream commercial activities and to engage with clients and service providers.
A TRUCK USED FOR TRANSPORT AT A ONE-ROOM HOUSE AT MABABE BUILT KHWAI BY ONE OF THE CBNRM EMPLOYEES
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 29 Before the introduction of CBNRM, most villages did not Box 9: Water Supplied by CBOs in have running water at a household level. As a result, local Homesteads communities now use income from CBNRM activities to Water provision in remote villages is a major fund water provision at the household level. For example, the challenge in Botswana. The Government is CBNRM project at Sankuyo funded the provision of water to sometimes unable to meet demand for water 56 of the 76 households in the village. The project at Mababe in distant areas. As a result, most CBNRM villages buy water pumping engines and drill funded water provision to 30 of the 54 households in the boreholes to provide water for their village. communities. For CBOs to respond to this need and provide water at a household level is a major contribution to meeting the A MAN AT SANKUYO NOW ABLE TO GET WATER household needs of their communities. FROM A STANDPIPE IN HIS COMPOUND
4.6.4 REINVESTMENT OF REVENUE GENERATED FROM CBNRM In some communities, funds generated by CBNRM activities have been reinvested into other tourism enterprises and community development projects. For example, Sankuyo has established a 16-bed photographic tourism lodge (Santawani Lodge), a cultural tourism centre (Shandereka) where tourists can view the cultural activities and way of life of the community and a campsite (Kaziikini) for tourists who do not want to stay in a lodge. Schuster (2007) argues that CBNRM has transformed some rural communities from the status of ‘beggars’ who live on Government and donor handouts into productive communities that are moving towards achieving sustainable livelihoods. The reinvestment of funds from ecotourism into other economic activities is an important aspect of community development. In this sense, CBNRM can be viewed as one of the tools that are promoting economic development in the rural areas of Botswana.
30 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA A RESTAURANT AT KAZIIKINI, A A CHALET AT SANTAWANI LODGE, CAMPSITE OWNED BY THE SANKUYO OWNED BY SANKUYO COMMUNITY
4.6.5 CONTRIBUTIONS TO OTHER NATIONAL NEEDS Some CBNRM villages have responded to national calamities and needs by making a financial contribution. For example, in June 2004, the village of Sankuyo donated P 25,000 ($ 5,000) to the Masiela (Orphan) Fund & another P 25,000 ($5,000) to the HIV/AIDS Fund. By Botswana’s standards, these are significant sums. This demonstrates another impact of CBNRM in that some communities that lived in poverty only a decade ago have risen through CBNRM to contribute to national challenges. Box 10: CBOs Donates to National Appeal Funds 4.7 CHANGES IN RURAL For members of the Sankuyo Tshwaragano REPRESENTATION AND GOVERNANCE Management Trust to present two checks of P 25,000 each to orphan and HIV/AIDS funds is an indication that some CBOs 4.7.1 NUMBER OF PEOPLE SUPPORTED THROUGH generate significant income from CBNRM. CBNRM As a result, CBNRM not only provides direct The number of registered CBOs and of villages and benefits to CBNRM villages, but it also provides indirect benefits to other members inhabitants directly or indirectly involved in CBNRM has of Botswana’s society. been increasing over the years (Table 12). In 2006, more than Members of Sankuyo Board of Trustees 150 villages in all 10 districts with more than 135,000 people, presenting a Check of P 25,000 to the or 10% of Botswana’s population, were involved in CBNRM HIV/AIDS fund. (Schuster, 2007). This is, however, a conservative estimate of the number of people affected by such initiatives in that it refers to villages and people who participated directly in
CBNRM, while in fact a larger number of people were
indirectly affected through some form of interaction with direct participants. For example, KYT in eastern Botswana covers 26 villages and 32 centers and has close to 700 members. The population size of the area covered by KYT is 54,464 people, of which 53.9 percent are women.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 31 TABLE 12: NUMBER OF CBOS REGISTERED IN BOTSWANA
Year Number of CBOs Registered 2003 83 2006 96 2009 105
4.7.2 NUMBER OF CBOS FORMED/OPERATIONAL From the inception of Botswana’s CBNRM programme in 1989 through 2009, a total of 105 CBOs were registered in Botswana. However, fewer than half of these (39%) are actively operating as viable entities by managing their natural resources, generating revenue, and receiving and distributing benefits within the community. It appears that some registered CBOs have become inactive or defunct (see Fig. 4).
FIGURE 5: REGISTRATION OF CBOS, 1993–2009
Source: Johnson (2009)
According to Johnson (2009), approximately 41 CBOs were active in 2009 (Figure 6). Many of these are situated in the Okavango Delta, Chobe and Nata triangle.
32 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA FIGURE 6: ACTIVE CBOS PER DISTRICT, 2009
Source: Johnson (2009)
A number of factors may have influenced the surge of CBO registrations from 1993 to about 2003 and the apparent subsequent decline in activity. The initial increase in registrations was a response to anticipated financial and employment benefits from CBNRM projects. The later decrease might be due to the fact that the Government has suspended the registration of CBOs, particularly single village CBOS. Although there is not a documented policy to this effect, the Government seems to be moving from the idea of single village CBOs to multi-village CBOs. In addition, the Government is requiring that CBOs re-write their constitutions to be in line with the CBNRM Policy of 2007.
4.7.3 GENDER AND EQUITY The KYT project in the Tswapong Hill area is the only CBNRM project with 100% female participation. It started through the NRMP in 1997, when it undertook a veld resources demonstration project with support from the Botswana Women’s Finance House (BWFH). Tswapong was a pilot site for mopane- based CBNRM. The mopane worm is collected from mopane trees and shrubs twice a year and sold to middlemen and traders. The worm is edible and is also used as cattle feed. All other CBNRM projects involve both men and women but there is no data about them that is disaggregated by gender. KYT is located in the middle of the eastern ‘hardveld’ region of Botswana, with the Tswapong Hills area as its resource area. KYT villages are found north, east, and south of these hills. KYT covers 26 villages and 32 centers and has close to 700 members. The population size of the area covered by KYT is 54,464 people, 53.9 percent of whom are women. This would suggest that 2 to 4 percent of female adults are KYT members, and just over 10 percent of female-headed households could benefit from KYT.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 33 KGETSI YA TSIE SIGNBOARD
Source: Arntzen et al (2007)
4.7.4 CBO GOVERNING STRUCTURE CBOs are registered trusts that provide a locally controlled institutional framework for CBNRM development in Botswana. CBOs coordinate tourism and other CBNRM activities for their respective communities. Their operations are guided by a constitution that addresses issues of membership, organization and duties. Generally speaking, all people over 18 years of age living in a village within a designated CHA automatically become general members of a CBO in their area. For administrative purposes, CBOs have a Village Trust Committee (VTC) or a Board of Trustees, or both. CBOs that comprise only one village may not have a VTC but will have a Board of Trustees, while those that comprise more than one village have both a VTC and a Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees is the supreme body to which all VTCs report. Members of VTCs and the Board of Trustees are democratically elected at the kgotla (public meeting) every two years. In cases where CBOs encompass more than one village, the VTCs do the following:
• represent the needs of individual villages to the Board of Trustees,
• report on CBO affairs to the village or general membership,
• discuss, identify and manage village tourism projects, including appointment of Escort Guides who implement MOMs activities, and
• consult members on the use of the revenues earned by the CBO from tourism activities. The Board of Trustees conducts and manages all the affairs of the CBO on behalf of its members. This can include signing legal documents, such as leases and contracts with safari companies, and maintaining contact with CBO lawyers. CBOs retain and pay for lawyers who advise them on legal issues such as those related to drafting constitutions and agreements with tourism operators. The Board of Trustees also keeps CBO records and financial accounts and reports and presents them to the general membership at annual general meetings. The Kgosi (traditional village chief) and the Village Development Committee (VDC) members are ex-officio members of VTCs and/or the Board of Trustees. The VDC assists the Kgosi in carrying out developments projects in the village. The inclusion of the Kgosi and the VDC as ex-
34 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA officio members of the Board of Trustees and VTCs gives CBOs credibility and legal support from village authorities.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 35
PART 5: ANALYSIS OF CBNRM DIFFERENCES IN BOTSWANA
5.1 CBNRM IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF BOTSWANA CBNRM projects in northern Botswana, where there is an abundance of wildlife resources, generate more income than those found in the western, southern, central and eastern parts of the country that have smaller wildlife populations. This is illustrated in Table 13, which shows that communities in the Okavango and Chobe regions generate more income than those in the Kgalagadi, Kweneng and Ghanzi areas. In addition, CBNRM projects in the Okavango and Chobe regions employ more people than those in the other regions. This indicates that CBNRM in Botswana is largely wildlife-based and most profitable in wildlife-based tourism projects.
TABLE 13: COMPARISON OF INCOME FROM CBOS IN BOTSWANA (BWP)
CBO Income in Pula*, 1995-2005 Region 1997 2000 2005 Okavango Delta/Chobe Regions Sankuyo Tshwaragano Management Trust 285,000 595,460 1,630,400 Chobe Enclave Community Trust 464,000 1,030,000 1,500,000 Okavango Community Trust 400,000 950,000 1,800,000 Kalepa Trust 2,930 (1998) 270,000 1,500,000 Kgalagadi/Ghanzi Regions Nqwaa Khobe Xeya Trust No data 180,000 109,150 Huiku Trust No data 59,200 (2002) 66,000 Khawa Kopanelo Development Trust No data 22,500 (2002) 54,000 Koinaphu Trust No data 40,000 (2003) 65,000 Kweneng Region Itekeng Khekhenye Trust 9,597 (2002) Baikago Development Trust No data 12,580 No data Kgobokanyo Trust 29,301 No data Central Region Gaing-O Community Trust 11,000 (1999) 74,000 (2001) 78,586 Gwezootsha Community Trust 41,295 No data 60,000 Kgetsi Ya Tsie 414,000 (2002) 180,000 (2005) Moremi Manonnye Trust No data No data 15,432 Nata Bird Sanctuary Trust 100,000 (1998) 178,682 (2000) 144,108 Source: Schuster (2007) *1USD = 6.5 BWP Although there are wildlife-based CBNRM projects in the Ghanzi and Kgalagadi Districts, most of the CBNRM projects there, as well as in the neighboring Kweneng and Central Districts and other southern regions, rely primarily on the use of veld species. Communities in these areas produce plant-based handicrafts and harvest natural resources such as thatching grass and Devil’s Claw, which is sold locally and internationally. This indicates that communities in these regions have diversified CBNRM activities beyond the use of wild animals, birds and forest resources. However, this diversification is much less
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 37 lucrative than wildlife-based activities in northern Botswana. CBOS in central, southern and eastern Botswana are few in number and have received less research attention. This explains why there is little or no data available on CBNRM projects here.
While some CBNRM projects and CBOs have been successful, others (such as Gudigwa Lodge and its Bokhahwke Conservation Trust) have failed and collapsed. This is partly due to the following factors: 11. Lack of entrepreneurial and managerial skills; 12. Lack of understanding of CBNRM concepts; 13. Dependence on outside assistance from DWNP, safari companies, and NGOs and donors such as SNV, CI, AWF, and USAID; 14. Poor distribution of CBNRM financial & employment benefits; 15. Mismanagement and limited re-investment of funds; 16. Competition with enclave tourism or foreign-owned enterprises. This suggests that CBOs engaged in non-wildlife CBNRM projects as well as those engaged in wildlife- based projects in the Okavango and Chobe regions can fail. Unsuccessful CBOs and CBNRM projects are characterized by capacity constraints that give rise to mismanagement of funds, failure to re-invest revenues, and lack of marketing and entrepreneurial skills in tourism development. In this regard, priority must be given to CBO capacity building and to better informing and consulting with local communities to advance CBNRM development.
5.2 WILDLIFE VS LIVESTOCK PRODUCTION Several studies (e.g. Coneybeare & Rozemejer 1991; Barnes 1998, 2001, 2002; Barnes et al 2001, 2003; Arntzen et al 2006) have reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of different cattle and wildlife production systems in Botswana. Coneybeare & Rozemejer (1991) assessed the economic feasibility of game ranching in WMAs in western and northern Botswana. Barnes (1998, 2001, and 2002) compared the returns from livestock and wildlife production systems in western and north-western Botswana and reviewed the impact of livestock subsidies. These studies used financial and economic cost-benefit analyses. The economic analysis by Coneybeare & Rozemeijer (1991) found that game ranching was not feasible in six of the eight areas examined and only marginally feasible in the other two, largely due to the high costs of fencing and game restocking. Barnes (2002) compared the economic performance of cattle and game farms in the Kgalagadi District in south-western Botswana (Table 14). He concluded that neither cattle nor game farms were financially profitable based on net present value due to the harsh environment, distance to markets, and high transport costs. He found game farming to be only marginally viable because of the lack of high-value species, low wildlife density, and the small domestic market and export barriers that make it impossible for farmers to directly export to neighbouring countries. Based on the internal rate of return (IRR), he found cattle farming to be more attractive than game farming with existing subsidies. Removal of the subsidies would make game farming more attractive (financially and economically), reflecting the comparative advantage of wildlife in these remote areas.
38 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA TABLE 14: ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF GAME AND CATTLE FARMING IN KGALAGADI (BWP)
Cattle farm with Cattle Farm without Game Farm
Subsidies Subsidies Without Subsidies Financial NPV -159,000 -512,000 -399,999 Economic NPV -272,000 -272,000 +59,000 Financial Rate of Return +8.8% +2.0% +5.9% Economic Rate of Return +2.3% +2.3% +6.6% Source: Barnes (2002) Barnes et al (2001, 2003) further assessed the economic returns from different livestock and wildlife production systems in the northern District of Ngamiland (Table 15). The authors assessed three livestock systems (traditional small-scale livestock production, large-scale cattle post production, and commercial livestock production) as well as two wildlife use systems (CBNRM in low and high quality areas and commercial tourism). The assessment showed that commercial livestock production is not economically viable in Ngamiland (in terms of both IRR and NPV) due to poor herd performance and the long distances to the main markets, which reduce the real product value to 68 percent of the national average (Barnes et al, 2001).
TABLE 15: ECONOMIC RETURNS FROM LIVESTOCK & WILDLIFE SYSTEMS IN NGAMILAND, 2000 (RATE OF RETURN IN PERCENT; NPV IN BWP AND BWP/HECTARE)
CBNRM in low Small-scale Traditional Large-Scale Cattle Post Commercial Wildlife Quality Livestock Production Livestock Production tourism Areas 1.Financial Analysis Rate of return (%) 11.5 6.8 8.0 9.6 NPV (Pula) 381 -52,846 3,466 229,517 NPV/hectare (P/ha) 52 -8 0.00 15.94
2.Economic Analysis Rate of Return (%) 10.1 2.0 24.8 64.0 NPV (Pula) 4,679 -235,621 1.8 million 6.6 million NPV (P/ha) 26 -37 3.00 457 Source: Barnes et al (2001, 2003) According to Barnes, the economic returns from wildlife use systems are generally higher than those from large-scale and commercial livestock production systems. The comparative advantage of wildlife is derived from the availability of wildlife resources as well as the long distances to livestock markets. Small-scale traditional livestock production has the highest economic returns in Ngamiland, presumably because of its emphasis on multiple products and limited reliance on sales. With regard to the two wildlife systems, there is a big gap between the ‘financial’ (investor) and ‘economic’ (society) performance. Both are positive, but the economic analysis yields considerably higher returns. Community benefits are highest for commercial tourism, mostly in the form of local wages and royalty payments. Communities are able to augment their benefits by entering into JVPs. A livestock sector review study compared livestock and alternative land uses, such as game ranching, concession use, and CBNRM in eastern and southern Botswana. Based on fieldwork in eastern Botswana
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 39 (freehold) and southern Botswana (leasehold and communal land), the study found that only village area farming generated positive economic returns in each situation. The returns for cattle post farming were negative and those of ranching variable. This study concluded that commercial wildlife utilization and CBNRM have excellent potential near Protected Areas. In these areas, it is economically attractive to convert cattle ranches into game ranches, as farmers become the owners of the on-site wildlife resources and do not have to invest heavily in fencing and stocking. However, commercial wildlife utilization, including game ranching, is problematic in WMAs with low wildlife densities and species diversity and without scenic attractions. In many communal areas, returns from traditional livestock production systems remain attractive.
Based on the above-mentioned analyses, the relative values of livestock farming and wildlife exploitation in Botswana depend on geographic location and the type of livestock farming. For example, in the rich wildlife areas of Ngamiland, wildlife has proven to be more economically viable than large-scale and commercial livestock production. However, in areas such as Ghanzi and Kgalagadi, livestock farming appears to be more economically viable than wildlife use.
40 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA PART 6: ANALYSIS AND FUTURE ORIENTATION
ENABLING ENVIRONMENT
6.1 OVERARCHING POLICY ENVIRONMENT
The following factors have affected the overarching enabling environment for CBNRM development in Botswana.
• Supportive policies and legal instruments: The adoption of supportive policies and legal instruments calling for benefit sharing, rural development and the devolution of power, responsibilities and rights to local communities. Key legislative measures include the Wildlife Conservation Policy of 1986, the Tourism Policy of 1990 and the CBNRM Policy of 2007.
• Stakeholder acceptance: The acceptance of the CBNRM program by key stakeholders, including government agencies, the private sector (i.e., tourism operators) and NGOs. The recognition and acceptance of the CBNRM program by these stakeholders as a cost-effective, community-centred conservation strategy that contributes to rural and national development creates a favorable atmosphere for the program to operate in Botswana.
6.2 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT WITH RESPECT TO NATURAL RESOURCES The following factors affect the enabling environment for CBNRM development with respect to natural resources.
• Access to land and natural resources through lease agreements between CBOs and Land Boards: the leasing of land to CBOs for CBNRM purposes provides communities with the opportunity to manage and use natural resources in their CHAs and to improve their livelihoods and ensure the conservation of such resources.
• The wildlife quota system: the quota system is one of the pillars behind the success of CBNRM in some CBOs in northern Botswana (Okavango and Chobe), where there is an abundance of wildlife resources. Safari hunting has proven to be the most important CBNRM activity for generating income for CBOs. Since DWNP determines quotas based on surveys of wildlife populations, the system promotes the sustainability of wildlife resource use.
6.3 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT WITH RESPECT TO ECONOMIC AND LIVELIHOOD BENEFITS The enabling environment for CBNRM with respect to economic and livelihoods benefits is enhanced by the following factors.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 41 • Employment: CBOs that enter an agreement to sub-lease their CHA to a safari company ensure the creation of employment opportunities for community members. CBOS and safari operators have written agreements that the operator should employ people from the community represented by the CBO; an operator can only employ someone from outside the village if the skill required is not readily available in the community. As a result, employment opportunities are created both within the operator’s business and through the CBO projects. CBNRM villages in Botswana have experienced increased employment rates.
• Land rent and wildlife quotas: CBOs and safari companies enter five-year agreements under which the safari company will pay land rent and purchase wildlife quotas from the CBO. The contract can be renewed for another 5 years provided the CBO and the community are happy with the operator. This approach has allowed CBOs to generate significant income, particularly in northern Botswana. The CBOs have used this income for community development purposes such as the provision of social services (as described in section 4.6.3) and to pay people employed by CBOs.
6.4 ENABLING ENVIRONMENT WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNANCE AND RIGHTS The following factors have helped to improve the enabling environment for CBNRM with respect to governance and rights to natural resources.
• CBOs: the establishment and registration of CBOs as local organizations charged with responsibility for managing CBNRM activities that advance rural development and conservation in their communities and CHAs has created an institution that can operate and implement CBNRM projects effectively in different parts of the country.
• CHA leases: the leasing of CHAs to CBOs for a period of 15 years enables communities to assert user rights over the land and natural resources (including wildlife, thatching grass, firewood, etc.) found there.
42 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA PART 7: BEST PRACTICES
7.1 WITH RESPECT TO GOVERNANCE AND RIGHTS The following factors represent best practices with respect to governance and rights over natural resources in Botswana.
• JVPs between CBOs and safari operators: The cases of CECT and STMT provide the best models of a JVP for CBNRM development. For example, CECT and a private investor entered into a 50-50 JVP. Most other JVPs are simply lease agreements and do not empower communities in any manner (i.e. in issues of capacity building and benefit sharing).
• Local institution: the existence of local institutions such as CBOs is both a best practice and an indicator of a conducive enabling environment, as noted above. As a best practice, CBNRM can only operate if local institutions are present and effective in carrying out the goals of the program. If local institutions are absent or ineffective, CBNRM cannot be implemented successfully. As an indicator, any community that wishes to implement a community-based development project should have an efficient local institution, such as a CBO.
• Board of Trustees: a Board of Trustees whose members are well informed on government policy and conservation ethics and who have solid business and management skills have proven to be key to the success of CBOs. The cases of STMT and CECT offer good examples in this regard. The two Boards of Trustees are lead by retired government and business officials who have managerial skills and understand government policy, business goals and the CBNRM goals of conservation and improved livelihoods. As such, the successful experiences of these two Boards in managing CBNRM projects can serve as a model for improving CBNRM, particularly for Boards led by young and inexperienced people who lack the necessary managerial skills and knowledge to manage CBOs and CBNRM projects.
7.2 WITH RESPECT TO NATURAL RESOURCES The following two approaches demonstrate best practices with respect to natural resource management.
• The Management Oriented Monitoring System (MOMS) is a capacity building initiative in resource conservation, as described in Box 4. MOMS has so far proven to be a useful tool in resource monitoring, especially for collecting and recording a variety of data on wildlife. It is reported to be more reliable than other forms of data collection (such as aerial surveys) because data is collected by Escort Guides who record what they observe on the ground; aerial survey data is reported to have a margin of error of 30%.
• Escort Guides: CBOs with Escort Guides report that the guides have been effective in controlling hunting in CHAs. They are perceived as an effective means by which communities can introduce resource policing in their CHAs and are thus key to achieving and monitoring conservation in CHAs.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 43 7.3 WITH RESPECT TO ECONOMIC AND LIVELIHOOD BENEFITS CBOs such as STMT and CECT are achieving progress with respect to generating economic benefits and improving livelihoods in their areas through CBNRM activities. Particular achievements include the following:
• Generation of income that is used to finance community development projects;
• Creation of employment opportunities;
• Provision of social services (e.g., funeral benefits, transportation, housing for the needy, etc);
• Improvements in communication systems.
44 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA PART 8: LESSONS LEARNED
8.1 POLICY Stakeholders noted that CBNRM was under implementation for almost 18 years without a policy to guide it. As such, the adoption of the CBNRM Policy in 2007 reflected the recognition that CBNRM development needs a supportive policy framework. Prior to the adoption of this Policy, the dynamics of power relationships and personal interests in some communities jeopardized the welfare of the wider community. All stakeholders consider the adoption of the CBNRM Policy to be a major step in advancing CBNRM. Lessons learned include the following.
• Development can occur from the bottom up instead of being top-down;
• Decision-making is possible when people are empowered;
• At present, CBNRM communities are more informed about their rights to natural resources around them and how to use them to improve their livelihoods when compared to non-CBNRM communities;
• CBNRM communities know what they want; no one can take advantage of them as in the past.
8.2 BENEFITS GENERATION & MANAGEMENT Stakeholders identified the following lessons learned regarding the generation and management of benefits from CBNRM activities. a) Financial accounts: stakeholders consider that the holding of CBO financial accounts by the Government, although outside the spirit of CBNRM, is a temporary solution to the present mismanagement of funds by CBOs. However, it is important to ensure that communities receive capacity building assistance to be able to manage their own funds. The frequent absence of District Commissioners from their duty stations and at times when funds are needed is a cause for concern. For example, communities may need funds to bury their dead during a week when the Commissioner is not at the duty station. What is needed, therefore, is for the Commissioners to nominate people to sit on CBO Boards as ex-officio members and to work with Board Members and Trust Managers on proposals (related to development activities, recurring costs and other financial needs) through which CBOs can access CBNRM funds from their holding accounts. This could be an interim solution and a capacity building approach to address the mismanagement of funds by CBOs. b) Lack of true Joint Venture Partnerships: Most CBOs have lease agreements with safari companies that are erroneously referred to as JVPs. These lease agreements have failed to develop capacity within local communities, and this approach may never enable CBOs to take the lead in tourism development in their areas. c) Lack of Diversification beyond CBNRM: stakeholders noted that CBNRM is not the only livelihood option for reducing poverty in rural areas. There are other community-based initiatives that can be explored to achieve rural poverty reduction. The focus on CBNRM alone has resulted in the neglect of other options for improving livelihoods in rural areas.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 45 d) Lack of a fair benefits distribution model: most CBOs do not have a good system for equitable distribution of benefits. As a result, some individuals and villages benefit more than others. This is one of the reasons that CBNRM has collapsed in some villages.
8.3 GOVERNANCE Stakeholders identified the following lessons learned regarding CBNRM governance. a) Premature devolution of rights: The devolution of user rights to CBOs occurred before communities could understand the CBNRM approach and developed sufficient capacity to implement it effectively. The need to build and retain capacity presents an ongoing challenge to CBNRM initiatives. While CBNRM projects do invest in training, trainees may obtain certificates and then leave their villages to seek work in cities. As a result, CBOs misuse funds simply because they find themselves with huge sums of money and without the capacity or knowledge to manage and re-invest it. b) Problems related to the registration of CBOs as Legal Entities: The study found that the registration of CBOs as Trusts – i.e., legal entities that receive wildlife management rights under the principle of collective proprietorship and that can enter legal agreements -- has presented challenges. It has made it more difficult for the Government to intervene and/or provide assistance to CBOs under certain conditions, For example, CBOs with little knowledge of the tourism business have signed legal lease agreements with companies that are not favorable to the communities; it may be difficult for the government to intervene on behalf of the community because the CBO has entered a legal agreement with the business operator. c) Weak TACs: TACs have proved to be weak institutions; they have failed to facilitate CBO and CBNRM development in various areas of the country. This is partly because most government officials in the different departments that comprise the TACs (except for DWNP) do not view their participation in the Committee as part of their core business and it does not form part of their annual performance score. As such, most of them lack commitment to the TACs. Most TAC meetings fail to take place and some of their assignments are never carried out. Most TAC members believe that CBOs are supposed to be legal and independent entities that run their activities on their own, without much involvement by the TAC. d) Absence of a common strategy and understanding of CBNRM: CBNRM development in Botswana involves many actors and stakeholders, both longstanding and more recently emerged. As a result, misunderstandings and different opinions have emerged among these stakeholders regarding the direction CBNRM should take. For example, the CBNRM Strategic Framework” document of the Botswana Tourism Organization (BTO), which is a relatively new actor in CBNRM (established in 2006), notes that “the role of BTB (now BTO) in CBNRM is not only to promote investment but to incubate, plan, scope and develop the projects to later commercialize in order to realize the objective of broadening the tourism, diversifying the tourism product geographically and empowering local communities” (BTB, 2009, p. 14). BTO’s role in CBNRM prioritizes seven CBOs, namely: Seboba Nature & Recreation Park, Tsabong Pilot Camel Project, Lepokole Hills Project, Moremi Gorge Project, Nata Sanctuary Project, Qcwihaba Caves Project and Tsodilo Hills project (BTO, 2009, p18). However, BTO argues that it will “continue to provide expert facilitation to other CBOs such as assessment of JVPs, land use, tender adjudication for all other CBOs not prioritized on its list as and when required” (BTB, 2009, p.20).
46 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA On the other hand, the Department of Tourism, even though it is a member of the TAC in various districts, argues that BTO has taken over its previous role in CBNRM. KCS, which is a longstanding stakeholder in CBNRM, does not support the conversion of CBNRM activities into big tourism enterprises as promoted by BTO. BTO argues that investment should occur through registration of a holding company with BTB, with the CBO as a shareholder. According to BTO, “the project would then be operated through the holding company or a credible operator paying royalties and/or lease fees to the holding company” (BTB 2009, p.18). BTO argues that this approach will ensure that projects are fully commercialized and operated professionally and optimally to achieve maximum benefits and add value to Botswana’s tourism product (BTB, 2009). KCS argues that the commercialization and broadening of the tourism product in CBNRM areas into big tourism enterprises is a departure from the original CBNRM goals of achieving conservation through small scale community projects (i.e., ecotourism projects as espoused in Botswana’s National Ecotourism Strategy of 2002). The different perspectives among stakeholders concerning the direction CBNRM should take clouds the prospects for its development in Botswana. The BTO approach has in some cases demonstrated poor understanding of the CBOs that are the targets of the approach. For example, there were misunderstandings and differences in the BTO-led tender for a JVP between the Khwai Development Trust (KDT) and the safari operator. As a result, some members of the KDT argued that BTO has “imposed” an operator on them in the form of the JVP. Differences in stakeholder roles and agendas in CBNRM development highlight the lack of a strategy to monitor, reconcile and coordinate stakeholder activities and priorities. In addition, these differences indicate the need for CBNRM to define its future direction -- i.e., either to adhere to the original CBNRM goals or to accommodate new approaches such as that proposed by BTO). The lesson in this case is that the lack of a document that clearly defines a strategy and stakeholder roles in CBNRM development creates confusion that, in turn, impacts the performance of CBOs. e) Community empowerment has been achieved through CBNRM: Communities participating in CBNRM activities have been empowered to assert their rights not only in resource management but in other areas related to their livelihoods. CBNRM has strengthened local institutions in remote areas and CBOs have become locally powerful. Scheyvens (1999) notes that empowerment has four main components: economic, social, psychological and political. With psychological empowerment, local people develop the self-esteem and confidence to independently and effectively manage community projects with little outside influence. The formation of effective local institutions such as CBOs represents a useful strategy for empowering local people to manage natural resources in their local environment and improve their livelihoods. f) Importance of educational background in CBO Management: the low level of education within some CBOs has become a hindrance in developing CBNRM. This was the principal factor in ending some projects, such as those of KALEPA in the Chobe District. KALEPA is noted for having youthful and inexperienced Board members who take uninformed decisions and spend money indiscriminately. They lack knowledge about government policy as it affects the development of CBNRM in their villages. However, KALEPA is situated in an area rich in natural resources, especially wildlife, and has generated vast sums of money in the past. Even so, the CBO has continued to perform poorly and is characterized by mismanagement and misappropriation of funds.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 47 Conversely, the Board of Trustees of CECT includes retired and more experienced members who are well-informed about business operations and government policies. For this reason, CECT members make informed decision regarding CBNRM projects in their community, such as the adoption and signing of a genuine JVP with a private safari company to develop a lodge on the banks of the Chobe River. Education plays an important role in the success or failure of CBNRM activities in Botswana.
8.4 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND MONITORING a) Co-management of resources: co-management of natural resources has created a spirit of conservation in CBNRM communities. Co-management and the economic benefits from wildlife tourism have led to the development of positive attitudes among indigenous communities towards conservation. In non-CBNRM areas, communities do not benefit from wildlife and attitudes towards wildlife conservation are reported to be negative. Some studies (e.g. Arntzen et al, 2003) have argued that certain wildlife species have experienced population increases in CBNRM areas. This indicates that co-management and ensuring that resident communities receive benefits from wildlife resources create conditions that favor conservation and sustainable resource use. b) Monitoring of Natural Resources: with respect to monitoring, as already noted, MOMS is reported to be a useful tool in resource monitoring. Escort guides have successfully collected appropriate monitoring data in their respective CHAs.
48 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA PART 9: SCALING UP
9.1 SCOPE OF CBNRM Stakeholders agree that CBNRM development is still in an incipient stage. At present, it largely concentrates on wildlife utilization with little attention to other natural resources such as veld products, fisheries, forestry, etc. Stakeholders also argue that CBNRM tends to concentrate only on natural resource management projects and leaves out other types of rural community development activities. As a result, stakeholders argue that CBNRM can expand into new areas and diversify and re-invest the revenues it generates into other community development projects and sectors, which can then also contribute to improving rural livelihoods. Other possible activities and products include: fishing; basketry; beekeeping; art; cultural tourism; guinea fowl and livestock husbandry; processing of by- products from hunted game (such as animal skins); and forest and veld products (such as Morula in the Gweta area). In addition, as they scale up CBOs can also expand their services in some existing areas, such as catering and guiding. The interest in diversification of CBNRM away from wildlife into other products suggests a broader approach to rural development.
9.2 GEOGRAPHIC AREAS TO TARGET Stakeholders have expressed the concern that CBNRM developed with a focus on wildlife resources only. As a result, it appears to be concentrated mostly in the northern parts of Botswana. They note that CBNRM can diversify and expand to other parts of the country where different resources should define the products to be used in CBNRM development. The multi-village concept should not be adopted indiscriminately, as appears to be the current government approach. There are individual villages with interest in wildlife-based tourism projects. These villages are largely in the north-east and should be permitted to form CBOs and obtain the necessary support from the Government. Allowing single-village CBOs will increase the scope of CBNRM and may improve livelihoods throughout the country. Applying the multi-village concept indiscriminately stifles development and fails to consider that some villages cannot work together due to ethnic or historic differences. For this reason, CBNRM should be allowed to expand into areas such as:
• The North-East District;
• The Tswapong area, with cultural attractions;
• Kgalagadi and Ghanzi Districts, where there are sand dunes, fossil rivers, etc.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 49
PART 10: CHALLENGES & BARRIERS OF CBNRM
CBNRM stakeholders identified a number of threats, barriers and challenges to CBNRM development in Botswana. These are discussed below.
10.1 CHALLENGES a) Lack of entrepreneurship skills in CBNRM: Local communities involved in CBNRM have limited business skills, especially with regard to marketing their products. The education level and ability of local communities to communicate in English, French, German, Spanish, or any other foreign language is low or non-existent. The problem of limited marketing skills is compounded by weak business negotiation skills in the area of ecotourism development, especially with clients and safari operators involved in JVPs. Due to these constraints, most Community Trusts have opted for joint partnerships with international safari companies who have skills and experience in tourism development and management. The Government of Botswana expects that safari operators will transfer entrepreneurial and management skills to local people through the JVP. However, the JVP system in Botswana is still very weak and there has been no significant transfer of business or managerial skills between safari operators and Community Trusts. There is no real collaboration and learning between the companies and communities, as hoped by the Government. Therefore, the acquisition of business management and entrepreneurial skills remains one of the major challenges for communities involved in ecotourism. BTO proposed the formation of JVPs as a strategy for addressing this problem.
b) Mismanagement and low re-investment of funds: Due to their weak management skills, communities either misappropriate or mismanage funds obtained from CBNRM projects or leave them in the bank without re-investing them. For example, in 2000 DWNP noted that some members of Okavango Kopano Mokoro Community Trust (OKMCT) had misappropriated funds amounting to P 120,500 (DWNP, 2000:p4) Another example is that of the KDT, where the Board of Trustees misappropriated approximately P 400,000 between 2002 and 2003; an audit by Meyer and Associates could not account for this amount (Potts, 2003). At the time of this study, the Botswana Police were investigating the matter. Potts (2003:p4) notes that the KDT Board members do not follow proper financial or accounting procedures. He states: “the KDT does not have a business or annual work plan - no proper budgeting was done and hence no control over trust finances. Money was just spent in a willy-nilly and haphazard fashion resulting in there being no receipts, supporting documents or paper to follow”. The misuse and poor management of Trust funds by the KDT Board is a reflection of what happens in most CBOs in Botswana. c) Inequitable distribution of benefits from CBNRM: Trusts generally lack a mechanism for the equitable distribution of benefits derived from CBNRM. This threatens the sustainability of CBNRM projects in Botswana. The poor distribution of benefits results from such factors as poor coordination between Trust leadership and the general membership (Mbaiwa, 2004). For example, the Okavango Community Trust is accused of poor communication between its Board members and the wider
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 51 community (DWNP, 2000). General members accuse the Board of running the Trust without sufficient participation by other community members, resulting in disparities in benefit sharing (Rozemeijer &van der Jagt 2000). This indicates that only the emerging elite, who are at the helm of Trust management, typically benefit from ecotourism while the majority of community members derive little or no benefits. The distribution of benefits is probably the most crucial component of CBNRM development. As such, if not adequately addressed, it is a potential stumbling block for the success of CBNRM in Botswana. However, this is not meant to suggest that all CBNRM projects are not performing well. Some, particularly those of STMT and CECT, are reported to be doing far better than other CBNRM projects in achieving the goal of rural development in remote areas of the country (Arntzen et al 2003). d) Lack of meat due to the ban: Hunting provides meat to people who live in wildlife areas. Most people in these areas are not permitted to keep livestock and, as a result, wildlife provides their main source of meat. For example, the people of Khwai, Sankuyo and Mababe are not allowed to have livestock beyond the Buffalo Fence, where there is a livestock free zone. Most people in these areas cannot afford the price of meat from butcheries. As such, it is logical that some might resort to poaching since wildlife is plentiful in their communities. Game meat is an important livelihood and cultural practice here and, as such, prohibiting livestock husbandry and wildlife hunting might create problems for conservation, which is already the case in non-CBNRM areas where there are higher poaching rates. e) Deviation from CBNRM objectives: Some CBOs have deviated from the main goals of CBNRM when it comes to the distribution of CBNRM income and benefits. This applies to building houses for the needy, for example. Some CBOs do not want to follow the government definition of a poor person, and have built houses for people who could afford to do so on their own, while ignoring the needs of the poor. In addition, some people receive monthly allowances and food baskets intended for needy members of the community while, in actual fact, they do not fall within the category of poor people. Again, in such instances, some youthful Board members are refusing to follow Government policy. f) Proliferation of CBOs: the Government of Botswana views the mushrooming number of CBOs in resource-rich areas as a disadvantage rather than an advantage for CBNRM development. The assumption is that if there are many CBOs, they will compete for the same resources and increase the likelihood of resource conflicts. As such, the Government encourages communities to form multi- village CBOs with the objective of controlling competition and conflicts and maximizing benefits. g) Joint Venture Partnerships vs Lease Agreements: in Botswana, most CBNRM projects based on wildlife are carried out following the JVP model proposed by DWNP. DWNP defines a JVP as a business activity undertaken between two or more partners for their mutual benefit. Partners in a community joint venture will be rural people who have user rights to the natural resources occurring in the area, and established private sector companies that recognize an area’s potential for business development (DWNP, 1999:i). The DWNP notes that there are two options for the type of JVP that the private sector and rural communities can establish. These include:
52 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA • Option 1: Joint Venture Agreements – “These are agreements between a community and a private sector company that do not involve the merging of either partner’s assets” (DWNP, 1999:12).
• Option 2: Joint Venture Partnerships – this “Joint Venture Partnership involves the merging of portions of both parties’ assets” (DWNP, 1999: 13). Most CBOs in wildlife areas have chosen Option 1, which does not allow the merging of the partners’ assets. As such, most communities involved in CBNRM lease land from the Land Board and, in turn, sub-lease specific areas with resources to a company or companies that pay an annual rental fee. In return, the community benefits from rental income and employment opportunities as well as the development of associated enterprises and services (DWNP, 1999). Local communities prefer JVPs because tourism development is a new economic activity and most communities lack the necessary business skills and experience to manage tourism enterprises. JVPs with safari companies are preferred on the assumption that there will be a transfer from companies to local communities of entrepreneurial and managerial skills for the tourism sector. Some JVP agreements, such as that of the Nata Sanctuary, have a training component for the local CBOs. Studies (e.g. Boggs 2002; Mbaiwa 2004) have found that the first option for a JVP arrangement between CBOs and safari operators has not achieved any meaningful empowerment or capacity building of local communities. As a result, CBOs have been relegated to the status of recipients of quota fees, land rental income, employment opportunities and other societal benefits. This will not help CBOs assume ownership of tourism enterprises in the foreseeable future. Community attitudes towards joint venture safari operators also need to change in order to facilitate meaningful collaboration. h) Enclave Tourism and CBNRM: There are two main forms of tourism development occurring in Botswana. The first is enclave tourism, which is well established, and the second is CBNRM communities, which is still in its initial stages of development. The main challenge confronting CBNRM development in Botswana is the competition it faces from enclave tourism, which is a well developed industry that is predominately foreign-owned. Ceballos-Lascurain (1996) defines enclave tourism as tourism that is concentrated in remote areas in which the types of facilities and their physical location fail to take into consideration the needs and wishes of surrounding communities. The goods and services available are beyond the financial means of the local communities and any foreign currency generated may have only a minimal effect upon the economy of the host location. Enclave tourism in Botswana also has characteristics of mass tourism, with regard to poor environmental management. CBNRM and enclave tourism in Botswana compete for the same natural resources such as land, wildlife and scenic beauty, particularly in the Okavango Delta and Chobe regions. They also compete for the same clientele, who mostly come from North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand (Mbaiwa, 2005). Enclave tourism in Botswana is characterized by: foreign ownership of tourism facilities; employment of expatriates in top management positions that attract better salaries, repatriation of funds from Botswana to developed countries; and failure to effectively contribute to poverty alleviation in the country (Mbaiwa, 2005). Local communities cannot out-compete their foreign counterparts, particularly foreign-owned safari companies. Foreign- owned companies possess the needed business skills and resources for tourism, such as the capacity to market in developed countries where tourists originate. They also have
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 53 management skills and technological know-how that is not readily available among local groups. Foreign-owned companies have substantial financial capital to establish tourism projects and local investors lack the necessary funds to compete with them. In this respect, enclave tourism remains one of the main challenges to CBNRM and local participation in tourism development in Botswana.
10.2 BARRIERS a) Land Allocation delays: Land Boards throughout the country are characterized by delays in allocating land for CBNRM projects; this is attributed to manual processing of application forms and other bureaucratic procedures. This is a common problem.
b) Failure to implement the CBNRM Policy of 2007: Although the CBNRM Policy has been in existence since 2007, there are still no guidelines for its implementation. As a result, it appears to be rather ineffective in guiding CBNRM development in Botswana. Some stakeholders argue that the Policy remained in draft form for too long (almost ten years) before the Government approved it. As a result, events have overtaken some of its provisions. This suggests that it might be necessary to review the Policy and consider modifications to accommodate changes in conditions and perspectives and possible future scenarios that were previously unforeseen, such as the proposal by BTO to commercialize and broaden the tourism product. Stakeholder perceptions that certain clauses of the policy are unfair (such as the 35% clause described in section 9.3) or irrelevant may be contributing to a perceived deviation from CBNRM’s original goal of introducing a bottom-up approach to natural resource management to a top-down approach where CBOs are being told what to do. c) Influential people & bribery: Some elites and influential persons at times hinder the progress of CBNRM within their districts. Some of these people persuade young people on CBO Boards to take poor decisions. For example, some dikgosi together with youthful Board members received bribes from operators in the process of bidding and renewing contracts. There are reports of occasions on which a contract has been signed but the operator has not deposited funds in the CBO accounts. As a way forward, bribery should be taken seriously and reported to the police or Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime (DCEC). Influential people should use their energy to advise CBOs to do the right thing instead of influencing them in the wrong direction.
10.3 THREATS a) Questionable role of the Government in CBNRM development: Some CBNRM stakeholders perceive that the Government is currently taking a to-down approach to CBNRM rather than facilitating and promoting a bottom-up approach. The case of the ban on hunting in a 25-kilometer radius around Protected Areas (see 9.3 (d) below) and the designation of these areas for photographic tourism are cited as examples. CBOs involved in safari hunting argue that that they were not sufficiently consulted regarding land use changes and, as such, they are not clear why they have been requested to change to photographic tourism. It is from this perspective that some stakeholders argue that the Government now tells CBOs and communities what to do and how to do it, and that the lack of consultation, particularly with CBOs, is a threat to CBNRM development.
b) Disempowerment of CBOs: CBOs and other stakeholders perceive that the involvement of BTO in CBNRM development is disempowering CBOs. As evidence, they point to:
• BTO’s approach of commercializing and broadening the tourism product in CBNRM areas;
54 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA • BTO’s proposal to register holding companies with BTO and Community Trusts as shareholders; and
• BTO’s preparation and administration of tender documents to identify tourism companies for JVPs with CBOs. Some stakeholders argue that BTO does not involve CBOs in the process of writing tender documents but instead asks them to accept and partner with whichever company happens to win the tender. c) The CBNRM Policy of 2007 & its 35% clause: The CBNRM Policy adopted a clause which states: “thirty-five percent (35%) of the proceeds of the sale of natural resource concessions and hunting quotas may be retained by the CBO. Sixty-five percent (65%) shall be deposited in the Fund for financing of community based environmental management and ecotourism projects throughout the country. The Minister may however, vary these percentages depending on the circumstances and needs of a particular CBO” (Government of Botswana, 2007: 14). In the event that this clause is implemented, it will affect CBNRM development. The cost of running CBNRM projects is well above the 35% that communities can retain. Under these conditions, it is impossible for CBNRM projects to generate profit that communities could use to improve their livelihoods. It can thus be argued that this clause is contradictory to earlier clauses of the Policy that recognize that agriculture is not performing well in rural areas, that communities living in resource areas incur a high cost for conservation and that rural poverty reduction can be achieved by diversifying livelihoods using natural resources, as with wildlife-based tourism under the CBNRM program. d) Hunting Ban within 25 Kilometer Radius: In 2009, MEWT imposed a ban on safari hunting within the 25 kilometer radius around National Parks and Game Reserves. As a result, areas that were formerly hunting grounds, including NG 19 (leased to the people of Khwai), NG 34 (leased to the Sankuyo) and part of NG 41 (leased to the Mababe) have been designated only for photographic tourism. This development raises questions as to whether hunting in Botswana is under threat and whether Botswana is moving towards photographic tourism only. If the answer to both questions is yes, then a reduction in hunting is bound to have negative implications for the gains already achieved by CBNRM including a reduction in the income generated by CBOs over the years. Stakeholders noted that, for most CBOs, photographic tourism cannot replace hunting because it is less lucrative in community CHAs, which are essentially in peripheral areas. They also noted that the OCT would make more money in NG 22/23 (perhaps double) if it participated in hunting safaris. In this sense, a decline in wildlife hunting and associated tourism revenues will negatively impact employment, incomes, community development projects, and social services provision in rural areas. A recent survey by Johnson (2009) indicates that the MEWT decision that no hunting concessions may operate within a 25 km radius of Protected Area boundaries will have several implications. Johnson argues that one possible consequence will be that communities that have become accustomed to receiving and/or selling hunting quotas to professional outfitters for large sums of money (most in excess of P1 million per year) will now not have any source of income. In addition, such communities may have to sell their concession areas to photographic safari operators, or to develop and begin operating their own tourism enterprises, as the Sankuyo Community has done with its Santawani Lodge and Kasiikini Campsite (Johnson, 2009). Therefore, the hunting ban is likely to have a negative impact on communities that have depended on safari hunting for their livelihoods. There is no scientific basis for this change in hunting policy. That is, there is no biological evidence to suggest that hunting as carried out in CBNRM areas in the Okavango Delta or elsewhere in
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 55 Botswana is detrimental to wildlife conservation. As a result, the decision to ban hunting within the 25 kilometer radius appears to be based on political rather than scientific factors. The wildlife quota system is one of the pillars behind the conservation successes that CBNRM has achieved. Since, as noted earlier, DWNP bases annual wildlife quotas on the results of aerial surveys of wildlife populations, safari hunting in CBNRM villages has so far been conducted in a sustainable manner and does not warrant the 25 km ban.
56 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA PART 11: LINKS TO NATIONAL PRIORITIES/PROGRAMS
11.1 POVERTY ALLEVIATION AND THE MDGS CBNRM stakeholders reported that CBNRM is contributing to achieving national priorities and the MDGs, particularly those related to poverty alleviation and improved livelihoods. Considering the high number of people employed in CBNRM areas, it seems clear that CBNRM has contributed to poverty reduction. In addition, it has generated large sums of revenue that support the provision of a broad range of social services in CBNRM communities. CBNRM has also achieved some success related to natural resource management, particularly with regard to conservation of wildlife, thatching grass and other resources in villages such as Khwai, for example. CBNRM, therefore, contributes significantly to achieving sustainable development and the MDGs, particularly poverty alleviation.
11.2 ECONOMIC GROWTH CBNRM can be credited with advancing economic development in some parts of Botswana. Stakeholders have argued that CBNRM is “an economic industry in areas such as the Chobe and Ngamiland District”. In other words, the rural economy in these areas relies heavily on CBNRM development. One stakeholder remarked “see a different Khwai today from the past, it has developed”, reflecting an observed improvement in socio-economic conditions at Khwai over the years.
11.3 GENDER EQUALITY Stakeholders also credited CBNRM with improving gender equality, and find women’s participation in CBNRM development and as Board of Trustees members to be encouraging. However, one observer noted that women on Boards of Trustees usually hold lower positions, such as that of a secretary responsible for taking minutes, while men fill most of the higher positions, such as Chairperson.
11.4 CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATON AND CBNRM Local communities in Botswana have reportedly adopted measures and coping strategies to sustaining their livelihoods, particularly agricultural activities, in the face of climate change. The development of CBNRM and associated diversification into community-based tourism can be perceived as a coping strategy by rural communities, as crop and livestock production can be insufficient to sustain them. Crop failure due to poor rainfall has created conditions that prompt people to diversify their livelihood base through CBNRM development. However, stakeholders recognize that much remains to be done in the area of CBNRM and climate change in Botswana.
10.5 COMBATING DESERTIFICATION Most CBOs involved in CBNRM have management plans for their concession areas (i.e., CHAs) or for other areas where they implement conservation and development projects. These management plans, in
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 57 which CBOs provide a detailed explanation of how they will care for and conserve natural resources in their area, usually encompass activities that can help mitigate the threat of desertification. For example, management plans indicate how communities will harvest plant resources, such as Devil’s Claw, thatching grass, firewood and other resources in a sustainable manner. In addition, CBNRM reforestation efforts, such as those around Tsabong in the Kgalagadi District, involve tree planting to achieve dune stabilization. These activities constitute a contribution by communities to the fight against desertification on land under their control and management.
11.6 FOOD SECURITY CBNRM in Botswana continues to play a significant role in addressing issues of food security. CBOs and their communities have developed strategies to improve food security at the household level by undertaking activities that generate new income and employment opportunities. These include, for example, entering into tourism ventures involving lodges and campsites, and planting veld products such as Devil’s Claw and Mokola palm ( Hyphaene petersiana), which is used for basket production.
58 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA PART 12: RECOMMENDATIONS
This study puts forth the following recommendations: 1. Botswana should review and possibly redefine the direction of CBNRM, and reconcile differing stakeholder views on this subject. This study has found that some CBNRM stakeholders are in favor of small-scale ecotourism projects while others argue for large-scale tourism. These differences hamper CBNRM development. It is necessary to achieve agreement on the direction CBNRM development should take in the next phase among longstanding and new and emerging stakeholders. 2. CBNRM projects should fully develop and market a range of tourism products, as discussed in section 8 above. At present, CBNRM has focused mostly on wildlife and a few other natural resources in concession areas, to the neglect of other products and geographic areas. In addition, it is necessary to give greater attention to building marketing skills and resources so that CBOs can realize the full market potential of their products. 3. CBNRM was designed to empower communities and keep them at the forefront of local natural resources management. The commercialization and broadening of the tourism product in CBNRM areas will require careful consultation with and understanding by all stakeholders, especially local communities. The introduction of holding companies and shareholding arrangements with CBOs and BTO also requires further consideration to ensure that such arrangements do not further disempower CBOs. 4. In order to commercialize tourism activities within the CBNRM framework, it will be important to form genuine JVPs in which CBOs partner with individuals or companies with the necessary tourism development skills and knowledge. The JVP companies should take responsibility to train CBOs and individual community members so that they can gradually contribute more to the partnership and/or eventually assume 100% responsibility for the operation. 5. CBNRM should be regarded as a rural development strategy; from this perspective, local governments, principally the District Councils (DCs), should include support for and integration of CBNRM development in their policies and strategies. 6. Each DC should nominate a representative to sit on two or three CBO Boards as an ex-officio member. This representative should work with the Boards of Trustees and Trust Managers in writing proposals to address various development and financial needs of the communities. 7. Priority should be given to building the capacity of CBOs in areas related to tourism business management and marketing. This effort should include capacity building in financial management so that the Government will not need to hold CBOs’ financial accounts in the future. 8. The Government should reduce the current emphasis on top-down approaches to CBNRM development and instead play a facilitating role. 9. The banning of hunting within a 25 kilometer radius around Protected Areas in favor of photographic tourism should be supported by scientific evidence on the effects of hunting on wildlife populations. The hunting ban should not be applied indiscriminately to all areas. 10. The multi-village approach to registering CBNRM activities should not be applied indiscriminately. Some villages can work with others while some cannot. As a result, communities should be allowed to choose which approach they prefer.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 59
PART 13 SUMMARY, SYNTHESIS, CONCLUSION
13.1 SUMMARY Botswana adopted the CBNRM program with the goal of achieving both rural development and conservation. Overall, the country’s experience has demonstrated that CBNRM can be an effective tool for achieving improved rural livelihoods and natural resources conservation. However, CBNRM in Botswana has had mixed performance results, with some projects succeeding while others have failed and collapsed. For the projects that have been successful, stakeholders recognize that CBNRM is effective in generating significant income and a range of other financial and socio-economic benefits for communities, including employment opportunities, household dividends and revenues to support the provision of social services. Most of the revenues that accrue to communities come from the following sources: sub-leasing of hunting areas; sale of wildlife quotas (i.e., fees paid for game animals hunted); meat sales; tourism businesses such as lodges and campsites; camping fees; and vehicle rental. Income from such CBNRM activities accrues to individuals, households and the community-at-large. In addition, local communities have assumed a greater role in decision-making regarding resource utilization and management in their local environments. Botswana has decentralized CBNRM governance through the formation of local institutions known as Trusts or CBOs. CBOs are instrumental in the implementation of CBNRM at the community level, enabling communities to participate and benefit from the growing tourism industry in their local environment. Local Trusts provide leadership to communities in the use of land and resources for tourism purposes. In addition, the Government has allowed communities to have access to land in the form of the CHAs and to co-manage natural resources with government agencies. These changes have resulted in the devolution of rights to the community level. The combination of economic benefits from CBNRM and increased participation in decision-making has played a significant role in creating positive attitudes towards conservation. It has been noted that poaching has gone down in CBNRM areas when compared to non-CBNRM areas, and for some species population numbers have reportedly increased in CBNRM areas (for example, the number of giraffes in NG 34 belonging to the Sankuyo community has increased). Based on this evidence, it can be argued that CBNRM contributes to poverty alleviation and has achieved conservation in certain areas. On the other hand, the failure of some CBNRM projects indicates that CBNRM development continues to face challenges in Botswana. Those projects that have collapsed were mostly affected by problems of misappropriation and/or mismanagement of funds, lack of skilled manpower to run project activities and internal conflicts due to ethnic differences. CBNRM is a rural development strategy that has the potential to contribute to sustainable development and achievement of the MDGs, particularly those related to poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability. The record of both success and failure among CBNRM projects in Botswana is an indication that it is not possible to generalize or to conclude that CBNRM has succeeded or failed to
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 61 achieve conservation and rural development goals in this country. Each CBNRM program should be evaluated and judged based on its particular socio-economic and political context.
13.2 CONCLUSION CBNRM development has been based on three core concepts.
• economic valuation, which gives resources such as wildlife a specific value that can be realized by the community or land owner;
• devolution of responsibility, which transfers management decisions from the Government to local communities and land users in order to create positive conditions for sustainable wildlife management; and,
• collective proprietorship, whereby a group of people are given joint user rights over resources that they can then manage according to their own rules and strategies. The findings of this study indicate that Botswana has been partially successful in implementing these foundational concepts in its CBNRM program. This is reflected in the contribution CBNRM has made to livelihoods in some communities, in the formation of CBOs that manage CBNRM activities in their areas, and the participation of local communities in photographic and hunting safari tourism that derives value from natural resources in community areas. Despite its failure in some villages, CBNRM has made positive contributions to income generation, employment and other financial benefits in local communities. The CBNRM program has expanded to cover a significant part of the rural population in Botswana over the last two decades. Assisting and enabling communities to place an economic value on natural resources has promoted a growth in community-led nature-based tourism projects. In some villages, the impact of CBNRM on the income and welfare of individual households has been significant, as have the socio-economic benefits for the wider community. CBNRM thus contributes to rural economic diversification and greater livelihood security. However, only a few CBOs have a benefits distribution strategy, especially at the household level. As a result, in some villages, the distribution of benefits is not equitable and has caused internal conflicts within communities. There has been some devolution of user rights and custodianship of natural resources to local communities through CBNRM development in Botswana. Through collective action, local institutions such as CBOs have helped to ensure community participation in resource management and tourism development. Some CBOs have adopted rules and practices to achieve conservation in their concession areas, and Community Escort Guides monitor wildlife populations and the status of other natural resources. CBNRM has also managed to establish a link between conservation and rural livelihoods in. As such, CBNRM can be used as a tool to achieve conservation and rural development.
62 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA REFERENCES
Anderson, J. (2005). Nature, Wealth and Power: Emerging Best Practice for Revitalizing Africa Arntzen, J., Buzwani, B., Setlhogile, T., Kgathi, D.L. & Motsholapheko, M.R. (2007). Community-Based Resource Management, Rural Livelihoods and Environmental Sustainability. Centre for Applied Research, Gaborone. Arntzen, J., Molokomme, K., Tshosa, O., Moleele, N., Mazambani, D., & Terry, B. (2003). Review of CBNRM in Botswana. Centre for Applied Research, Gaborone. Barnes, J.I, Boyd, C & Cannon, J, (2003). Economic incentives for rangeland management in northern Botswana: implications for biodiversity. Proceedings of the VIIth International Rangelands Congress, 26 July–1 August, Durban, South Africa, pp. 203–12. Barnes, J. I. 2002. The economic returns to wildlife management in southern Africa. In D. Pearce, C. Pearce, and C. Palmer, (eds.). Valuing the environment in developing countries: case studies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK. 274–88. Barnes, J.I., J. Cannon and K. Morrison, 2001. Economic Returns to Selected Land Uses in Ngamiland, Botswana. Report prepared for Conservation International. Barnes, J. I., 2001. Economic returns and allocation of resources in the wildlife sector of Botswana. South African Journal of Wildlife Research, 31, 3 and 4, 141–53. Barnes, J. I., 1998. Wildlife economics: a study of direct use values in Botswana’s wildlife sector. PhD Thesis, University of London. Boggs, L.P. (2000). Community Power, Participation, Conflict and Development Choice: Community Wildlife Conservation in the Okavango Region of Northern Botswana. Discussion Paper No. 17, IIED, Maun, Botswana. Bolaane, M. (2004).The Impact of Game Reserve Policy on the River BaSarwa/Bushmen of Botswana. Social Policy and Administration, 38(4):399 - 417. Campbell, A.C. 1995. Utilization of wildlife in Botswana from earliest times to AD 900‘, in The Present Status of Wildlife and its Future in Botswana, pp. 45-67, Kalahari Conservation Society and Chobe Wildlife Trust Symposium/Workshop, Gaborone. Ceballos-Lascurain, H. (1996) Tourism, Ecotourism and Protected Areas. Gland: IUCN. Conybeare, A. and Rozemeijer, N. 1991. Game ranching in Botswana: an assessment of the game ranching potential of eight Controlled Hunting Areas. USAID Natural Resources Management Programme, Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Gaborone. 94pp. Department of Wildlife and National Parks. (2000). CBNRM Progress Report. Gaberone: Department of National Wildlife and Parks.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 63 Department of Wildlife and National Parks. (1999). Joint venture guidelines. Gaborone: Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Gibson, C. & Marks, S. (1995). Transforming Rural Hunters into Conservationists: An Assessment of Community-Based Wildlife Management Programs in Africa. World Development 23(6):941-57. Government of Botswana. (2007). Community-Based Natural Resource Management Policy. Government Paper No. 2 of 1990 Government Printer, Gaborone. Hitchcock, R. 1995. Subsistence hunting and special game licenses in Botswana. Botswana Notes and Records, 27. Botswana Society, Gaborone, Botswana. Johnson, S. (2009). State of CBNRM Report 2009. Botswana National CBNRM Forum, Gaborone, Botswana. Mbaiwa, J.E. (2010). Tourism, Livelihoods and Conservation: The Case of the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Saarbrucken: Lambert Academic Publishers. Mbaiwa, J.E. (2008). Tourism Development, Rural Livelihoods and Conservation in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. PhD Dissertation, Department of Recreation, Park and Tourism Sciences, Texas A&M University, 188pp. Mbaiwa, J.E. (2005). Enclave Tourism and its Socio-economic Impacts in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management, 26(2): 157-172. Mbaiwa, J.E. (2004). The Success and Sustainability of Community-Based Natural Resource Management in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. South African Geographical Journal, 86(1): 44-53. Mbaiwa, J.E. (2002). The socio-economic and environmental impacts of tourism development in the Okavango Delta, Botswana: A baseline study. Maun: Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre, University of Botswana. Mordi, R. (1991). Public Attitudes Towards Wildlife in Botswana, Garland Publishing, New York. Narayan, D. (2002) Bonds and bridges: social capital and poverty. In: Isham, J., Kelly, T., Ramaswamy, S. (Eds)(2002) Social capital and economic development: wellbeing in developing countries. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. Rihoy, E. (1995). From state control of wildlife to co-management of natural resources -- the evolution of community management in southern Africa. In: Rihoy, E. (ed.), The Commons Without Tragedy? Strategies for Community-based Natural Resources Management in Southern Africa, Proceedings of the Regional Natural Resources Management Programme Annual Conference: SADC Wildlife Technical Coordinating Unit, Kasane, 1-36. Potts, F. (2003). Khwai Development Trust - A short case study. Maun: Ecotourism Support Services. Rozemeijer, N. & Van der Jagt, C (2000) Practical Guide for the facilitating CBNRM in Botswana. Gaborone: IUCN/SNV Support Programme. Scheyvens (1999). Editors note: despite queries we were unable to find the correct citation for this reference. Interested readers can contact Joseph Mbaiwa at [email protected]
64 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA Schuster, B. (2007). Proceedings of the 4th National CBNRM Conference in Botswana and the CBNRM Status Report. 20-23rd of November 2006. IUCN Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana. Spinage, C., (1991) History and Evolution of the Fauna Conservation Laws of Botswana, Botswana Society, Gaborone. Thakadu, O.T., Mangadi, K., Bernard, F.T. & Mbaiwa, J.E. (2005). The Economic Contribution of Safari Hunting to Rural Livelihoods at Sankoyo Village in the Okavango, Botswana. Botswana Notes and Records, 37: 22-39.
Tlou, T. (1985). History of Ngamiland: 1750 – 1906: The Formation of an African State. Gaborone: Macmillan Publishing Company.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 65
ANNEX 1: TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Terms of Reference (ToR) for this study were as follows:
• Review proposed Terms of Reference with the National CBNRM Forum;
• Hold initial orientation meeting with the National CBNRM Forum to gain direction and mandate to carry-out the assignment and to obtain a list of key CBNRM stakeholders to be interviewed;
• Collect key CBNRM documents, reports, and digital images from various sources of information (with assistance of National CBNRM Forum, DAI and WWF), inclusive of supporting donors;
• Undertake desktop study of key National CBNRM documents and commence filling in Profile information based upon available CBNRM documents;
• Review the proposed customized CBNRM Profile questionnaire (to be supplied by DAI via WWF and the Regional CBNRM Forum) to determine whether additional questions should be added to the questionnaire;
• Conduct individual CBNRM questionnaires with identified national level CBNRM stakeholders to gather additional information on CBNRM Program and the challenges and barriers the Program is facing;
• Consolidate findings of desktop studies and interviews into draft “Profile” and submit this for review by National CBNRM Forum and stakeholders interviewed;
• Facilitate, through the National CBNRM Forum, a workshop that presents the findings of the draft report and contains a dedicated working session to identify and prioritize the National CBNRM challenges and barriers;
• Prepare Workshop Proceedings and submit to National CBNRM Forum;
• Incorporate workshop findings and recommendations into draft report for review by National CBNRM Forum and stakeholders; and
• Prepare final Profile report, inclusive of inputs from National CBNRM Forum and involved stakeholders and submit to National CBNRM Forum (as well as CK2C and COPASSA).
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 67
ANNEX 2: MAP OF BOTSWANA SHOWING LOCATION OF CBOS AND COMMUNITY UTILIZATION AREAS
Source: DWNP and DAI GeoSpatial Team
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 69
ANNEX 3: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PRIVATE SECTOR
Date:……………………………………………. Time:…………………….. Respondent Name:......
Designation/position:...... Organisation:......
1. Impacts on Natural Resources (Nature) 1.1. In your opinion does CBNRM have impacts on the following resources (please specify the impacts): 1.1.1. Wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic [fish])? Y/N 1.1.2. Forests & woodlands? Y/N 1.1.3. Rangeland? Y/N 1.1.4. Water? Y/N 1.1.5. Soil? Y/N
2. Economic and livelihoods impacts (Wealth) 2.1. Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on local community livelihoods or on local rural economies? If so, what are they?
3. Impacts on governance and rights (Power) 3.1. Does CBNRM have any impacts on the following (please quantify whenever possible): 3.3.1 Specific rights to manage natural? Y/N 3.3.2 Specific rights to use natural resources? Y/N 3.3.4 The ability or capacity of CBOs to organize themselves? Y/N 3.3.6 The ability or capacity of CBOs to distribute or share income/revenue? 3.1.1. Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on governance of and rights to the natural resources base? If so, what are they? 3.1.2. Have there been attitudinal changes by communities towards their natural resources as a result of the CBNRM Program? If yes, please specify these changes.
4. Lessons 4.1. During implementation of CBNRM in your Botswana, what lessons did you learn? (OR What worked and what didn’t work? PLEASE SPECIFYIN EACH CASE BELOW) 4.1.1. Were there actions that one learned to repeat? Y/N 4.1.2. Were there actions that one learned to avoid? Y/N 4.1.3. Were there any changes in approaches or strategies that led to better management? Y/N
5. Best practices 5.1. In your country/area, what are the best ways or the best methods to implement CBNRM in order to achieve: 5.1.1. Healthy wildlife population and habitat?
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 71 5.2. Increased revenue for CBOs? 5.3. Improved governance of the natural resources?
6. Scaling up 6.1. Is there scope or opportunities for scaling up or expanding CBNRM? Y/N 6.1.1. If YES, what areas or zones should be targeted for this expansion? 6.1.2. If YES, what, in your opinion is needed to scale up or expand CBNRM? 6.1.3. If YES, what is the best way or method for implementing expansion efforts?
7. Challenges, barriers & threats 7.1. What are the present challenges with respect to achieving the best CBNRM results? 7.2. Do you have any suggestions regarding how to meet or eliminate these challenges? 7.3. Are there barriers to achieving maximum benefit from CBNRM? Y/N 7.4. If YES, what are they? (Please rank the barriers in order of importance 1 being most important, 2 second important etc). 7.5. If YES, do you have any suggestions on how to eliminate these barriers? 7.6. Do you know of any threats to the continuation of CBNRM in your country/area? 7.7. If YES, what are they? 7.8. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for addressing these threats? (Please rank the threats in order of importance)
8. Opportunities & national priorities, programs 8.1. Can CBNRM contribute to the following priorities (please specify how): 8.1.1. Poverty alleviation or the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? Y/N 8.1.2. Food security? Y/N 8.1.3. Economic growth? Y/N
Do you have any additional observations on CBNRM that you would like to share ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………… We have come to the end of this interview, Thanks for your time!
72 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA ANNEX 4: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Date:……………………………………………. Time:…………………….. Respondent Name:......
Designation/position:...... Organisation:......
1. Impacts on Natural Resources (Nature) 1.1. In your opinion does CBNRM have impacts on the following resources (please specify the impacts): 1.1.1. Wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic [fish])? Y/N 1.1.2. Forests & woodlands? Y/N 1.1.3. Rangeland? Y/N 1.1.4. Water? Y/N 1.1.5. Soil? Y/N 1.1.6. Agriculture? Y/N
2. Economic and livelihoods impacts (Wealth) 2.1. Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on 2.1.1. Local community livelihoods or on local rural economies? If so, what are they? 2.2. Do you know of OR have any data that can demonstrate these impacts? 2.3. What has been the impact of CBNRM on: 2.3.1. Revenue for CBOs? 2.3.2. Revenue for CBO members? 2.4. How have CBOs and CBO members used the revenue or in-kind benefits from CBNRM? {present information in table and/or pie charts}
3. Impacts on governance and rights (Power) 3.1. Does CBNRM have any impacts on the following (please quantify whenever possible): 3.1.1. Specific rights to manage natural? Y/N 3.1.2. Specific rights to use natural resources? Y/N 3.1.3. The ability or capacity of CBOs to organize themselves? Y/N 3.1.4. The ability or capacity of CBOs to distribute or share income/revenue? 3.1.5. Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on governance of and rights to the natural resources base? If so, what are they? 3.1.6. Have there been attitudinal changes by communities towards their natural resources as a result of the CBNRM Program? If yes, please specify these changes. 4. Lessons 4.1. During implementation of CBNRM in your Botswana, what lessons did you learn? (OR What worked and what didn’t work? PLEASE SPECIFYIN EACH CASE BELOW) 4.1.1. Were there actions that one learned to repeat? Y/N 4.1.2. Were there actions that one learned to avoid? Y/N
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 73 4.1.3. Were there any changes in approaches or strategies that led to better management? Y/N
5. Best practices 5.1. In your country/area, what are the best ways or the best methods to implement CBNRM in order to achieve: 5.1.1. Healthy wildlife population and habitat? 5.2. Increased revenue for CBOs? 5.3. Improved governance of the natural resources?
6. Scaling up 6.1. Is there scope or opportunities for scaling up or expanding CBNRM? Y/N 6.1.1. If YES, what areas or zones should be targeted for this expansion? 6.1.2. If YES, what, in your opinion is needed to scale up or expand CBNRM? 6.1.3. If YES, what is the best way or method for implementing expansion efforts?
7. Challenges, barriers & threats 7.1. What are the present challenges with respect to achieving the best CBNRM results? 7.2. Do you have any suggestions regarding how to meet or eliminate these challenges? 7.3. Are there barriers to achieving maximum benefit from CBNRM? Y/N 7.4. If YES, what are they? (Please rank the barriers in order of importance 1 being most important, 2 second important etc). 7.5. If YES, do you have any suggestions on how to eliminate these barriers? 7.6. Do you know of any threats to the continuation of CBNRM in your country/area? 7.7. If YES, what are they? 7.8. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for addressing these threats? (Please rank the threats in order of importance)
8. Opportunities & national priorities, programs 8.1. Can CBNRM contribute to the following priorities (please specify how): 8.1.1. Poverty alleviation or the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? Y/N 8.1.2. Food security? Y/N 8.1.3. Economic growth? Y/N
Do you have any additional observations on CBNRM that you would like to share ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………
We have come to the end of this interview, Thanks for your time!
74 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA ANNEX 5: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR NGOS
Date:……………………………………………. Time:…………………….. Respondent Name:......
Designation/position:...... Organisation:...... 1. Impacts on Natural Resources (Nature) 1.1. In your opinion does CBNRM have impacts on the following resources (please specify the impacts): 1.1.1. Wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic [fish])? Y/N 1.1.2. Forests & woodlands? Y/N 1.1.3. Rangeland? Y/N 1.1.4. Water? Y/N 1.1.5. Soil? Y/N 1.1.6. Agriculture? Y/N
2. Economic and livelihoods impacts (Wealth) 2.1. Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on: 2.1.1. Local community livelihoods or on local rural economies? Y/N 2.1.2. If YES, what are they? 2.2. Do you know of OR have any data that can demonstrate these impacts? 2.3. What has been the impact of CBNRM on: 2.3.1. Revenue for CBOs? 2.3.2. Revenue for CBO members? 2.4. How have CBOs and CBO members used the revenue or in-kind benefits from CBNRM? {present information in table and/or pie charts}
3. Impacts on governance and rights (Power) 3.1. Does CBNRM have any impacts on the following (please quantify whenever possible): 3.1.1. Specific rights to manage natural? Y/N 3.1.2. Specific rights to use natural resources? Y/N 3.1.3. The ability or capacity of CBOs to organize themselves? Y/N 3.1.4. The ability or capacity of CBOs to distribute or share income/revenue? 3.1.5. Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on governance of and rights to the natural resources base? If so, what are they? 3.1.6. Have there been attitudinal changes by communities towards their natural resources as a result of the CBNRM Program? If yes, please specify these changes. 4. Lessons 4.1. During implementation of CBNRM in your Botswana, what lessons did you learn? (OR What worked and what didn’t work? PLEASE SPECIFYIN EACH CASE BELOW) 4.1.1. Were there actions that one learned to repeat? Y/N 4.1.2. Were there actions that one learned to avoid? Y/N 4.1.3. Were there any changes in approaches or strategies that led to better management? Y/N
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 75
5. Best practices 5.1. In your country/area, what are the best ways or the best methods to implement CBNRM in order to achieve: 5.1.1. Healthy wildlife population and habitat? 5.2. Increased revenue for CBOs? 5.3. Improved governance of the natural resources?
6. Scaling up 6.1. Is there scope or opportunities for scaling up or expanding CBNRM? Y/N 6.1.1. If YES, what areas or zones should be targeted for this expansion? 6.1.2. If YES, what, in your opinion is needed to scale up or expand CBNRM? 6.1.3. If YES, what is the best way or method for implementing expansion efforts?
7. Challenges, barriers & threats 7.1. What are the present challenges with respect to achieving the best CBNRM results? 7.2. Do you have any suggestions regarding how to meet or eliminate these challenges? 7.3. Are there barriers to achieving maximum benefit from CBNRM? Y/N 7.4. If YES, what are they? (Please rank the barriers in order of importance 1 being most important, 2 second important etc). 7.5. If YES, do you have any suggestions on how to eliminate these barriers? 7.6. Do you know of any threats to the continuation of CBNRM in your country/area? 7.7. If YES, what are they? 7.8. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for addressing these threats? (Please rank the threats in order of importance)
8. Opportunities & national priorities, programs 8.1. Can CBNRM contribute to the following priorities (please specify how): 8.1.1. Poverty alleviation or the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? Y/N 8.1.2. Food security? Y/N 8.1.3. Economic growth? Y/N
Do you have any additional observations on CBNRM that you would like to share? ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………
We have come to the end of this interview, Thanks for your time!
76 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA ANNEX 6: QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CBOS
Date:……………………………………………. Time:…………………….. Respondent Name:......
Designation/position:...... Organisation:...... 1. Impacts on Natural Resources (Nature) 1.1. In your opinion does CBNRM have impacts on the following resources (please specify the impacts): 1.1.1. Wildlife (terrestrial and aquatic [fish])? Y/N 1.1.2. Forests & woodlands? Y/N 1.1.3. Rangeland? Y/N 1.1.4. Water? Y/N 1.1.5. Soil? Y/N 1.1.6. Agriculture? Y/N
2. Economic and livelihoods impacts (Wealth) 2.1. Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on 2.1.1. Local community livelihoods or on local rural economies? If so, what are they? 2.2. Do you know of OR have any data that can demonstrate these impacts? 2.3. What has been the impact of CBNRM on: 2.3.1. Revenue for CBOs? 2.3.2. Revenue for CBO members? 2.4. How have CBOs and CBO members used the revenue or in-kind benefits from CBNRM? {present information in table and/or pie charts}
3. Impacts on governance and rights (Power) 3.1. Does CBNRM have any impacts on the following (please quantify whenever possible): 3.1.1. Specific rights to manage natural? Y/N 3.1.2. Specific rights to use natural resources? Y/N 3.1.3. The ability or capacity of CBOs to organize themselves? Y/N 3.1.4. The ability or capacity of CBOs to distribute or share income/revenue? 3.1.5. Are you aware of any negative impacts of CBNRM on governance of and rights to the natural resources base? If so, what are they? 3.1.6. Have there been attitudinal changes by communities towards their natural resources as a result of the CBNRM Program? If yes, please specify these changes.
4. Lessons 4.1. During implementation of CBNRM in your Botswana, what lessons did you learn? (OR What worked and what didn’t work? PLEASE SPECIFYIN EACH CASE BELOW) 4.1.1. Were there actions that one learned to repeat? Y/N 4.1.2. Were there actions that one learned to avoid? Y/N 4.1.3. Were there any changes in approaches or strategies that led to better management? Y/N
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 77
5. Best practices 5.1. In your country/area, what are the best ways or the best methods to implement CBNRM in order to achieve: 5.1.1. Healthy wildlife population and habitat? 5.2. Increased revenue for CBOs? 5.3. Improved governance of the natural resources?
6. Scaling up 6.1. Is there scope or opportunities for scaling up or expanding CBNRM? Y/N 6.1.1. If YES, what areas or zones should be targeted for this expansion? 6.1.2. If YES, what, in your opinion is needed to scale up or expand CBNRM? 6.1.3. If YES, what is the best way or method for implementing expansion efforts?
7. Challenges, barriers & threats 7.1. What are the present challenges with respect to achieving the best CBNRM results? 7.2. Do you have any suggestions regarding how to meet or eliminate these challenges? 7.3. Are there barriers to achieving maximum benefit from CBNRM? Y/N 7.4. If YES, what are they? (Please rank the barriers in order of importance 1 being most important, 2 second important etc). 7.5. If YES, do you have any suggestions on how to eliminate these barriers? 7.6. Do you know of any threats to the continuation of CBNRM in your country/area? 7.7. If YES, what are they? 7.8. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for addressing these threats? (Please rank the threats in order of importance)
8. Opportunities & national priorities, programs 8.1. Can CBNRM contribute to the following priorities (please specify how): 8.1.1. Poverty alleviation or the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)? Y/N 8.1.2. Food security? Y/N 8.1.3. Economic growth? Y/N
Do you have any additional observations on CBNRM that you would like to share ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………
We have come to the end of this interview, Thanks for your time!
78 CBNRM IN BOTSWANA ANNEX 7: LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED
1. Mr. Harry Charalambous – Director, Johan Calitz Safaris, Maun. 2. Mr. J. Maphorisa – Wildlife Officer, Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Kasane
3. Mr. M. Batshabang, CBNRM Coordinator, Ministry of Wildlife, Tourism & Environment, Gaborone. 4. Mr. V. Dithebe, Project Development Manager, Botswana Tourism Organisation, Gaborone. 5. Ms. E. Mvimi, GEF-Small Grant Coordinator, United Nations Development Programme 6. Mr. Kabo Moeng, Tourism Officer, Department of Tourism, Gaborone. 7. Ms. Poifo Jibajiba, Wildlife Officer, Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Gaborone. 8. Ms. R. Masilo-Rakgoasi, Coordinator, Kuru Development Trust, Ghanzi. 9. Mr. Sekgoa Motsumi, Regional Coordinator, Department of Environmental Affairs, Maun. 10. Ms. T. Molatole, Wildlife Officer, Department of Wildlife and National parks, Maun. 11. Ms. Dikgang Otsile, Environmental Officer, Department of Environmental Affairs, Maun. 12. Mr. Raphel Muskwe, Trust Manager, Khwai Development Trust, Maun. 13. Mr. Dikatholo, District Development Officer, North West District Council, Maun. 14. Mr. G. Young, Trust Manager, Sankoyo Management Trust, Maun 15. Mr. Derek Flat, Managing Director, Desert & Delta Safaris, Maun. 16. Mr. Map Ives, Environmental Officer, Okavango Wilderness Safaris, Maun.
CBNRM IN BOTSWANA 79