Wildlife Conflict Management and Biodiversity Conservation … and Financial... · · 2013-07-02conservation, sustainable use and ... The alternative conservation based livelihood

Wildlife Conflict Management and Biodiversity Conservation for Improved Rural Livelihoods in

Botswana Project

GEF-PPG TF No.057046

Economic and Financial Analysis – Community Investments Study

FINAL REPORT

Submitted by:

Hamish G Bowie Alternative Development Services

March 2009

ECONOMIC & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS – FINAL REPORT Page 2 WILDLIFE CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION FOR IMPROVED RURAL LIVELIHOODS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................... 5 2. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 7 2.1 Background........................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 8 2.3 Limitations of the Study........................................................................................9 3. SITUATION IN PROJECT AREAS........................................................................ 10 3.1 Rural Livelihoods ............................................................................................... 10 3.2 Household Assets ..............................................................................................13 3.3 Production Systems........................................................................................... 14 3.3.1 Livestock........................................................................................................... 14 3.3.2 Arable Farming ................................................................................................ 17 3.3.3 Fishing..............................................................................................................20 3.3.4 Tourism ............................................................................................................ 21 3.3.5 Crafts ................................................................................................................22 3.3.6 Activity budgets............................................................................................... 22 3.4 Community Based Organisations..................................................................... 23 3.4.1 Okavango Community Trust (OCT) ............................................................... 24 3.4.2 Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust (CECT).................................................. 25 3.4.3 PALEKA Community Trust ............................................................................. 25 3.4.4 Ngande Community Trust............................................................................... 26 3.4.5 Moreomaoto Village Development Committee ............................................. 26 3.4.6 Suggested Enterprise Model for Beneficiary Community Trusts ............... 26 4. COSTS OF WILDLIFE CONFLICT ........................................................................ 28 4.1 Direct costs......................................................................................................... 28 4.2 Indirect costs ...................................................................................................... 31 5. LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES ........................................................................... 32 5.1 Improved Production systems.......................................................................... 32 5.2 Opportunities for development of alternative livelihoods.............................. 33 5.3 Constraints to Alternative Livelihoods............................................................ 35 6. MITIGATION STRATEGIES .................................................................................. 36


6.1 Traditional Protection Methods......................................................................... 36 6.2 Improved Protection Methods........................................................................... 36 6.3 Wildlife Buffer Fencing ...................................................................................... 37 6.4 Cluster Fencing ................................................................................................. 38 6.5 Livestock protection .......................................................................................... 39 6.6 Chili Pepper trials ............................................................................................... 39 6.7 Provision of alternative watering points .......................................................... 41 7. MENU OF OPTIONS.............................................................................................. 42 7.1 Conservation Based Business Options ...........................................................42 7.1.1 Ecotourism Development .............................................................................42 7.1.2 Alternative Conservation Based Enterprise Options.................................50 7.2 Capacity Building ...............................................................................................51 7.3 Technical Assistance .........................................................................................53 7.4 Community Investment Fund ............................................................................54 7.5 Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................55 7.6 Activity Budgets for Livelihoods Development ...............................................56 7.7 Asset-Based Community Development ...........................................................59 8. CBO SPECIFIC CAPACITY BUILDING RECOMMENDATIONS.......................... 60 9. Bibliography.......................................................................................................... 66 10. Appendices ......................................................................................................... 67


ACCRONYMS

ABCD Asset Based Community Development AWF African Wildlife Foundation BOCOBONET Botswana Community Based Organisation Network CARACAL Centre for Conservation of African Resources, Animals,

Communities and Land Use CBNRM Community Based Natural Resources Management CBO Community Based Organization CBPAC Community Based Problem Animal Control CECT Chobe Enclave Community Trust CITES Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species DEA Department of Environmental Affairs DFRR Department of Forestry and Range Resources DLUPU District Land Use Planning Unit DoL Department of Lands DoT Department of Tourism DWNP Department of Wildlife and National Parks EMA Environmental Management Act EPDT Elephant Pepper Development Trust ESMF Environmental and Social Management Framework GEF Global Environment Facility HEC Human Elephant Conflict HWC Human Wildlife Conflict IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature JVA Joint Venture Agreement KAZA Kwando Zambezi (Transfrontier Conservation Area) MoA Ministry of Agriculture M&E Monitoring and Evaluation NGO Non-governmental Organization OCT Okavango Community Trust ODMP Okavango Delta Management Plan ODRS Okavango Delta Ramsar Site PALEKA Pandamatenga Lesoma Kazungula (Community Trust) PAC Problem Animal Control PDM Participatory Development Methodology TCA Transfrontier Conservation Area VTC Village Trust Committees WCM&BCP Wildlife Conflict Management and Biodiversity Conservation for

Improved Rural Livelihoods Project WWF World Wildlife Foundation


1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Government of Botswana obtained funds from the World Bank GEF to assist it in developing the Wildlife Conflict Management and Biodiversity Conservation for Improved Rural Livelihoods in Botswana Project (WCM&BCP). WCM&BCP will be implemented in the northern wetlands and related savannah ecosystems and will focus on policy and institutional reform and community driven activities to improve wildlife management for improved livelihoods. The project will strengthen conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming of wildlife and biodiversity resources in Botswana’s economic development, focusing mainly on issues related to wildlife conflict management and Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM).

The aim of the Economic & Financial Analysis Study is to undertake an economic and financial analysis of proposed community based investment activities; in particular assessing the economic and financial feasibility of community based small grants.

The majority of people in Northern Botswana subsist by diversified livelihood strategies as a means of reducing risks in an unstable climatic and geophysical environment. These include agricultural production activities, hunting and fishing, and harvesting of natural resources. Activities change from season to season and from year to year in response to variations in rainfall and flooding, access to resources, and labour

While the patterns of wildlife conflict damage not fully understood, it is clear that household level costs and impacts of such conflict on household welfare and livelihoods can be severe in the extreme situations where people are most exposed. Wildlife damage to farm output is very high, averaging up 60% annually in areas if high conflict. Damage by predators is sporadic but accounts for around 30% of losses to farmers annually.

Community consultations identified a number of opportunities for mitigation of wildlife conflicts including electric exclusion fencing, use of chili bombs/hot fences, scaring devices, buffer fencing with corridors, and provision of boreholes for wildlife away from the river and fields. These strategies require further analysis and incorporation into integrated community wildlife conflict mitigation management plans.

Proposed community investments for development of alternative livelihood strategies include fish farming, salvage timber collection, various ecotourism ventures, alternative natural resource utilisation such as papyrus paper and Xeminia seed oil extraction for cosmetic use, horticultural development, and bee keeping.

All of the opportunities for alternative livelihood or prevention measures appear to be consistent with relevant regulations on natural resources and wildlife management, build in traditional skills in the communities, and are culturally acceptable. It is recommended that they should be considered for support by the project. The proposed community investments are at the conceptual stage and detailed feasibility studies and management plans would need to be developed to enable cost benefit analysis to be undertaken. This is particularly so for proposed


fencing investments, feasibility studies need to consider the high costs involved, both for development and recurrent maintenance costs.

Tourism enterprise development, both of photographic safaris and trophy hunting, clearly provides the highest potential for conservation based business activities to create alternative livelihoods, generate benefits to mitigate impacts of wildlife conflicts and strengthen traditional livelihoods, and contribute to biodiversity conservation.

The alternative conservation based livelihood products with the best prospects for sustainability include non timber forest products (honey, xeminia, mogongo nuts), wild-harvested natural products (reeds, thatching grass), crafts, and fisheries. While the proposed natural resource uses cannot generate incomes on the scale of the tourism sector, they serve to spread risk at CBO level, and have the potential to contribute to the livelihood security of a much larger numbers of resource users.

The technical packages proposed for support to community investments include capacity building training of CBOs and resource user groups; provision of technical assistance to investments planning, design, development and monitoring; and the establishment of an investment fund to co-finance proposed developments. The Project should be structured as a frame program with established outputs but without defined activities to enable the participatory nature of objectives of the project to be realised.

All the packages will be implemented utilising participatory development methodologies to ensure the capacity of CBOs is developed to enable sustainable investment of their own CBNRM resources and successful implementation of investments under the program. The project needs to focus attention on the creation of an enabling environment for conservation based business investments. In this endeavour it is proposed that the project explores ways of how CBOs can best separate their investment fund management role from that of an employment provider and implementer of development projects.

It is proposed that development processes with the CBOs will encompass an Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) approach as a strategy for community-driven development. The central premise of ABCD is that communities can only truly develop internal capacity if they drive the development process themselves.


2. INTRODUCTION 2.1 Background

The Government of Botswana has requested and obtained from the World Bank GEF funds to assist it in developing a project to strengthen conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming of wildlife and biodiversity resources in Botswana’s economic development, focusing mainly on issues related to wildlife conflict management and Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM).

The Wildlife Conflict Management and Biodiversity Conservation for Improved Rural Livelihoods in Botswana Project will be implemented in the northern wetlands and related savannah ecosystems and will focus on policy and institutional reform and community driven activities to improve wildlife management for improved livelihoods. More specifically, the Project development objective is to reduce the incidence of wildlife conflict within the Project area, which covers three districts and 13 Villages throughout the northern wetlands and related savannah ecosystems, by assisting local communities to monitor, co-manage and benefit from wildlife. This development objective shall be met through the strengthening of Botswana’s wildlife policy and institutional framework.

The Project would have four components as follows:

(a) Component 1: Strengthening the policy & institutional framework;

(b) Component 2: Strengthening community-based natural resources management;

(c) Component 3: Developing community-based wildlife conflict management and early warning system framework; and

(d) Component 4: Monitoring and evaluation, and project management.

The preparatory phase of the project involves undertaking three studies to assist project development. These include:

• Institutional Capacity Assessment and Strengthening Study

• Environmental and Social Assessment and Preparation of an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF)

• Economic and Financial Analysis - Community Investments Study.

The general purpose of the consultancy is to undertake an economic and financial analysis of the proposed community based investment activities, in particular assessing the economic and financial feasibility of community based small grants. Specific objective of the consultancy are:

Community capacity building activities for the beneficiary community trusts and CBOs in improving their business management skills, adoption of technical packages and improved/alternative income generation/livelihood strategies; and


Community piloting of wildlife mitigation options and new/alternative livelihood opportunities through the provision of small community grants.

The aim of the Economic & Financial Analysis Study is to undertake an economic and financial analysis of the proposed community based investment activities, in particular assessing the economic and financial feasibility of community based small grants.

2.2 Methodology

The report presents information from community kgotla meetings and key informant interviews with leaders of community economic activities as well as public institutions, private sector and other stakeholders.

Assessment of the opportunities for alternative livelihood systems and community investments under the Economic & Financial Analysis study were based on the community consultations and Focal Group Discussions in nine of the project villages; interviews with four of the community trusts; discussions with regulatory stakeholders and key informant interviews with support institutions; interviews with partner organizations; and other NGOs and private sector companies with interests in the study area; desktop review of the existing analytical work and data from secondary sources.

Limited conflict cost and livelihood data was collected at household level under the studies. This necessitated cost analysis data being drawn from a number of secondary sources. These vary greatly in the areas surveyed and data collection consistency. Efforts were made to reconcile any inconsistencies in differing sources of monitoring data.

The most recent household surveys were undertaken by the Economic Valuation and Human Elephant Conflict studies for the Okavango Delta Management Plan. These reports are drawn from extensively in this study. The reports also note that their analysis was limited due to time and resource constraints.

Estimates of other types of values, such as net returns to production systems models, have had to be made on the basis of secondary information sources. Analysis of costs of wildlife damages and the lessons learned from past and current human-wildlife conflict mitigation experiences was reliant on review of the existing analytical work and data from secondary sources. Evaluative reports on these mitigation investments was very limited and extensive use had to be made of observer and community accounts.


2.3 Limitations of the Study

The study was carried out over a very short timeframe and with a limited budget provision. Information on community profiles, livelihoods, the impact of wildlife conflicts, and benefits from community based management of natural resources was to be sourced from primary data collection under the Social Assessment Study. This was not possible and, in the absence of detailed socio-economic data for households in the pilot project areas, estimates of costs and other types of values, such as production systems, had to be made on the basis of secondary information sources.

Analysing the economics of rural livelihoods from secondary data will always prove to be a difficult task. Not only is there a general lack of focussed household socio-economic data, but where it does exist, the format of data, its spatial coverage, differences in research times and seasons, and different sample years, all make livelihood analysis and comparisons difficult.

Comparison of the relative profitability of natural resource livelihoods, and economic evaluation of each production type, should theoretically incorporate different analyses of results (e.g. return on capital invested, net income, internal rate of return, economic efficiency of different land usage, output per unit area of land, etc.). These have not been possible because of primary data limitations and the different and heterogeneous origins of secondary data.

Feasibility assessments or management planning had not been undertaken for the alternative livelihoods and HWC mitigation investments proposed by the pilot communities consulted. This effectively prevents financial and economic appraisal being completed as these analyses are primarily appraisals of the enterprise management plans and projected benefit flows. More work is needed with community resource user groups to develop enterprise concepts further to enable feasibility analysis and management plan projections to be developed.

Where data from enterprise specific management plan projections is not available, case studies from similar enterprise models can be utilized to undertake cost/benefit analysis. Unfortunately case studies of the types of alternative livelihood enterprises proposed have not been compiled in Botswana.

In an endeavour to address these limitations, experiences from various regional bio-diversity conservation programs was reviewed under the study. The impacts of these programs on rural livelihoods was analysed to inform the proposed Menu of Options.


3. SITUATION IN PROJECT AREAS

The majority of people in Northern Botswana maintain a diversified income generation system as a means of reducing risks in an unstable environment. The main economic activities in the project sites are rain fed and flood recession cultivation (Molapo), livestock management, fishing, hunting, gathering of veld products, small scale commercial enterprises like the production and sale of crafts and local food and beverages, wage labour in the tourism industry, and formal employment in the government and in the private sector.

The importance of the

individual economic activities varies from household to household; from community to community; from season to season and from year to year in response to variations in rainfall and flooding, access to resources, labour and capital, and cultural and other factors influencing preferences.1

Resident communities both benefit from the rich biodiversity of wetland areas and also bear the costs of conflicts with wildlife whose range they are increasing encroaching. Wildlife damage to farm output is very high averaging up 60% annually. Damage by predators is sporadic but accounts for around 30% of loss to farmers annually.

Community institutions in the project established through the Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) program, have been allocated concessions in wilderness areas to enable communities to directly benefit from wildlife and biodiversity resources. The Community Based Organisations (CBOs) generate substantial annual revenues from joint venture agreements for consumptive and non-consumptive use of wildlife. These benefits are however not equitably distributed to community members who bear the cost of wildlife conflicts.

The CBOs often experience management and administrative capacity constraints and many of social and economic investments have not achieved the intended impacts or been able to be sustained.

3.1 Rural Livelihoods

Livelihood sources of the people in Northern Botswana include livestock and arable production, subsistence fishing, hunting, gathering of veld products, craft production, wages from the tourism industry, and formal employment. Veld products are used by people for generating some income through basket making using palm tree leaves, mats from river reeds, as well as the harvesting of wild fruits, thatching grass, wood carving, and building and fencing materials.

Livestock provides by far the most important contribution to total and cash income. Household perceptions of the value of crops to livelihoods is generally overstated because of their importance in providing a means of survival. Most farming is for subsistence purposes, yields are low, and only about 10% of farmers are able to produce their total annual household food needs (Bendsen & Meyer 2003).

1 Bendsen & Meyer (2003)


Household sizes in Northern Botswana appear to be larger than the national average for rural Botswana of 4.39 people per household (CSO, 2003). An average total household members of 9.7 was surveyed in Ngamiland with an average of 6.6 people per household ‘living here’ (ODMP HEC, 2007).

Household surveys undertaken for the Economic Valuation of the Okavango Delta revealed 75% of households undertake subsistence crop farming. 55% of households surveyed were female headed, making them more vulnerable to wildlife conflicts. This correlates with 52% of female headed households in Chobe District (702)2 of agricultural holdings are held by females.

Migration of young people away from rural areas in search of opportunities leaves an population of aged and children. Leaving households again less able to manage wildlife mitigation factors.

While natural resources have previously been the main source of livelihoods, population growth and depletion of resources has led to decline in importance of this sector. Government support to agriculture and improved markets for agricultural products has been a major factor in evolution of livelihood strategies. With formal sector and government transfers becoming most important contributors and natural resources only contributing some 5% of total income sources.

Table 1 Livelihood activities (any rank)3

% of

households Cropping & gardening 98 Livestock production 82 Thatch grass harvesting 75 Reed harvesting 66 Building pole cutting 59 Pensions 48 Employment 41 Craft making 36 Wild fruit harvesting 30 Palm harvesting 20 Fishing 14 Own small business 14 Destitution allowance 11 Other 2 Remittances -

2 Agricultural Survey Report, 2004

3 HEC 2007


Households surveyed had an average of one member contributing cash to the household. With 41% of households earning income through employment. (ODMP HEC, 2007).

The relative net output per household for rural livelihoods in Ngamiland has been estimated as headed by traditional cattle production (P6034 p.a.), and followed by Beer-brewing (P4576 p.a.), Basket-making (P3295 p.a.), Honey (up to P2395 p.a.), Gill net fishing (P.2376 p.a.) and Molapo farming (potentially P1955 p.a.) (Murray.M, 2005). This compares to formal employment, predominantly in the tourism sector, which ranges from P6,400 to P17,000 p.a. (from Mbaiwa, 2001)

Table 2 Estimated relative value of natural resources and agriculture to household livelihoods in Panhandle zone.4

Natural resource use and agricultural activities

Relative value

Dryland crops 15% Molapo crops 1% Livestock 23% Upland natural resources 26%

Wetland plants 17% Fishing 18%

Table 3 Perceived relative value of natural resources and agriculture to household livelihoods in Okavango Panhandle zone.

Sources of household Livelihoods

Perceived Relative value

Crops 26%

Livestock 10%

Woodland 18%

Wetland 15%

Fish 6%

Jobs, other businesses 11%

Pensions, compensation 14%

4 HEC Socio‐economic survey


3.2 Household Assets

The major household assets are livestock and means of production for arable agriculture. Sixty-eight percent of households in the Panhandle zone owned cattle with an average herd size of 245. Forty-five percent of households owned oxen with an average herd size of 5. Households keeping cattle at cattle posts have an average herd size of 37.7 which compares closely with average herd size of 38.4 for 765 households owning cattle in Chobe District. 68% of Panhandle zone households keep goats with an average herd of 18. This similarly compares with an average herd size of 25 for 553 households owning goats in Chobe district.

Table 4 Household asset ownership6

Asset type

Number of households That own asset

% of ownership

Plough 39 89 Radio 28 64 Cart 26 59 Other* 24 55 Fencing 23 52 Car/truck 9 20 Large water storage container

9 20

Mokoro (dugout canoe) 9 20 Generator 8 18 Fruit trees 7 16 Fishing equipment 6 14 Sledge 6 14 Television 5 11 Solar panel 3 7 Bicycle 1 2 Tractor 1 2 Other includes – axe, brick oven, gun, mortar & pestle, phone, rake, scaffolding, spade, tuck shop, water pipe.

Of those asset types owned by more than 20 per cent of the surveyed households, ownership of most assets was not significantly different between female and male headed households. It was observed that a higher proportion of male headed households owned mokoro’s (27 per cent versus seven per cent for female headed households) and fencing.

5 HEC 2007

6 ODMP HEC Socio‐economic survey


3.3 Production Systems

Production system typologies may be differentiated by access to draught power since this is the major determinant of area cultivated and a major constraint to families who do not own livestock. Using oxen ownership as an indicator of availability of draught power, three domains may be identified. Oxen owners with enough animals to set up a complete team. Oxen borrowers who partly or entirely depend on borrowing or hiring draught power. These farmers often have problems with ploughing at the optimum time. Hoe farmers who carry out their farming activities without draught power.

Arable farming groups may be further differentiated by those who practice dryland farming and those who practice molapo (recession agriculture) farming. Molapo farming is more demanding of resources and offers higher potential returns but also higher potential risks. Not the least of these being higher risks of crop raiding by wild animals.

Livestock farmers may be differentiated by households keeping livestock at cattle posts and farmers keeping livestock in the village. These have implications for division of labour and wildlife mitigation activities.

3.3.1 Livestock

The strength of traditional farming systems is their flexibility and the spread of risks. Livestock is by far the biggest contributor to household subsistence and the most important source of cash income. The decline in relative importance is predominantly due to increase in the population and importance of employment income.

Livestock, especially cattle is the most important assets to most households. Apart from cash income, cattle provide meat, milk, draught power and social recognition. It is an extensive system with minimum inputs and a relatively low output. Due to prevalence of diseases in the project areas notably foot and mouth, the two areas have been declared ’red zones’ which means that cattle or meat products from these areas cannot be sold beyond their geographical zones. However farmers in the project areas also complain about poor prices for livestock. Due to diseases, vaccination is done more frequently on cattle in these areas compared to other parts of the country. Participants of this study complained that there were no markets for their products such as livestock, fish, crafts, crop yields because of the red-zone label on account of the persistent prevalence of foot and mouth disease in the area. Poor road conditions and lack of basic infrastructure, for example secondary schools and good health facilities were cited as other constraining factors.

Annual income contribution is estimated at P7,543 for households keeping cattle at cattle posts and P2,137 for households keeping livestock in the village. Twenty-five percent of households keep their livestock at cattle posts while thirty-seven percent keep their livestock in the village.


Table 5 Number of livestock by site7

Panhandle Livestock at cattle posts

Livestock kept in village

% hh 25 36.9 Average number of cattle

%consumed % sold

37.7 2.1 4.3

4.6 5.9 3.2

Average number of small stock %consumed

% sold

15.8 62.4 46.2

6.4 22.8 54.8

Average number of donkeys %consumed

% sold

3.8 11.3 22.6

2.8 20.7

0 Total LSU 39,630 11,416

Notably more households in the Panhandle area keep their livestock in village areas than out at cattle posts. This contrasts with other zones in Ngamiland.

Table 6 Estimated Income contribution of livestock8

Panhandle Livestock at cattle posts

Livestock kept in village

% hh 25 36.9 LSU Produced 7 1.25 LSU Sold 4 0.73 Price per LSU P 1,243 1,542 Total Income P 7,543 2,137

7 ODMP Economic Value



Table 7 Panhandle Cattle Distribution9

No Extension Area Crush Cattle Population

1 Beetsha Seshokora 527

2 Beetsha Gudigwa 952

3 Beetsha Gomoteretere 281

4 Beetsha Beetsha 1,383

5 Beetsha Eretsha 1,236

6 Beetsha Gudigwa 47

7 Beetsha Gunitsoga 1,345

8 Beetsha Ndorotsha 655

9 Beetsha Xhao 964

10 Seronga Teekae 713

11 Seronga Seronga 862

12 Seronga Mbirova 868

13 Seronga Dungu 1,316

14 Seronga Mawana 957

15 Seronga Mokgacha 1,038

Total 13,144

Average annual off take in Chobe District equates to 3.7% of the total herd. Annual mortality is very high in Chobe District at nearly 12% of the total herd. This may indicate the very high risk of predation and exposure to disease in the region. This contrasts with deaths at 8% of the total herd of the Northern Botswana region.

Table 8 Chobe District Livestock population /off take10

Chobe District Cattle Goats Sheep Pigs

Population 15255 1293 257 50.5 Average off-take 3.7% 7.6%

9 Agricultural Statistics

10 Animal Production Department Data


3.3.2 Arable Farming

Farmers in the project areas practice both dryland and molapo farming. On average households plant five different crop types each season (HEC 2007). Some planting up to nine. The most common being, in order of frequency: maize, sorghum, beans, melons, pumpkins, millet, sweet reed, ground nuts. These crops are broadcast sown /intercropped in the same field to spread the risk and ensure something is harvested in a bad season. This also means that the harvesting activity is pro-prolonged with different types maturing at different times. This also means early maturing types can be consumed while guarding later maturing types.

Molapo farming is a higher risk/higher profit enterprise. It is carried out on relatively fertile soils with very high potential yields. However it is more resource demanding and more risky. Fields are often heavily infested with weeds. Only 25% of farmers are successful. (Rashem 1988) The 75% risk is broken down by cause of failure as 20% animals (both livestock and wildlife), 17% pests, 15% poor germination, 12% drought, 11% flood.

Dryland farming is less risky and less profitable. The overall risk is lower at 60% and resource requirements are lower. Major causes of failure are 10% animals, 18% pests, 22% poor germination, and 10% drought.

A total of 599 ha was planted under molapo farming by 554 farmers in the four Northern agricultural districts (Chobe, Okavango, Ngamiland E & W) during the 2007/8 cropping season. This averages 1.08 ha per farmer (Regional Agricultural Office).

“Most farmers cultivate small areas for subsistence purposes. At present only 10% of the farmers reach full subsistence level and live mainly from their own production (Ndozi, Nthibe & Bandeke, 1999: 36).

“On average only 40% of the total area cultivated can be harvested at the end of the cropping season (Agricultural Statistics Unit, 1968 – 2002). In some years, the ratio between area harvested and planted is even less favorable. These figures clearly illustrate the uncertainties crop-farming bears. The high failure rate can be attributed to drought or erratic rainfall patterns, flooding (in flood-recession farmland) and crop losses or crop damage by livestock, wildlife, birds (particularly quelea), rodents, and pests. (analysis of Agricultural Statistics, 1968-2002).”

Table 9 Crop production – area Dryland and Molapo11

Panhandle Dryland Molapo

% hh with fields 66 6.0 Average area planted ha 1.90 2.11 Area planted ha 4435 447



Crop Production Department records indicate that a total of 508 families were crop farming traditionally in Chobe District during the 2007/8 season. This represents a considerable reduction from 1049 traditional crop holdings in 2003 reported in Agricultural Survey Reports. This disparity would need to be analyzed further, reviewing survey method and criteria. Certainly the cessation of farming activity in Lesoma would have a significant impact.

The area ploughed in Chobe district during the 2007/8 season totaled 1057ha. While the area planted totaled 990ha. Chobe West maize yields at 408 kg/ha are almost double the national subsistence maize crop yield of 210 kg/ha. Tables 10 and 11.

Table 10 Chobe West Farming Activity12

Extension Area Families Farming Area ha Average Area

Planted ha Mabele/Kavimba 82 113 1.4

Kachikau 20 35 1.75 Satau 174 344 1.98

Parakarungu 191 402 2.10

Table 11 Chobe West Crop Yields 2007/8 Season

Extension Area Maize Cowpeas

Mabele/Kavimba 850kg - Kachikau - - Satau 21,785kg 2,725kg Parakarungu 324,650kg -

Table 12 Chobe District Crop Yields 2007/8 Season

Chobe District Maize Sorghum Cowpeas Pulses

Area planted /ha 860.8 71.5 50.5 2.1 Total yield /kg 351,485 7350 3825 900 Yield per crop kg/ha 408 102.8 76.5 18

12 Crop Production Department Data


Table 13 Chobe West Area of Wildlife Crop Damage 2007/8 Season13

Extension Area Number of Families Effected

Area Damaged ha

Compensation Paid P

Mabele/Kavimba 33 50.0 19,514 Satau 18 13.65 3,415 Total 51 53.65 22,929

Only 15% of 4968 farmers in the four Northern agricultural districts ploughed using tractors during the 2007/8 cropping season. 70% of farmers planted by animal draught power (cattle or donkeys). And 15% planted using hand hoes. The average area ploughed was 2ha by tractor, 1.6ha by animal draught power, and 0.9ha by hand hoeing The cost of ploughing with a tractor ranged from P450 to P500 per hectare.

Table 14 Planting technology14

Tractor Power Animal Draught

Power Hand Hoeing Total

Number of farmers 745 3493 730 4968 Percentage of farmers 15% 70% 15%

Area ploughed ha 1527.8 5745.3 649 7922 Average area ploughed 2.05 1.6 0.9

1.6

13 Crop Production Department Data

14 Agricultural Survey Report


Table 15 Resource requirements for arable farming hours per ha15

Activity Dryland Farmers using oxen

Dryland Hoe farmers

Molapo farming

Man hrs Oxen hrs Man hrs Man hrs Oxen hrs Ploughing 18 24 50 200 Clearing 100 Planting 12 27 2 Weeding 70 70 100 Bird scaring /Guarding

35 35 35

Harvesting 40 40 80 Total 175 24 272 267 200

3.3.3 Fishing

Fishing has been undertaken by communities in the project areas as a traditional livelihood source. Fishing is usually one of a number of livelihood strategies to reduce risk and provide a social safety net. In the past the FAP scheme supported fishing production through subsidies to buy inputs like canoes, nets, refrigerators and engines to help fishermen go commercial. But a number of projects supported through such assistance have since stopped since FAP support was terminated.

Fifty fishermen in the Seronga extension area have been registered by the Fisheries Division of DWNP. A monitoring system where fishermen are issued with forms to complete every time they fish has been recently introduced. Based on this monitoring system, the Department was able to record an output of 1244.6 kg of fish for the month of June 2008. Fish is currently sold at P15 - 16 per kilogram.

The annual contributions to household incomes (both cash and in kind) from traditional fishing in the Panhandle villages were estimated at P1282 and from gillnet fishing at P2593. Traditional fishing was practiced by 15% of households while gillnet fishing is practiced by a further 19% of households. (Economic valuation P49)

A total of 53 households were reported as undertaking fishing economic activities in Chobe District. (Agricultural Survey 2004). Only a few of these are operating commercially in Chobe West and then only intermittently. This is due to difficulties of marketing and the high cost of fuel. A number of proposals for fish farming have been developed but these are still at a conceptual stage.

15 Rashem, 1988


3.3.4 Tourism The Tourism sector, largely focused on the wildlife resource, continues to experience impressive growth. While employment in the tourism sector is a major income source for communities in the project areas adjacent to the Okavango Delta and Chobe protected areas, a number of community tourism enterprises have been initiated in the project areas. Okavango Community Trust ran a boat transfer service from Sepopa to Seronga. This served community members and also tourists visiting the area for Mokoro trips. Okavango Polers Trust in Seronga was established by 50 members to provide Mokoro trips for visiting tourists. The Trust invested in development of a rest camp in Seronga and is currently investigating development of a second camp site in the wetlands. The Trust provides part time employment to 75 polers. Annual sales total P1.1 million, 50% of which goes towards salaries of staff and the polers. The enterprise generated a profit of P150,000 in 2006. Challenges include development of marketing linkages, administrative and tourism management skills. A high service level traditional camp was developed at Gudigwa by the Mabukakhwe Cultural Community Trust. The camp was marketed to fly-in clients through joint venture marketing arrangements with OWS but is not currently operating. Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust has secured a site lease to develop a high service lodge in the Ngoma area. A joint venture tourism operator partner has been selected for co-development. This will provide the community with a number of conservation enterprise opportunities including: cultural demonstrations and village visits, craft sales, Mokoro trips, and transfers. A community campsite was developed and more recently renovated by the Kavimba VTC but is not operational due to on-going road construction. Other tourism projects being considered by CECT include additional tented camp sites identified under the Land Use Management Plan on the boundaries of the Chobe National Park to take advantage of designated community use areas. And inclusion of community management of the hunting camp as requirement under future trophy hunting JVA tenders. Ngande Community Trust in Khumaga receives a bed night contribution from operators of Leroo La Tau lodge and has been allocated a concession to develop a lodge in community use areas of Makgadikgadi National Park. Capacity building requirements for specialized tourism enterprise development are varied. CBOs and resource user groups need to build marketing, financial management, business planning and management capacity in tourism development. Technical assistance is required to development of investment and management plans, and to the negotiation of JVP agreements which result in real empowerment of communities and development of specific tourism management skills.


3.3.5 Crafts Crafts and basket weaving are widely practiced traditional livelihoods throughout the project areas. The industry has high potential to generate producer incomes by utilizing traditional skills and local natural resources. A total of 256 people in Chobe District listed craft work as another economic activity. This compares to 210 listing craft work as another economic activity in Ngamiland West (Agric Survey Report, 2004). A basket producer’s cooperative based in Chobe West had 147 weaver members registered. The ODMP Economic Evaluation estimated that households collecting palm leaves and weaving baskets in basket making areas of the Delta generated annual incomes of P1500 from each of these activities. The percentage of households participating in these activities in the Panhandle zone was 12% collecting palm leaves and 6% selling baskets. The recent revival of Kachempati Basket Weavers Cooperative, through assistance of the Department of Co-operatives, demonstrates the potential for development of market linkages to contribute to the cash incomes of rural producers. The Cooperative serves 147 member producers mainly from Satau and Parakarungu villages. Results for the current year together with past results indicates potential for a crafts enterprise generating annual sales of P70,000 to P90,000, and contributing incomes of P57,000 to P80,000 to producers. Proposals are being developed to establish a baskets shop in Kasane and a crafts centre in Chobe West to service tourists in transit through the enclave. A separate informal group from Mabele markets their baskets at the Ngoma border post.

3.3.6 Activity budgets

Ploughing/planting under the Molapo farming system depends on when the floods arrive and recede. The timing and extent of the floods can vary from year to year so there is no guarantee a farmer will be able to use the same field for successive years. Farmers may even plant in different fields in the same season as a risk (of flooding, fast drying out) mitigation strategy. This makes formal land allocation difficult. Successful crop establishment is a challenge so farmers wait to ensure the crop is successfully established before brush fencing their molapo fields. In Chobe West molapo fields are usually planted in July/August and harvested in October. Allowing a second crop to be planted in November when the soil becomes saturated again by rainfall.

Major farming activities are weeding in August/September, bird scaring in October. Crop guarding and animal chasing is done throughout the growing cycle, but more critically as crop approaches maturity in September/October. Harvesting is done October/November.

Dryland fields are planted in November when the rains come. Weeding is done December/January, bird scaring February/March, animal chasing/ crop protecting throughout, but critically as crop approaches maturity in March. Harvesting March/April.


Crafts production, collecting building materials (poles), and construction is usually undertaken during the dry season when people are not busy with farming activities.

Veld products such as thatching grass and reeds are collected July/August at the end of the winter. Wild fruits are collected during the dry season.

Under the new fishing regulations, fishing is allowed over ten months with December and January closed for the breeding season. Traditionally fishing in the flood plains is carried out in April/May as flood waters recede and fish become trapped.

3.4 Community Based Organisations

There are four community based organizations in the project area formed under the CBNRM policy to manage natural resources and contribute to improved livelihoods of their member communities. These range from one of the longest established CBOs, CECT, to one of the newest Ngande Trust. All the CBOs have been allocated concession areas for co-management of natural resources. Three of the CBOs earn substantial annual revenues from tourism industry through wildlife hunting and photographic safari joint venture agreements (JVA).

Various capacity challenges however limit the effective reinvestment of these revenue flows in sustainable enterprises and services, and equitable benefits distribution to households within the communities. CBOs lack the appropriate skills and mechanisms to manage funds and undertake cost benefit analysis of proposed investments in enterprises or social services. And in identifying investment opportunities, feasibility analysis, project implementation, and monitor their business performance.

With the result that community enterprise investments have not generally been successful and delivery of social service is often not sustained. Households that experience increasing wildlife conflict, have foregone hunting rights, and experience related constraints of limitations in movement of livestock and access to markets, may not receive direct benefits from the joint venture agreements at the household level.

CBOs need to build marketing, financial management, business planning and management capacity for development of tourism based conservation business enterprises. To successfully embark on conservation business activities the CBOs need to address added constraints of communications and limited market information, access to capital and appropriate technical skills.


3.4.1 Okavango Community Trust (OCT)

OCT serves the villages of Seronga, Gunitsoga, Eretsha, Beetsha and Gudigwa in the Panhandle zone. Each village has a Village Trust Committee (VTC) which is supposed to conceive, design, and implement investment activities in the village. Two members from each VTC constitute the Trust’s Board of Trustees. The OCT management team consists of a General Manager, Accountant, Environmental Officer, Shop Manager, Garden Manager and Buyer. This team manages additional staff of Community Escort Guides, Shop Attendants and gardeners. The Manager was recently dismissed. The Accountant is new in the Trust and is busy establishing financial planning and reporting systems to curb over expenditure. 57% of the past years expenditure could not be accounted.

A total of 53 people are employed by the Trust and various projects. This can be added to by VTC members to result in more than one hundred people benefiting through employment and sitting allowances. Salaries, rations, and sitting allowances constituted 48% of total revenue in 2006.

OCT has two community controlled hunting areas of NG22 and NG23. They have a Joint Venture Agreement with Okavango Wilderness Safaris who lease both concession areas for photographic safaris. OCT receives annual revenues and fees totaling P2.5 million from the JVA.

The Trust’s assets include: 3 vehicles; 1 tractor; 1 taxi boat (not working); office, office furniture, office equipment.

Community projects undertaken so far include 3 shops (two operating at Gudigwa and Beetsha; Seronga not operating) and a mortuary in Seronga for which about P200,000 was invested.

The trust also has a piece of land in Seronga that they would like to develop into a traditional village from where they could also produce and sell crafts. This project is estimated to cost P1 million but there is no funding allocated for this purpose.

The bulk of the income is used to pay for operating costs of the Trust. These include among others, salaries and sitting allowances for the Board and village trust committees.

The JVA revenue is shared between the five villages at P100,000 per village annually to invest in local development initiatives. Some of the communities have used the funds for social assistance projects like provision of transport for people on the ARV programme, assistance with funeral transportation and fetching water.

The trust has a vegetable garden at Eretsha which operates at low scale due to lack of equipment and water for which they intend to drill a borehole. The little vegetables produced from this garden are given people on the ARV programme to boost their nutrition. The trust has identified the potential to roll out vegetable gardens to other villages.


3.4.2 Chobe Enclave Conservation Trust (CECT)

CECT serves the villages of Parakarungu, Satau, Kachikau, Kavimba and Mabele. Each village has a VTC with ten members. These form a Board of Trustees with ten (10) members. The Board of Trustees is responsible for recruiting the management team. The CECT management team consists of a Programme Officer and an Accountant. The Trust is in the process of recruiting a General Manager. CECT also has a staff of Community Escort Guides. VTCs employ tractor drivers and assistants, phone and shop attendant, and other projects. Employment and is to employ project officers under each.

CECT has two community controlled hunting areas of CH1 and CH2 which they have a JVA for with Akuna Mathata Safaris to undertake hunting and photographic safaris. The current lease agreement expires at the end of March 2009. CECT receives annual revenues and fees totaling P2.4 million from the JVA. 46% of which is spent on Trust operating and administrative expenditure. 26% of concession income was spent on salaries and allowances. 57% of the cost of which is for employment under VTCs. Annual allocations of P300,000 are provided to VTCs to develop projects.

The Trust’s assets include: 3 vehicles; 5 tractors and equipment; office and guest house in Kavimba, office furniture, office equipment, porta camp office in Kasane.

Community projects undertaken include: grinding mills, shared tractor services, phone shops, community grocery shops, hardware shops, and a campsite. Proposed projects include fish farming, salvage timber collection, cultural village, Ngoma lodge, three tourism campsites, guest houses, and brick moulding.

3.4.3 PALEKA Community Trust

The Trust covers the villages of Kazungula, Lesoma and Pandamatenga. VTCs in the three villages making up the Trust. The Trust has in the past had difficulties accounting for funds and their wildlife hunting quota was withdrawn. The Trust now has a Manager who, together with the Board of Trustees, is working on establishing a management structure for the Trust.

The Trust has a JVA with Akuna Mathata Safaris to undertake hunting safaris in their concession area for which they receive annual revenues of P1.3 million.

The Trust is currently electric fencing a farming area in Lesoma and considering buying an existing campsite in Lesoma. The protection fence would enclose an area of 178 ha in two fields at a cost of P308,100 (P37 per meter).


3.4.4 Ngande Community Trust

The Ngande Trust covers communities in the Khumaga area. Although the Trust has been registered for some time it is nascent due to lack of a revenue streams. Leroo la Tau lodge, inside the Makgadikgadi National Park pays a nominal bed night fee contribution to the Trust to assist its development.

Levels of HWC have declined markedly in the area following electric fencing of the Park boundary. Although maintenance of the fence has been a challenge and recent incidents of livestock predation have been experienced.

The Trust has been allocated a community use zone inside the National Park. They need to develop a management plan to enable them to enter into a JVA for development of an additional lodge site.

3.4.5 Moreomaoto Village Development Committee

The Moreomaoto VDC is in a community site that previously experienced high levels of general HWC. It is indicated as being an important institutional partner in the WCM&BCP as a pilot site adjacent to the Makgadikgadi National Park. It is actually a development institution, though it does have a degree of mandate to deal with HWC issues

3.4.6 Suggested Enterprise Model for Beneficiary Community Trusts

The current set up of community trusts in the project areas is problematic because communities do not derive the maximum benefits as originally intended. Development projects are not sustained and the benefits of wildlife resource revenues are not realized at household level. This results in perceptions that the only people benefiting are Trust employees and committee members through sitting allowances.

CBOs need to separate their investment fund management role from that of an employer and implementer of development projects. Trust funds investment and distribution decisions should be made independently from the people, VTC members, who will implement them and possibly benefit from them. It is recommended that independent professional people from within the project and surrounding areas be co-opted to serve in Trust Fund committees to be more effective and objective in investment decisions and distribution strategies. This would be separate from the Board and VTCs which would continue to be responsible for biodiversity management and projects development.

The current situation promotes resource conflicts and denies economic interest groups and other community members access to CBNRM resources. The new CBNRM guidelines seek to address the imperative to improve management of CBOs and distribution of benefits to households. The guidelines promote joint venture partnerships where the risks and benefits of commercial investments are shared.


This structural change is proposed in conjunction with proper training for Board and VTC members entrusted with managing and monitoring the investments. At enterprise level, qualified managers and other key staff, preferably also from the communities, should be hired to manage economic activities. An agreed percentage of revenues for operational and administrative costs (say 35%) would be retained, with the balance of funds being set aside for re-investment and/or benefit distribution. These investment funds would only be accessed through well developed project proposals to the Trust Fund Committee.

To build a culture of transparency and regular reporting, monthly meetings should be held initially for management to report progress to the boards. The frequency of meetings should then be gradually reduced to quarterly meetings when everyone has become confident with understanding management reports. Reporting to the community should be done twice a year to allow participatory monitoring and feedback from target beneficiaries.


4. COSTS OF WILDLIFE CONFLICT

The costs of living with wildlife can be divided into several categories. These are the damage costs and other direct costs, indirect costs, and environmental costs. Damage costs include livestock losses and destruction of crops, property, and human life. Direct household costs include expenditures on prevention of wildlife damage, including time spent guarding fields. Indirect costs include changes to agricultural production systems in order to avoid wildlife damage. Other indirect costs are the opportunity cost of resources used to sustain wildlife populations, such as land, grazing, and water, and costs associated with wildlife management borne by the government. Further indirect costs could be the anxiety and psychological stress that farmers who are victims of frequent predator and elephant raids are likely to suffer from.

There is significant conflict with a range of species which live in the project areas. There is a chronic conflict with predators which prey on livestock. The main non-insect crop pests are various bird species which devastate the cereal crops, especially sorghum and millet. Primates, hippo, buffalo, kudu and bush pigs also contribute to the losses farmers’ experience. Elephants are not the biggest threat to cultivation but when they raid the damage can be total.

Elephants are now habituating and adapting to human populations such that they can easily target water tanks. Most communities do not live near their fields and are afraid of elephants which they deem a burden on their livelihoods. Most communities do not value elephants as they are not realizing tangible benefits from them at household level as compared to the costs of elephant damage.

4.1 Direct costs

Direct costs of wildlife conflict include crop and livestock losses, the additional time spent guarding fields, erecting protective fences, and processing compensation claims.

PAC compensation data records claims paid for livestock and crop losses. Community consultations revealed not all damage is reported or compensated which means that the total number of incidents and cost is significantly higher than reported. The PAC data is not sufficiently disaggregated to enable analysis of the cost of losses at the household level. Further household surveys are needed to establish time committed to protective and mitigation activities. (Rashmen, HEC study)


Table 16 Annual Wildlife Conflicts (10 yr average)16

Chobe District North West

District

Number of Incidents 191 658 % Crop Damage 64.7% 30.9% % Livestock Loss 35.3% 69.1% Compensation Paid 114,232 461,525

Incidents in Chobe West communities are predominantly crop damage while incidents in Panhandle communities are predominantly livestock losses. With the exception of Seronga which reports 57% of incidents as crop damage related.

Table 17 Annual Wildlife Conflicts Chobe West

Village Number of Incidents

% Crop Damage

% Livestock Loss

Compensation Paid

Kachikau 35 59.9% 40.1% 13,647.58 Kavimba 14 58.3% 41.7% 5,947.46 Mabele 52 88.4% 11.6% 19,148.14 Parakarungu 31 60.4% 39.6% 21,132.41 Satau 9 85.7% 14.3% 2,606.56

Total 141 62,482.15

Table 18 Annual Wildlife Conflicts Panhandle

Village Number of Incidents

% Crop Damage

% Livestock Loss

Compensation Paid

Seronga 62 57.3% 42.7% 21,676.47 Gunitsoga 13 45.3% 54.7% 5,126.61 Eretsha 7 43.9% 56.1% 2,052.36 Beetsha 11 47.7% 52.3% 4,282.39 Gudikwa 18 18.6% 81.4% 13,091.28

Total 111 46,229.12

ODMP HEC community consultations confirmed the extent of the impact of wildlife conflicts on livelihoods around the Okavango Delta. When asked questions regarding the greatest challenges to improving agricultural productivity in the villages, 61 per cent of responses related to the (negative) impact that wildlife has – including predators killing stock, elephants and other wildlife damaging fences and crops, and the difficulty of protecting crops from elephants. In fact, 39 per cent of responses related specifically to damage caused by elephants to crops, and the threats they pose to property and human life as impediments to improving

16 CARACAL Analysis of Problem Animal Control Data


productivity. Other impediments to improved productivity (including lack of agricultural specialists to give advice, water scarcity/lack of rainfall, floods, animal traction power constraints and poor animal husbandry) made up 31 per cent of responses.

Economic analysis of household data from Caprivi indicates that without elephant-induced crop losses, the contribution of crop production to households’ livelihoods and to the national income could be between one and a half and three times higher.17

The average value for crop damage per crop producing household was estimated at P220 at 2006 prices, and the average value for livestock loss per livestock producing household was estimated at P225 at 2006 prices. Although there is no detailed data on spatial variation in impact, the values in the extremely exposed parts of Caprivi (along parts of the Kwando and Chobe river frontages) appeared to be between 2 and 4 times the regional average.

The analysis provides a useful insight into the impact of human wildlife conflict on household livelihoods. First, the impacts of such conflict on household welfare and livelihood can be severe in the extreme situations where people are most exposed. This highlights the need for continued research and development of local mitigation mechanisms, including physical deterrents, as well as insurance. Second, there are real economic costs associated with such conflict.

While the precise extent of damage to crops by elephants is difficult to assess, farmer’s estimates of the percentage of lost yield reported the minimum yield damage as 10 per cent, while the maximum was 100 per cent. In 43 per cent of cases of elephants damaging crops, less than 50 per cent of the yield was lost due to the damage; however in more than one third of cases, elephants destroyed the whole crop. (ODMP HEC, 2007)

Approximately 68 per cent of households who were surveyed usually grow enough food to enable the household to sell some of their surplus. According to the survey, 93 per cent (28) of these households were unable to sell surplus from the 2004/2005 growing season as a result of the elephant damage their crops suffered in that year. Approximately 71 per cent of female headed households and 60 per cent of male headed households experienced this difficulty (i.e. that elephant damage meant that the household did not grow enough surplus to sell).

89 per cent (39) of households stated that due to the elephant damage suffered by their crops in the 2004/2005 growing season they did not have enough food to feed their household in that year.

In the same households survey only 76% of farmers who suffered elephant damage reported the incident to DWNP. Reasons for non-reporting included: lack of money to travel to report, the time taken to receive compensation, and that compensation rates were too low. Of the farmers who reported damage 19% did not receive a

17 ODMP HEC 2007


visit from DWNP staff to assess damage, and 27% of those assessed had not yet received compensation payment.

Several households suffered from non-crop elephant damage, with elephants reportedly destroying houses, fences and water tanks, wells and boreholes, costing money to repair or replace the good, as well as being frightened by the number of elephants near the villages. The damage caused by elephants to fruit trees and native vegetation was also of concern to a number of households.

While the costs to communities in terms of wildlife induced losses are outweighed by the benefits that communities derive from wildlife through CBNRM investments, CBNRM benefits are commonly realised at community level and do not always filter down to individual households. The spatial patterns of HEC damage and CBNRM value generation can also differ markedly.

4.2 Indirect costs

The main indirect cost identified by communities’ was the restricted movement and marketing of livestock due to domestic livestock exposure to foot & mouth and other diseases borne by wild animals. During disease outbreaks, such as current outbreak in Chobe West, livestock and livestock products cannot be moved out of the area until six months after the outbreak has been contained. This results in reduced prices in project areas in comparison with other parts of the country.

Issues of farming production systems being revised in response to wildlife conflict raised mainly related to people ceasing to plant crops in certain areas, or altogether. This was specifically related to women headed households and old people who do did not have people to chase elephants. Changes in agricultural practices reported as being forced by living with elephants in the Okavango Delta include avoiding cultivation along rivers where soils are rich and water is plentiful because elephants favour these habitats. Shifting production away from crops favoured by elephants was mainly related to vegetable crops. This is because these are produced in dry-season when other food is scarce and less palatable. Such vegetable crops would also tend to be relatively high-value crops in the farmer’s portfolio.

Animals are becoming more dangerous as they habituate and no longer fear humans. They move closer to human habitation and homesteads restricting people’s freedom of movement. Further analysis focusing on the socio-economic impacts of human wildlife conflicts is needed under the Wildlife Conflict Management and Biodiversity Conservation project.

DWNP currently commits approximately P35 million of its annual recurrent budget to Human Wildlife Conflict (HWC) issues. This includes payment of compensation claims amounting to P4.87 million per annum. The Government’s total commitment to HWC would also have to take into account of other departments’, such as MoA, commitment of time and resources dealing with HWC issues and contagious livestock diseases.


5. LIVELIHOOD OPPORTUNITIES 5.1 Improved Production systems

Community consultations identified various potential strategies for improvement of productivity of existing production systems and minimization of human-wildlife conflicts. These would generate economic benefits realized through reduction in conflict costs and associated indirect costs.

Arable Farming Mitigation strategies identified included electric fencing, use of chili bombs/hot fences, scaring devices (noise gun), buffer fencing and provision of boreholes for wildlife away from the river and fields. Communities’ development of wildlife conflict management plans and prevention measures will benefit from sharing of regional cross border experiences with CBNRM promoters18 and communities.

Destructive solutions including extension of the PAC programme, culling/ shooting of destructive animals, and encouraging hunting partners to hunt within community zones to scare elephants were also proposed.

Improved production strategies proposed include diversifying farming to alternative cash crops such as sunflower and jatropha (bio-fuels, supplementary feed). Increased mechanization and production through row planting, mechanised weeding, and use of fertilizers.

Livestock

Proposed prevention of conflict strategies included buffer fencing to keep wildlife, and the predators that follow them, away from grazing areas; improved design of kraals/boma with buffer fence to prevent rushing; shooting destructive animals; destruction of buffaloes infected with FMD; and establishment of local abattoirs to add value and enable local products to be exported.

Improved production strategies proposed include improved community management and conservation of grazing resources, extension of grazing areas into the forest park de-gazetted area.

Fishing This industry can be improved through developing the local and national market for fish. Improved community management of the fish resource through establishment of fishing associations. And improvements in preservation, processing, packaging and distribution systems.

18 Such as IRNDC which has experience of promoting chili coils, hot fence in community pilots


Horticulture Potential for promotion of backyard gardens for domestic consumption and sale to improve livelihoods and nutrition was identified. Development of commercial gardens and resuscitation of dormant community garden projects was proposed. Opportunities were seen for chili pepper production as a cash crop, organic vegetables and processing (preserving) produce.

Support to effective fencing, and resolving issues of established gardens within the restricted riparian zone.

Crafts Potential for improving production systems identified include developing market linkages, reviving marketing associations, product development, quality and skills improvement, establishment of a marketing centre, cultivation and re-forestation of the mokola palm.

The recent revival of Kachempati Basket Weavers Cooperative through assistance of the Department of Co-operatives demonstrates the potential for the development of market linkages to contribute to the cash incomes of rural producers. The Cooperative serves 147 member producers mainly from Satau and Parakarungu villages. Results for the current year together with past results indicates potential for a crafts enterprise generating P70,000 to P90,000 and contributing incomes of P57,000 to P80,000 to producers. Proposals are being developed to establish a baskets shop in Kasane and a crafts centre in Chobe West to service tourists in transit through the enclave. A separate informal group from Mabele markets their baskets at the Ngoma border post and would like to establish a market stall there.

5.2 Opportunities for development of alternative livelihoods

Alternative income generating activities/livelihood strategies identified through community consultations included: fish farming, salvage timber collection, various tourism ventures, alternative natural resource utilisation such as papyrus paper and seed oil extraction for cosmetic use, bee keeping.

Satau VTC has identified a pond for fish farming as needs technical assistance to design the project. This opportunity and expansion of the commercial fishing industry could benefit from synergies and export market opportunities from capital intensive aquaculture projects proposed to be developed under Pandamatenga irrigation scheme. CECT has submitted proposals of salvage timber collection as recommended in the Chobe Forest Park Management Plan of 1991. Unfortunately approval of any resource use would have to await an inventory of all the National forest parks which is now planned for NDP 10.


Tourism proposals include Ngoma Lodge joint venture development by CECT, and development of additional campsites identified by CECT management plan and by Okavango Polers Trust. Ngande Community Trust has obtained a plot to develop a cultural village and needs to develop proposals for joint venture development of a lodge and campsite in Gwaraga community use zoned concession in the National Park. At the management stage the CBOs are now, these community eco-tourism opportunities would be better exploited through partnerships between communities and private sector tourism operators. However empowerment conditions need to be built into agreements to develop the CBOs’ tourism management capacity over time. A number of CBOs have proposals for development of cultural villages to benefit from tourism enterprises. CECT has proposals for sub-hire service provision to Ngoma Lodge and other visitors to the area. These could include diversification of tourism products e.g. sport fishing, mokoro rides, cultural tourism, nature walks, wilderness campsites, bird watching, crafts market. Additional tourism opportunities are presented by the proposed community use of forest reserves, the guidelines for which are currently in development. Utilisation of natural products was identified as a potential alternative livelihood activity. International markets have developed for high value natural oils from for example melon seeds and Xeminia (wild plum). Beekeeping is another enterprise identified as having great potential. Many of these opportunities are best exploited by individuals who can be mobilised and trained through informal resource user groups. A number of resource user groups have been identified under the Study (e.g. weavers, fishers, grass harvesters) and the project should work with existing groups to the extent possible.

The need to revive some traditional craft related skills that are threatened with extinction like weaving, pottery and traditional food processing was identified. This will also present an opportunity to impart these skills to the youth who will pass them on to future generations.

All of the opportunities or prevention measures appear to be consistent with relevant regulations on natural resources and wildlife management. It is strongly recommended that they should be seriously considered for support by the project. With the possible exception of tourism, these alternative strategies are at a conceptual stage and detailed feasibility studies and management plans would need to be developed to enable cost benefit analysis to be undertaken.


5.3 Constraints to Alternative Livelihoods

The new CBNRM guidelines seek to address the imperative to improve management of CBOs and improve benefit distribution to households. The guidelines promote joint venture partnerships where the risks and benefits of commercial investments are shared. To be more effective and objective in investment decisions and distribution strategies, CBOs need to separate their investment fund management role from that of an employer and implementers of developments. This promotes resource conflicts and denies economic interest groups and other community members access to CBNRM resources.

Many of the limitations in households being able to develop alternative livelihoods are related to the remoteness of project sites, the distance from markets, high transport costs, limited communications and access to information about markets and opportunities. This is compounded by local conditions, such as exposure to disease, which prevent free movement of livestock and goods. Chobe is located closer to regional markets but restrictions placed on movement of animals and products across international borders prevents these being accessed.

Some of these constraints are being gradually alleviated through improved service provision through, for instance rural electrification and telephone coverage.

The major constraint to introduction of alternative livelihood opportunities is in the area of production skills, management experience, and implementation capacity. These could be alleviated if implementation responsibility was delegated to community resource user group members who will most benefit from the success of the investment. They at least would have the direct incentive to develop the financial and business management skills required. Rather than expect elected VTC members to be able to implement and manage any kind of venture.


6. MITIGATION STRATEGIES 6.1 Traditional Protection Methods

Attempts to mitigate crop and other damage caused by elephants have had a limited impact. Communal farmers commonly resort to their own methods to defend their fields by lighting fires at the edge of their fields, beating drums and throwing stones at the elephants. Elephants regularly habituate to these methods, and they are widely regarded as having little effect. Communities consulted cited increased crop damage being directly related to curtailment of shooting of problem animals. They maintain that previously when they were allowed to shoot, elephants would fear people and not come into areas of habitation.

Eight different mitigation methods were identified in Ngamiland villages surveyed by the ODMP Human Elephant Conflict (HEC) study and are ranked by the number of households that practiced them. These included banging drums/making noise (31%), burning fires in the fields (25%) and guarding the fields (13%). Firing guns into the air to scare elephants, digging trenches and filling them with water, growing chili peppers, shooting elephants, and tying the roots of the Samanya tree around the field were also mentioned (6%). However, villagers stated that the majority of methods do not work. Burning fires and shooting elephants were the only two methods that reportedly work.

6.2 Improved Protection Methods19

Improved PAC methods have been introduced successfully in many countries. They are divided into two categories. Passive systems which alert farmers to approaching elephants and impede a crop-raiding elephants’ passage into the field, using simple physical barriers and deterrents. And active PAC methods are used by farmers to chase crop-raiding elephants away.

Passive systems include: watchtowers to increase the chance of being alerted to the elephants as they approach. Buffer zones to define the boundary between the fields and cultivation. String fences soaked with grease and hot pepper oil. Alarm systems using string and cowbells or tin cans. With a simple warning system, farmers do not have to stay awake all night to protect their crops.

Active methods include burning fires and chili bricks, chili-based chemical deterrents and noisemakers

19 Elephant Pepper Development Trust


6.2.1 Community Based PAC Management

• Decision making needs to be decentralised to the village or household level • Communities need to live near their fields or properties and co-operation among

community members is very important • The system has to be flexible • It is not designed to replace existing methods but designed to enhance them • Identification and prioritization of elephant corridors and discouraging settlements

and developments that close or fragment these • Habitat manipulation through provision of water points away from human

settlements and livestock grazing areas to limit or reduce the interface of humans and elephants

• Land-use planning to reduce habitat fragmentation and HEC. • The introduction of more sustainable agro-pastoral systems to reduce human-

elephant interface. • Identification of corridors of movement between elephant ranges and

establishment of use areas to create spatial buffer zones between people, fields, livestock and wildlife.

• Development of a HEC strategy that enables communities to manage elephant problems Investigation into income generation through elephant tourism.

• Capacity building of local wildlife managers to deal with HEC Education / awareness building of the value of elephant conservation.

6.3 Wildlife Buffer Fencing

Community consultations revealed Chobe West and Panhandle community’s’ expectations that a buffer fence with wildlife movement corridors would be constructed to reduce wildlife conflict. The Chobe Enclave Land Use Management Plan included actions to further investigate this option. Panhandle communities maintain they have long been promised such a development. Quite apart from the high construction costs of P70 -100 per meter, the issue of on going maintenance costs and the ability of communities to keep the fence operational is key. Rural communities do not have a good experience of collective maintenance of fences, especially electrified fencing. Makgadikgadi / Nxai Pan National Park Game Fence This fence was erected to address the long-standing conflict between wildlife and communities adjacent to protected and wildlife management areas. The benefits of the game fence were identified as: • Reducing the likelihood of contact between wildlife and livestock and probability

of disease transmission. • Reducing the predation risk of livestock and destruction of crops by wildlife,

particularly along the Boteti river. • Reducing the number of valuable predators and other wildlife species that are

killed as problem animals along the Boteti river.


• Reducing the utilization of the National Park by livestock, thereby increasing its attraction for tourists and contribution to the national economy.

Construction The fence is a double fence with 2.4 m high electrified inner fence and 1.2 m outer fence. The 275 km long fence was constructed in 2003 at a cost of about P30 million. Equating to a construction cost of about P110 per meter. Current status Only the central section along the Boteti river is presently being maintained due to higher than expected maintenance costs. This section is being maintained by a private contractor at an annual cost of P2.1 million. This equates to an annual maintenance cost of around P20 per meter. Impact The erection of the fence has seen wildlife conflict in the Central District reducing from an annual average of more than 500 incidents up to 2003 to just 13 during 2006. And those were by leopard, wild dog, and cheetah which range outside the protected areas. Compensation payments reduced from an annual average cost of P220,000 to just P5,720 in 2006.

The maintenance issues seem to be taking their toll, however, as evidenced by recent incidents prior to our field visit of lions breaking out of the park and killing livestock.

6.4 Cluster Fencing

Lesoma cluster fields Two fields with a total area of 65ha was fenced in 1999/2000 season to accommodate 70 farming families. The electric fence was solar powered. The lands were used by 55 families who farmed for two years before the solar panels were stolen. The fence was subsequently quickly destroyed by elephant. The PALEKA community trust is in the process of reconstructing the fence to encompass 178 ha on the same site, to be powered from mains electricity this time. Kachikau pilot fields Pilot electrically fences fields established in Kachikau suffered a similar experience to Lesoma with solar panels being stolen which effectively brought the trial to an end.


Pandamatenga Farms Pandamatenga ranches is a good example of a larger protected area developed for commercial agricultural operations. The fence is electrified and sturdily constructed. Commercial farmers have the ability to maintain the fence thus reducing government’s recurrent costs. The farms still suffer minimal damage from a few animals which breach the boundary fence and are then are effectively enclosed. Farmers have requested assistance to capture and relocate these animals in the belief that having enjoyed domesticated crops they will return if driven outside the fence. Expansion of the scheme with a large scale irrigation scheme is currently being planned. Electric fencing has met with success in protecting small farming areas but the materials, installation and maintenance costs make these methods impractical for large-scale applications in poor communities. New systems are being developed that are simpler and less expensive to erect, but management planning has to address key constraints:

• lack of maintenance capacity and problems with communal ownership • valuable materials being stolen or used for snaring • most farmers not being in a situation where they can afford these costs

If considered as a transfer of CBNRM benefits to those most impacted, the sustainability of the system and the CBOs ability to maintain it also needs to be considered.

6.5 Livestock protection

Past mitigation interventions have been limited. A fortified stockade/boma was constructed in a cattle post area from Parakarungu to serve a number of families. No evaluative reports on this trial were available. Community members stated that this was successful but when other families moved their cattle from the area the remaining families were unable to maintain the fence and it fell into disrepair.

6.6 Chili Pepper trials

Training was provided on mitigation strategies under ODMP HEC study. Pilot sites were established in Ngamiland and Chobe where trials with chili bricks and hot fence have been undertaken. While a number of farmers are positive that these measures have protected them from raiding, in other areas the trials were not maintained. One village where experiments with growing chilies is being undertaken stated that they were too early in the trial to be able to tell whether the method worked.

The main objectives proposed for the chili pilot study were: 1) implementing a range of mitigation efforts and 2) data collection and monthly analysis of conflict incidents in three areas of the Delta earlier identified as hotspots and 3) assistance in integrating elephant mitigation strategies as part of alternative livelihood strategies through integrated land use planning. These sites also provide a contrast of situations which

will aid in the final assessment of the introduced mitigation methods. At least 5 fields in each village would be monitored by the farmers on a daily basis and incident records kept. Protection actions would include clearing vegetation from buffer zones around fields , erecting string fences with cloths soaked in pepper and grease, and burning chili bricks to deter raids.

An indicative annual budget for implementation of pilot chili pepper project in Ngamiland was P1.4million for the 2007/8 season. This was broken down as materials P800,000, vehicles & equipment P375,000, and allowances P178,000, this excludes staff salaries and running costs.

Case study - CHILI DETERENT PROJECT IN KWANDU CONSERVANCY

From February to May 2008 Conservation International, working in partnership with IRDNC, implemented a project to help farmers combat elephant raiding by using chili briquettes and chili fences in Kwandu Conservancy, Caprivi Region, along a major corridor for elephants moving from northern Botswana to Angola and Zambia. 24 farmers, all of whom had been raided by Elephants in 2007 were trained on Elephant Pepper Development Trust Human Elephant Conflict mitigation technologies and supplied with inputs – Elephant dung, chili, rope, cloth, used engine oil and tins. A total of 75 ha was fenced and farmers enclosed their conservation fields. Monitoring was done by the farmers themselves using HEC monitoring forms, and incidents verified by Kwandu Conservancy Rangers. Laminated HEC mitigation measure (active and passive measures) guidelines were also distributed.

A Participatory Assessment of the success of use of chili as an Elephant deterrent in May 2008 found that all farmers believe that chili works, and all farmers would like to continue with chili in 2009 and beyond. None of the protected fields were raided although Elephants did breach three fences in Kwandu. Crop damage in these three fields was below one quarter and bad fence design may have contributed to breaching. HEC monitoring forms recorded the occasions where elephants approached the fence from their spore and raids (elephant breached the fence) and non-raids (elephants moved away) were indicated. In all there were 26 attempts of Elephants to enter 16 protected fields during the harvesting season in 2008.

Farmer testimony “The Elephants move from forest to river, raiding fields that are on their way. With chili fences, they cannot go through our fields but go around. We have got good yields as fields have been protected. The Elephants destroyed our neighbours’ fields”.



6.7 Provision of alternative watering points

An assessment of the feasibility of providing livestock watering points in the Sandveld areas to reduce livestock and wildlife interactions in the Okavango Delta was carried out under the ODMP. The study concluded that a detailed and comprehensive field study is required to enable cost benefit analysis to be done for the project. This would include the possible opportunity costs of increased predation as a result of wildlife behavioral change to this new resource.

The average cost of drilling, equipping and maintenance of a borehole was estimated to be P275,509. This was based on boreholes developed in NG13. Annual maintenance, running, and labour costs were estimated at a further P92,000 per year.

Alternative waterholes provided within parks, such as Makgadikgadi pans, have suffered elephant damage. This demonstrates the importance of effective design. The Desert Elephant Trust of Namibia has extensive experience designing elephant protection for critical water points and water supply installations.


7. MENU OF OPTIONS

7.1 Conservation Based Business Options

Tourism enterprise development, both of photographic safaris and trophy hunting, clearly provides the highest potential for conservation based business activities to create alternative livelihoods, generate benefits to mitigate impacts of wildlife conflicts and strengthen traditional livelihoods, and contribute to biodiversity conservation.

Alternative conservation based livelihood options with the best prospects for sustainability include non timber forest products (honey, xeminia, mogongo nuts), wild-harvested natural products (reeds, thatching grass), crafts, and fisheries. These clearly do not have the potential to generate incomes comparable to the tourism sector and potential for creation of a viable conservation based enterprise will vary markedly between the three pilot areas.

Preliminary feasibility assessments or management plans have not been undertaken for the proposed alternative livelihood activities and HWC mitigation investments. More participatory enterprise planning work is needed on the resource situation in each area, and consultation with community resource user groups on their sustainable utilisation, to assess viability.

The participatory nature of proposed project activities dictates that more analysis needs to be done with the focal communities to develop enterprise concepts further and assess the impact of proposed alternative livelihood investments, to enable feasibility analysis and management plan projections to be developed. Introduction of some new natural resource based enterprises, such as bee-keeping, may need to be trialed and demonstrated first.

7.1.1 Ecotourism Development

Tourism enterprises have the potential to generate substantial income to CBOs and to individual households through direct employment benefits. Communities in all three pilot areas currently participate in tourism activities, though to greatly varying extents. CECT and OCT generate substantial incomes from existing joint venture agreements. Potential exists for expansion of tourism through conservation based business activities in all three areas, again to varying degrees.

Individual income from direct employment in the tourism enterprises exceeds the average household level net income from surveyed traditional livelihood activities: livestock production, beer-brewing, basket-making, honey, gill net fishing and crop farming in Ngamiland (Murray. M, 2005).

The business plan for an 18 bed community lodge, to be developed in Ngoma area of Chobe West, projects annual income to CECT of P451,000 in community fees and further P183,000 from ancillary sub-hire activities to be generated after 5 years. The lodge is expected to create employment for 32 community members and provide training and exposure in conservation based tourism management to the Trust


management team. The lodge will also create markets for local cultural and crafts products, and local food suppliers.

Conservancy Incomes in Namibia Conservation based tourism activities contribute by far the biggest share (85%) of annual income to conservancies in Namibia. In 2007 N$14.3 million (52%) was contributed by joint venture tourism, 48% of which was direct employment benefits. A further N$9.1 million (33%) was contributed by trophy hunting. Other wildlife utilisation activities generated N$2.8 million (10%). By comparison non-wildlife conservation business activities, veld products utilisation and craft sales, generated a much smaller contribution of N$0.98 million (3%).

The phenomenal growth in the numbers of conservancies and the community incomes being generated has been driven by growth in tourism and wildlife utilisation. The number of tourists has increased, resulting in parallel growth in the interests of lodge operators and trophy hunters in remote rural areas, many of which are now in communal conservancies. The number of joint venture tourism agreements has increased by 90% since 2005 alone. The rate at which new opportunities are being taken up indicates that the private sector sees communal area conservancies as having substantial future potential for tourism.

Although veld products generated little overall income for conservancies, they did provide the third larges source of cash income to individuals. Most of this came from marketing Devil’s Claw and Commiphora resin, which together generated N$0.67 million in 2007. This sector is likely to grow with increasing demand for natural products, especially those certified as ‘organic’ and ‘fair trade’ and harvested in a sustainable manner.

Analysis of community wildlife use initiatives in Namibia found that conservancies are economically efficient as they contribute positively to national income and development. The conservancies provide attractive financial returns for communities and the likelihood of their long-term sustainability is high. As conservation based businesses benefits include significant intangible values.

Tourism is the most important income generator for all conservancies. In the development of tourism, joint ventures between private investors, with skills and access to markets, and communities are very important. Other wildlife utilisation and natural resource uses are less important, but they serve to spread risk.

Preliminary Feasibility Assessment Based on the community consultations undertaken we can consider the key determinants of feasibility of community-based options for tourism conservation businesses. These are primarily focused on the resource base, market prospects, technical requirements, environmental and cultural acceptability, social impacts, and to look into aspects of the proposed business model and required management skills.


Further thorough feasibility analysis of the proposed activities is necessary to inform the prospects for viability before detailed business plans could be developed with proposed investors and negotiations with joint venture partners initiated.

i) Tourism Products and Services Proposed tourism products and services include:

• photographic safari lodges and tented camps; • mobile safari and wilderness camping sites; • cultural visitor centers and performances (stories, songs, dance) • crafts shops • tourism sub-hire services (night drives, walking trails, boat rides, sport fishing,

community visits, guiding, transfers)

Specific project concepts being developed within the three project areas include: Chobe Products

• CECT has entered into a joint venture partnership to develop a high quality lodge in the Ngoma area. CECT plans to establish a subsidiary community-based tourism company to provide ancillary sub-hire services to the new lodge.

• The Chobe Enclave Land use and Management Plan designates three medium density tourism areas along the southern boundary with Chobe National Park. Developments of tented camps with a joint venture partners and community managed wilderness camp sites for mobile safari or private use are proposed for these zones.

• A further three sites for self-contained camping sites are identified within Chobe Forest Reserve. With conclusion of the policy for community use of forest reserves for community-based tourism activities CECT will be able to apply for planning permission to develop these sites.

• Goha Hills area of Chobe National Park has been designated as a community use zone. A management plan needs to be developed to identify potential tourism sites. These can be developed as tented camps with a joint venture partner or as community managed wilderness camp sites for private or mobile safari use.

• CECT proposes to include community management of a hunting camp as a mid-contract requirement within the requirements for next JVA to be negotiated in 2009.

• PALEKA is in negotiations to buy back a camp site from a private developer in Lesoma.

• All these products are in demand for growing tourism industry seeking to diversify to new areas away from a saturated Chobe River frontage area. The private sector demand for joint venture agreements is demonstrated by existing CECT


and OCT JVAs, the response to Ngoma Lodge partnership solicitation, and the successful operation of JVAs by other Trusts (Sankuyu, Khwai, Mababe) in similar high potential wildlife areas.

• Development of Sisume and Linyanti medium density tourism zones would be the priority. Preparation of a marketing strategy for the JVA can be done immediately in conjunction with negotiating use of adjacent community use zone of Chobe National Park, and possible trans boundary use of Namibia areas.

Panhandle East Products

• Okavango Polers Trust (OPT) is proposing development of a second camp site in the wetlands so tourists would be able to overnight there on their mokoro trips.

• OCT has developed a management plan for NG22 and NG23 which may identify potential for additional conservation based tourism activities in those concessions. Potential tourism enterprise sites identified in NG 12, by the current survey of tourist sites in Ngamiland, should be designated for development as community based tourism activities.

• Kwando Concession – Tcheku Community Development Trust, representing Bukakhwe San communities who originally occupied the area, has applied for NG13 to be allocated as a community controlled hunting area. This will enable community monitoring to help prevent poaching in this and neighbouring concession areas. Potential sites for development as self catering camping sites have been identified. The Trust proposes to develop a cultural centre to display the San cultural activities through stories, songs, dance, and guided walks. And to enter into a JV partnership to market their products.

• The Panhandle area has limited wildlife viewing potential in areas outside of the buffalo fence. However it is still an area of considerable natural beauty and biodiversity in the flood plains. The attraction of these products is demonstrated by the large numbers of tourists who visit the area to take Mokoro trips. The cultural heritage of Bukakhwe San and other ethnic groups in the area are also potentially viable community-based tourism products.

• The immediate priority would be assistance to OPT to identify and develop a second camp site in the wetland as this addresses demand from their existing clientele.

Khumaga Products

• Ngande Community Trust has been allocated a concession to develop a lodge in the community use area of Makgadikgadi National Park. This has high potential for a viable conservation based business through a joint venture partnership.

• The Trust proposes to develop a Cultural village for visitors to the National Park.

• The priority would be preparation of a marketing strategy for a joint venture agreement for development of the lodge site in the community use concession of Makgadikgadi National Park. The feasibility analysis of the cultural village would


need to review experiences elsewhere as a community managed cultural tourism enterprise has not yet been successfully demonstrated in Botswana.

ii) Market Analysis

The Botswana tourism market, primarily based on wildlife viewing product, is projected to grow at 10% per annum until 2020. As the ecotourism market has grown so to has demand for suitable sites to develop tourism lodges. Private sector interest in entering into joint venture agreements in community concession areas is high.

Commercial viability of conservation based businesses is highly dependent on their developing a strong market position. The most critical issue for making a new tourist based enterprise sustainable is linking into a marketing system that reaches the foreign based tourist market segment that is being targeted. The marketing system must be able to link tourism enterprises, at comparable quality levels, in multiple destinations to develop an itinerary for their tour. Without such a marketing arrangement in place it is questionable whether a stand alone tourism enterprise will be commercially viable.

Marketing capability, together with a successful track record running similar tourism enterprises, are therefore the key attributes the communities should look for in a joint venture partner. The interest of partner is however dependent on their being convinced of the viability of the product and resource offering. This is where the communities development of a competitive marketing strategy is key to attracting the right joint venture partner.

With the photographic tourism market mainly tied to the protected areas and based on the high elephant population, and the other big five, being increasing sold out during peak seasons, tourism operators are continually looking for diversified products in new areas. The unique competitive strategy being offered needs to be defined in a marketing proposal to a prospective developer or partner before commercial viability can be assessed.

All of the proposed community tourism products offer rich natural attractions, each with a differing competitive strategy. Khumaga offers high density wildlife viewing, Chobe medium density wildlife viewing with a wilderness experience, Panhandle East offers poling trips into wetland areas of high biodiversity and potential for a unique cultural product. The JV partnerships with the communities, and the contributions to their conservation of biodiversity, is an additional product attribute.

The marketing strategy then needs to define: the competitive strategy, the product attributes, quality level and pricing, the target market segment, marketing linkages and the enterprise ‘fit’ with complementary enterprises on the tourist circuit.

The competitive environment needs to be assessed both within and outside the project areas. Competition for Chobe West would come from tented camps being developed in the interior forest areas of Chobe National Park. The Khumaga lodge site would face competition from two other existing lodges along the Boteti river inside the Park. The Panhandle Mokoro trips product would face competition from companies offering poling trips at the southern end of the Okavango Delta.


iii) Resource Base

The feasibility analysis needs to determine the availability of the resource base and identify any conflicting land use demands.

The Chobe West tourism sites were identified through a highly participatory Land Use and Management Planning exercise. The plan was subsequently adopted by the Land Board. The tourism zoning has therefore been endorsed by both the community, who is responsible for monitoring any conflicts, and the regulatory authority.

The adequacy and sustainability of the resource base also needs to be considered. For example Chobe West has been utilised as hunting area and tourist infrastructure for a photographic safari market would have to be developed. This would include development of game viewing tracks and management of water points. The successful negotiation of access to adjacent community use zone of Chobe National Park could be one of the key determinants of resource adequacy. As could ease of access to, or development of, an airstrip to facilitate air transfers.

The Khumaga community lodge site concession has similarly been through consultation with the community and endorsed by DWNP.

The Panhandle Mokoro poling activities are an existing product. The resource assessment would need to assess any resource risks to its sustainability and expansion. Such as how the tourism business might be impacted by fluctuation seasonal flood levels.

iv) Technical

The technical assessment would consider required technical knowledge, equipment, or processes. Since joint venture partnerships are proposed to provide this capacity to the two start-up tourism enterprises, skills in required technical areas could form part of the basis for JV partner selection. These may for instance include selection and maintenance of solar energy systems, solar water pumps, electric fencing etc.

v) Management Assessment

The analysis needs to look at feasibility of obtaining the necessary financial and management skills and personnel in the proposed remote locations. Again the joint venture enterprise model being proposed should address management skills, key personnel, and relevant tourism experience. These would be criteria for selection of the partner. Tourism marketing, financial and operations management skills for community-based tourism enterprises can be transferred to the community over time under the JV partnership arrangement.

The communities will need technical assistance to the solicitation of proposals and negotiation of the Joint venture agreements.


Management skills transfer to the Okavango Polers Trust would require particular assessment and planning as they have experienced constraints in marketing and financial administration.

vi) Environmental Assessment

The proposed tourism enterprises would be subject to environmental and archaeological impact assessment requirements. These would be a precondition for planning permission. These are the major regulatory barriers to enterprise establishment. Following completion the lodges would be inspected for award of a tourism license.

vii) Social Impact

The analysis should assess the cultural acceptability and social impacts of the conservation based business enterprise. These can include the impact on the local economy of direct employment income, and the creation of markets for ancillary sub-hire activities and local goods and services. And the potential for investment in small community-based operators, whose services and products can be integrated into the mainstream tourism industry.

How are income opportunities benefits distributed between different sections of society communities, ethnic groups, gender, and age group. While direct employment may be limited, particularly in relation to the capital requirements, the relatively high individual incomes and the high multiplier effect of tourism spending in these remote communities would be expected to contribute significantly to the local economies.

viii) Economic/Financial Analysis

Financial and economic analysis of enterprise management plans is primarily appraisal of the financial model, the projected costs and benefit flows. Feasibility assessments and detailed management plans have not been undertaken for the proposed conservation based businesses, alternative livelihood activities, and HWC mitigation investments proposed by the pilot communities consulted. This work needs to be undertaken to enable financial and economic analysis.

Barnes J. et al (2006)20 used empirical data from up-market tourism lodges in northern Botswana to build an economic model of an ecotourism lodge. Investment in an 18 bed up-market photographic safari lodge in a 14,400 hectare concession of prime wildlife habitat in Ngamiland shows positive financial returns for the entrepreneur and significant economic returns for society. Table 19. summarizes the main results.

20 Economic Value


Table 19. Ecotourism Lodge Model21

ITEM Pula

Capital Investment 8 204 335

Financial net cash income

per year

per ha

per P100 capital investment

Total Benefits22 per P100 capital investment

1,241,949

86.25

15.14

65.68

Financial internal rate of return over 10 years 8.11%

Economic net benefit (value added)

per year

per ha

per P100 economic capital cost

3,049,412

211.76

39.84

Economic rate of return over 10 years 41.17%

ix) Conditions for Sustainability The sustainability of conservation based businesses is dependant on their success in enhancing biodiversity and in generating of sustainable rural livelihoods through business enterprises that value biodiversity. This implies inclusive biodiversity management and addressing costs associated with conflicting resource demands or alternative land use. In this case reducing human/wildlife conflict and the associated livelihood costs.

Successful biodiversity conservation entails use of various planning instruments:

• Detailed resource assessments and integrated biodiversity management planning

• Development of a community-based HWC mitigation plan • Creation of wildlife movement corridors, relocating livelihood activities to avoid

conflicts • Development of benefit sharing strategies • Reinvestment of benefits to assist groups who bear the costs of wildlife, such as

predator proof kraals, crop protection mechanisms (chili fence) • Biodiversity performance monitoring to measure conservation results • Participatory monitoring to measure impacts on livelihoods /poverty reduction


22 Total Benefits: includes all Net Cash Income, Salaries and Wages, Licenses and Duties, Rental and Royalties’


Support strategies are needed to address the identified barriers to investment:

• Capacity for concept development, feasibility analysis, and business planning within CBOs

• Understanding of EIA and other planning approval requirements • Meeting licensing requirements e.g. regarding wild-harvested products • Lack of information within the community regarding markets and opportunities • Development of business management capabilities • Skills development • Access to capital

7.1.2 Alternative Conservation Based Enterprise Options

The alternative conservation based livelihood products with the best prospects for sustainability include non timber forest products (honey, xeminia, mogongo nuts), wild-harvested natural products (reeds, thatching grass), crafts, and fisheries. While the proposed natural resource uses cannot generate incomes on the scale of the tourism sector, they serve to spread risk at CBO level, and have the potential to contribute to the livelihood security of a much larger numbers of resource users.

The potential for creation of a viable conservation based livelihoods and the most viable natural products based enterprises will vary markedly between pilot sites, and between the communities within those sites. Khumaga, without a conservation area and access to biodiversity rich wetlands, would have the most limited natural resource base. This community has the opportunity however of utilising community-use areas inside the National Park for harvesting of thatching grass and other veld products.

All of the opportunities for alternative natural product based livelihood activities appear to be consistent with relevant regulations on natural resources and wildlife management, build on traditional skills in the communities, and are culturally acceptable. All the natural products are well known and currently utilised by the communities to a varying degree. Value added processes are generally not technically demanding.

Feasibility of the natural products based enterprises is determined by the resource base, numbers and skills levels of resource users, the market prospects, technical requirements, environmental and cultural acceptability, social impacts, and the proposed business model. Social impacts include the harvesting and processing activities fit with other traditional livelihood activities, such as agriculture.

The main barriers to livelihoods enhancement are market development and distribution. Production is generally tailored to meet local demand, which may include seasonal buyers coming from outside areas (reeds, thatching grass), or irregular selling excursions to outside markets (fresh fish). The potential of fisheries and the various natural products is considered under-utilised. But to what extent, what is the level of sustainable use in the various areas.


Linkages with more distant and consistent markets can provide greatly expanded market demand which can be met through assistance to supply chain development, production training and organisation, and quality assurance. If these activities can be efficiently facilitated by CBOs, or by cooperatively resource user groups, such as the Kachempati basket weavers in Chobe West, there is high potential to contribute to livelihoods of a large number of rural households.

More participatory enterprise planning work is needed with community resource user groups (fishers, basket weavers, livestock owners, grass harvesters, firewood cutters etc) to assess the resource situation in each area, and needs for their conservation and sustainable utilisation. This can be done in conjunction with detailed resource inventories so that conservation issues, such as seasonal fire management in grasslands and forest area conservation zones, can be incorporated into the community’s integrated biodiversity management plans.

7.2 Capacity Building

The capacity building package will develop training interventions to address weaknesses identified in the CBOs. From interviews, observation and analysis of relevant reports provided by respondents, serious weaknesses hamper efficient management of existing economic activities as sustainable business ventures. This has led to resentment against or lack of support to economic activities promoted by CBOs in the two areas at community level on one hand. While on the other people who benefit most from the CBOs seem to be comfortable with the status quo.

From this analysis, it is clear that in both areas preparatory training for communities, Boards and VTCs was insufficient in terms of clarifying stakeholder expectations and training on the functions and roles of boards of trustees and village trust committees. Thus boards and VTCs are rightfully perceived to be beneficiaries of the trusts at exclusion of the rest of the communities.

It is therefore proposed that for purposes of engendering transparency, accountability and to instill a sense of ownership of community investments in the project areas, the following training interventions will be undertaken. These capacity building training interventions will be facilitated under the overall ambit of an Asset-Based Community Development process.

• Governance and board leadership training: for all communities in the project areas – experience has shown that if community members do not have a basic grasp of the role and function of a board of trustees, then they will not necessarily support the organization’s activities. On the flip side, people who serve in boards and have exclusive knowledge about board functions and role tend to use this to perpetuate themselves.

To address this problem it is proposed that board leadership and governance awareness training should be extended to all members of the community. This approach will ensure that community trusts in the project areas adopt democratic governance practises, and transparent reporting by the leadership entrusted with responsibility to manage community investments on the communities behalf.


• Community economic analysis: This training course will impart knowledge about basic economic principles and local economic realities for each of the communities in the project areas. They will be introduced to a tool that they can use to identify additional economic opportunities that can be exploited in their localities to increase opportunities for more people.

• Appreciative enquiry: This methodology helps identify peak moments within a community and discovers and reinforces the conditions that made past achievement possible. It encourages change by focusing on positive and life-giving forces that exist within all communities that can sustain participation. The approach can be used to engender community participation in ongoing and new economic activities that could be pursued by communities in the project sites .

• Financial analysis and budgeting: To engender financial literacy, this training course introduces participants to financial analysis, management and budgeting. It trains participants in how to develop financial reports unique to an organization’s needs. It imparts learning in key areas of financial statements and audited financial statements, tools to analyze institutional finances, operational budgeting and financial control. Given the lack of proper financial management and reporting procedures in the project areas, this training will be appropriate and will compliment the governance and board leadership training by imparting skills and tools necessary for critical analysis of financial performance of community investments.

• Capacity building for community driven planning: This training course can be used to introduce communities in the project areas to concepts such as community organizing, mobilizing, action and evaluation planning and skill development to enhance community capacity for planning, self-management, sustainability, outreach and development impact. The training will help to gradually reduce dependence on outsiders to plan and drive local development.

• Fundraising and Project development training: To impart skills in fundraising techniques and development of fundable project proposals. If these skills are imparted to key role players at the project sites dependency on intermediary organizations for project development support will decrease. The communities will be capacitated to deal directly with potential sponsors of projects amongst donors and government departments.

• Enterprise Development Workshops Enterprise workshops are designed to develop capacity for participatory monitoring of performance of economic activities. Participants are trained to measure business performance against set targets and analyse reasons for failure and success. This analysis helps inform remedial actions necessary to put the enterprises on course to meet set targets.

BOCOBONET, as project capacity building partner, should coordinate capacity building activities in collaboration with the respective CBOs. They should not however be expected to do service provision as this could conflict with their role as capacity building program coordinator.


7.3 Technical Assistance

Funds will be allocated to providing technical assistance to CBOs and resource user groups to develop community conservation investments. While the Project Team and its Partners comprise a comprehensive array of expertise, specialist skills will at times be required to support the CBOs in a number of areas. CBOs in the three project areas will require technical assistance in the following areas:

• Mapping wildlife corridors and conflict zones • Land use planning • Development of community wildlife conflict management plans • Development of and training in conflict mitigation and prevention measures • Management of animal control buffer zones when they are set up as proposed by

communities • Feasibility and market assessments of alternative livelihoods proposals • Development of management plans for proposed community investments • Training in improved and alternative production systems • Development of benefit sharing plans for CBNRM resources • Development of community investment proposals for CBNRM resources • Development of tourism activities like wilderness camps, cultural villages • Negotiation of joint venture partnerships with tourism operators and safari

companies

The Technical Assistance fund will allow communities to source appropriate Technical Assistance service providers without undue delays. Identification and management of technical assistance will be undertaken by the CBOs in collaboration with, and supported by, CARACAL as the project technical partner.

All the Technical Assistance processes delivered will be required to utilise participatory development processes in order to assist building the understanding and capacity of communities and the Project Partners. Technical assistance providers would be encouraged to work directly with community resource user groups, who would be responsible for implementing and monitoring the impacts of the developments, to the maximum extent possible

Technical assistance would be provided as needed, and phased in accordance with the community’s strategic plan developed by the under the capacity building program. It would be anticipated that the community investment proposals developed by the CBOs would be phased to allow their implementation capacity to be incrementally developed.


7.4 Community Investment Fund

A community investment fund will be established to fund community human-wildlife conflict mitigation and alternative income generating investments.

Grants will be provided with differential co-financing arrangements according to the investment funded. Wildlife conflict prevention and mitigation investments should be co-financed by the CBO from CBNRM resources to embed commitment. But they would not be required to reinvest income improvements. The responsibility of beneficiaries would instead be focused on implementing sustainable management plans for the continued operation and maintenance of the investment. Where conflict mitigation investments would result in substantial incomes a portion could be contributed towards replication of the investments with other community resource user groups.

Grants provided for alternative livelihood/income generation opportunities would be required to make co-financing contribution from CBNRM resources of between 10% and 50%, dependent on the projected income flows and benefits distribution. Economic interest groups benefiting from higher revenue generating investments would be required to pay community reinvestment contributions over the life of the investment. Under this model revenues would be reinvested through further allocations of the CBO’s investment funds to development projects.

Eligibility for grants should be limited CBOs and resource user groups. Funding of individual households should be limited to their participation in piloting of various livelihood activities through community resource user groups. This would assist to minimize resource competition and avoid conflicts.

Access to the various technical packages would be expected to be progressive. To access grants from the investment fund CBOs would have had to demonstrate competency in key capability areas prioritized through the capacity building program. They would also need a fully developed management plan proposal developed through technical assistance and have demonstrated management capability, accountability, and cohesion.

The investment fund should be supervised by an independent structure from the Project management team to enable applications to be properly appraised and approved. The fund would be set up specifically to manage financial resources that will be made available to undertake mitigation measures and livelihood developments at both project sites. Members of this body should be locally based and be knowledgeable in investments and local economic development issues. The body should be composed of locals, people from NGOs, private sector and government representatives. This will help eliminate perceptions of bias and delays often experienced when such resources are held by government or NGOs.

CBOs would be encouraged to imitate this arrangement in management of their own CBNRM investment funds. To co-opt independent professional people to sit on investment fund allocation structure, and to apply a similar investment appraisal process. Investment decisions should be made by a separate structure from the Board which is composed of representatives of VTCs who are applying for the funds and will implement the investment.


The investment funds could only be accessed after requisite capacity building and technical assistance packages which would result in a fully developed management plan identifying responsibility for implementation and monitoring and evaluation arrangements.

7.5 Monitoring and Evaluation

The WCM&BC projects aim is for communities to take on greater management responsibility for biodiversity management and implementation of resultant wildlife conflict prevention and mitigation measures.

Interventions in biodiversity conservation and resource management require an explicit focus on what is important to the poorest people in the community. It cannot therefore be effectively achieved without proper understanding of the local population’s livelihood strategies. The livelihood analysis approach can be put to a variety of uses:

• As a tool for project design. • Reshaping a sectoral or programme intervention for better ‘fit’ with livelihoods. • Impact assessment of a project/programme. • Understanding factors affecting local participation. • Participatory planning with communities.

Proper livelihood analysis and the monitoring of future natural resource-based livelihood trends will require a detailed demographic and socio-economic baseline study.

A participatory monitoring and evaluation approach is recommended in order to ensure that the affected communities and project stakeholders are kept abreast of progress towards achievement of targeted investment outputs and impacts. A monitoring framework will be established for each investment and wildlife conflict management plan and impacts surveyed periodically by a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) committee using participatory techniques to assess qualitative indicators. And applying the ‘Most Significant Change’ technique to evaluate impact.

M&E committees are independently composed from CBO Boards and VTCs. This will include stakeholders and investment beneficiaries who are directly impacted by the investments.

Remedial measures will be proactively taken in activities of CBOs and VTCs. This arrangement will also help provide regular feedback to community members who complained about being excluded from decision making in the CBOs.

External technical assistance evaluations should be commissioned to help add objectivity and to verify the work done locally by the community M&E committees. A mid term project external evaluation should be commissioned.


7.6 Activity Budgets for Livelihoods Development

7.6.1 Conservation Based Business Development

This component is aimed at the demonstration, development, and monitoring of conservation based business frameworks. To promote alternative livelihood opportunities through the tourism sector and other natural products enterprises by creating an enabling environment for conservation based business investments

The component provides

• Resources for direct financing of demand-driven conservation based livelihood activities;

• Increased viability of activities through feasibility analysis support, tailored business planning, training and mentoring;

• Promotion of mechanisms for equitable sharing of costs and benefits of biodiversity conservation;

• Promotion of action learning through monitoring and evaluation processes and dissemination of best practices for replication and up-scaling through pilot areas;

Activities

• Data collection and analysis - resource inventories, livelihood surveys, quantitative assessment of role of natural resources in local livelihoods, build up socio-economic database for livelihood analysis

• Feasibility and market analysis – assessment of costs and benefits of proposed conservation based alternative livelihood opportunities

• Technical support - training and mentoring to marketing and management planning for community investments.

• Community Investment Fund facility established – developing and communication of clear procedures

• EIAs undertaken and environmental management plans approved

• Planning approvals for communities investments obtained from Land board

• Negotiation of joint venture partnerships with tourism operators and safari companies

• Establishment of JV and investment performance monitoring structure

• Development of community re-investment proposals for benefits • Technical assistance - to natural products supply chain development,

alternative production systems training, and quality assurance


7.6.2 Improved Understanding of Biodiversity Management

The aim is to establish approaches for improved integrated biodiversity management. This is served through:

• increased capacity for community monitoring and evaluation of ecosystem management,

• integrated resource management and increased availability of natural resources • reduction in frequency and costs of HWC to improve rural livelihoods, • improving security of livelihoods - strengthening of agricultural livelihood sources;

development of non-agricultural livelihood resources

Activities

• Data collection and analysis - survey on state of HWC in pilot areas, mapping wildlife movement corridors and conflict zones

• Resource baseline assessment - ecosystem status, identify economically viable natural resources, including market potential, and resource management.

• Developing integrated biodiversity management plan - incorporating land use management plans, carrying capacities, planned resource uses and infrastructure developments, improved resource management and conservation

• Development of community-based HWC mitigation plans - wildlife corridor management, predator management, wildlife conflict management, relocating livelihood activities to avoid conflicts

• Biodiversity performance monitoring to measure conservation results

• Systematic collection of HWC information through implementation of monitoring system

• Reinvestment of benefits to assist groups who bear the costs of wildlife conflict, such as predator proof kraals, crop protection mechanisms (chili fence)


7.6.3 Building Capacity of Pilot Communities

The aim is to increase the capacity of communities to manage conservation based business investments and facilitate development of alternative livelihoods options. This is served through:

to manage HWC and conservation based business options

• Increased capacity for CBNRM • Improve level of planning, performance monitoring, and adaptive management • To increase the level of direct benefits from biodiversity conservation especially

to those living in areas of wildlife or reliant on livelihood critical natural products • To build marketing, financial management, business planning and management

capacity for development of tourism based conservation business enterprises • Contribute to improved participation in development planning processes at local

and regional level.

Activities

• Training needs assessment - training plan developed for each CBO

• CBO capacity building training facilitated

• Strategic planning and benefit sharing strategy developed for CBNRM resources

• Training requirements for tourism enterprise development and facilitation of alternative livelihoods enterprises developed through short courses

• Participatory monitoring to measure impacts of conservation based investments on livelihoods /poverty reduction


7.7 Asset-Based Community Development

Development processes with the CBOs will embrace ABCD as a Strategy for Community-Driven Development. As an alternative approach, the appeal of ABCD lies in its premise that communities will only truly develop capacity if they drive the development process themselves. This entails identifying and mobilizing existing (but often unrecognized) assets, and thereby responding to and creating local economic opportunity. In particular, ABCD draws attention to social assets: the skills and talents of individuals, and the social relationships that build local associations and informal networks. The five key elements of ABCD are:

• ABCD is an asset-based approach that uses methods to draw out strengths and successes in a community's shared history as its starting point for change (as in appreciative inquiry).

• Among all the assets that exist in the community, ABCD pays particular attention to the assets inherent in social relationships, as evident in formal and informal associations and networks (recognized in the research on social capital)

• ABCD's community-driven approach is in keeping with the principles and practice of participatory approaches development where active participation and empowerment (and the prevention of disempowerment) are the basis of practice.

• ABCD is a strategy directed towards sustainable economic development that is community-driven. Reference to community economic development theory is therefore relevant to the ABCD strategy.

• ABCD, as a strategy for sustainable economic development, relies on linkages between community level actors and macro-level actors in public and private sectors. In fostering these linkages, ABCD also fosters active citizenship engagement to ensure access to public goods and services, and to ensure the accountability of local government. It therefore contributes to, and benefits from, strengthened civil society.


8. CBO SPECIFIC CAPACITY BUILDING RECOMMENDATIONS 8.1 Chobe Enclave Community Trust (CECT)

Capacity Building Recommendations

The key interventions (in order of priority) that are necessary to enable this CBO to become an effective partner in the WCM&BLP are:

• Improving the general organisational management capacity of the CBO,

especially with matters relating to Board of Trustees and holding of AGMs and reporting back to members more frequently

• Improve level of planning (creating Development Plans, Annual Plans, Financial Plans, Operational Budgets etc.) and monitoring of plans to track progress and adapt accordingly. introduce better monitoring of performance and progress, and using this data to learn and adapt to changing environments (adaptive management), and to be able to build upon its successes

• Improving staffing levels and skills to be able to achieve strategic goals and objectives efficiently and effectively, and better matching of ‘people to posts’ – especially in order to enable it to play the important central coordination role in ensuring that people’s livelihoods are improved

• Build marketing, financial management, business planning and management capacity for development of tourism based conservation business enterprises

Recommended Training Interventions:

Governance and board leadership training Ideally this should be extended to community members so that they can know what to expect from the board in terms of their roles and functions. Boards of CBOs tend to under-perform by taking advantage of the ‘’knowledge gap’’ on governance and board function and roles between them and the communities they represent. Capacity building for community driven planning training. This will develop the trust’s understanding and skills related to capacity building for community-driven development planning by imparting skills that can be used with communities, enabling them to plan and pursue their own development initiatives.

Participatory strategic planning to broaden participation in the conceptualization and operationalization of community action/development plans. Participatory monitoring and evaluation training to assist communities with appropriate tools and methods. Participatory monitoring and evaluation is an essential part of community-driven development and it explores ways of working with communities to develop ways of learning about and evaluating development so that people can be more effective in their decision making.


Financial analysis and budgeting training to introduce CECT members, board and VTCs to financial analysis, management and budgeting. A critical content area in this training is how to develop financial reports unique to the organization’s needs which is critical for this organization. Long-term human resource development plans developed and implemented.

8.2 Okavango Community Trust

Capacity Building Recommendations The five key interventions (in order of priority) that are necessary to enable this CBO to become an effective partner in the WCM&BLP are:

• Improving the general organisational management and governance capacity of

the CBO, especially in managing financial and administrative systems and reporting back of Board of Trustees to members – especially adherence to constitution.

• ensuring that management systems, processes and control mechanisms are implemented and adhered to.

• Improve level of benefits flowing to members at the household level



• Improving staffing levels and skills to be able to achieve strategic goals and objectives efficiently and effectively, and better matching of ‘people to posts’


• Governance and board leadership training

• Capacity building for community driven planning training.

• Participatory strategic planning to broaden participation in the conceptualization and operationalization of community action/development plans. Including a benefit sharing plan

• Participatory monitoring and evaluation training for collective tracking and monitoring of progress


• Financial analysis and budgeting training to introduce members, board and VTCs to financial analysis, management and budgeting.

• Long-term human resource development plans developed and implemented.

8.3 Ngande Community Trust


The five key interventions (in order of priority) that are necessary to enable this CBO to become an effective partner in the WCM&BLP are:


the CBO, especially in managing financial and administrative systems and reporting back of Board of Trustees to members – especially adherence to constitution.

• Improving and ensure that management systems, processes and mechanisms are implemented and adhered to.

• Improve level of benefits flowing to members at the household level



• Improving staffing levels and skills to be able to achieve strategic goals and objectives efficiently and effectively, and better matching of ‘people to posts’




• Participatory strategic planning to broaden participation in the conceptualization and operationalization of community action/development plans. Including a benefit sharing plan.





8.4 Moremaoto Village Development Committee

The VDC is actually a development institution, though it does have a degree of mandate to deal with HWC issues. It’s Institutional Capacity profile indicates that it is poor in all four domains. A key area of support needs to be in the domain of Operations where the organisation scored poorly in every category, and needs basic infrastructure and equipment to even begin to operate at any significant level.

Recommendations

As in the case of the Ngande CT, the five key interventions (in order of priority) that are necessary to enable this Committee to become an effective partner in the WCM&BLP are:

• Carry out basic strategic planning to facilitate the organisation identifying sources

of economic revenue to operate, and to assist the CBO to operationalise this potential.


• Facilitate the development of capacity based upon sound monitoring of performance and progress (Operational Goals and Performance Targets), and using this data to learn and adapt to changing environments (adaptive management), and to be able to build upon its successes

• Improving the general organisational management and governance capacity of the CBO, especially in managing financial and administrative systems and reporting back of Board of Trustees to members – especially adherence to constitution. This would also include improving and ensure that management systems, processes and mechanisms are implemented and adhered to.

• Improve communication capabilities by upgrading telecommunications lines/systems; upgrading computers; improving connectivity; improving connectivity to the internet and emails – including the training of staff to use



• Capacity building for community driven planning training. Participatory project design, development and management training,

• Participatory strategic planning to broaden participation in the conceptualization and operationalization of community action/development plans. Including a benefit sharing plan.




• Long-term human resource development plans developed and implemented. 8.5 PALEKA Community Trust


The five key interventions (in order of priority) that are necessary to enable this CBO to become an effective partner in the WCM&BLP are:


the CBO, especially in managing financial and administrative systems and reporting back of Board of Trustees to members – especially adherence to constitution. This would also include improving and ensure that management systems, processes and mechanisms are implemented and adhered to.

• Improving the general organisational management capacity of the CBO, especially in managing financial and administrative systems and reporting back of Board of Trustees to members – especially adherence to constitution

• Improve level of benefits flowing to members at household level

• Improve level of planning (creating Development Plans, Annual Plans, Financial Plans, Operational Budgets etc.) and monitoring of plans to track progress and adapt accordingly. introduce better monitoring of performance and progress, and using this data to learn and adapt to changing environments (adaptive management), and to be able to build upon its successes.

• Improve communication capabilities by upgrading telecommunications lines/systems; upgrading computers; improving connectivity; improving connectivity to the internet and emails – including the training of staff to use




• Participatory strategic planning to broaden participation in the conceptualization and operationalization of community action/development plans. Including a benefit sharing plan






9. Bibliography

AWF 2003. Chobe Enclave Management Plan

ODMP 2006. Economic Value of the Okavango Delta

DWNP 2007. ODMP Human Elephant Conflict Study

DOT 2006. ODMP Tourism Development Study

Human Wildlife Conflict, AWF Heartlands

Problem Animal Control Database, CARACAL

DWNP Community Based Natural Resource Management Policy, Government of Botswana (GOB)

DWNP 2005. CBNRM Guidelines (Draft)

Barnes J. et al. Conservation International 2001. Economic returns to selected land uses in Ngamiland

Chobe Enclave, Lessons Learned, Jones B, CBNRM Support Program

Muruthi P 2008 HWC Lessons from AWFs African Heartlands

Osborn, F.V. Living with Elephants II;

Rashem K 1988 ADN Economic Findings on Farming Systems of Western Ngamiland

Bendsen H, Meyer T. 2003 Dynamics of Land Use Systems in Ngamiland


10. Appendices Annex A: Terms of Reference and Scope of Services Study 3 (Economic and

Financial Analysis - Community Investments) 1. Background The Government of Botswana has obtained from the World Bank, GEF funds to assist it in developing a project (the Project) to strengthen conservation, sustainable use and mainstreaming of wildlife and biodiversity resources in Botswana’s economic development, focusing mainly on issues related to wildlife conflict management and Community-Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM). The Project shall be implemented in the northern wetlands and related savannah ecosystems and will focus on policy and institutional reform and community driven activities to improve wildlife management for improved livelihoods. More specifically, the Project development objective is to reduce the incidence of wildlife conflict within the Project area, which covers three (03) districts and 13 Villages throughout the northern wetlands and related savannah ecosystems (Project Area), by assisting local communities to monitor, co-manage and benefit from wildlife. This development objective shall be met through the strengthening of Botswana’s wildlife policy and institutional framework. The project comprises four components which are aligned with the ongoing baseline government program:

(i) Strengthening the Policy and Institutional Framework (ii) Strengthening Community-Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) (iii) Developing a Community-Based Wildlife Conflict Management and Early

Warning System Framework (iv) Monitoring and Evaluation, and Project Management

Major institutions involved and/or to be involved in the Project design, implementation, supervision and monitoring (Project Institutions) include, but are not limited at this stage to:

(i) Department of Wildlife and National Parks; (ii) Partner NGOs: CARACAL, BOCOBONET (iii) Local Government Institutions & Land Boards within the Department of

Lands in the three Districts covering the Project Area; (iv) Community-based Organizations (CBOs) and Trusts of villages and

communities in the Project Area; (v) Department of Environmental Affairs; (vi) Ministry of Agriculture; and (vii) Department of Forestry & Range Resources.

The proposed project areas and beneficiaries include: (i) Okavango Delta Ramsar Site: Seronga, Beetsha, Eretsha, Gudigwa, and

Gunitsoga villages and the Okavango Community Trust (ii) Chobe Linyanti Wetlands: Mabele, Kavimba, Satau, Parakarungu, Kachikau

villages and the Chobe Enclave Community Trust; Lesoma - PALEKA (iii) Makgadikgadi Wetlands: Kumaga-Ngande Community Trust, Moremaoto -

no Community Based Organization (CBO)


2. Objective The general purpose of the consultancy is to undertake an economic and financial analysis of the proposed community based investment activities, in particular assessing the economic and financial feasibility of community based small grants. Specific objective of the consultancy are: (i) Community capacity building activities for the beneficiary community trusts and

CBOs in improving their business management skills, adoption of technical packages and improved/alternative income generation/livelihood strategies; and

(ii) Community piloting of wildlife mitigation options and new/alternative livelihood opportunities through the provision of small community grants.

3. Scope of the Services In relation to Study 2: Environmental and Social Assessment (SA and EIA) and Preparation of an Environmental and Social Management Framework (ESMF), the Consultant will work closely with the project team of study 2, in particular with the SA and EIA consultant teams and join them for the community consultations in project villages in order to avoid any duplication in the consultation process. Based on the community consultation process, discussions with community trusts/CBOs, review of the existing analytical work and data from secondary sources, the Consultant will design technical assistance, capacity building and investment packages which will be funded through the small grants sub-component of the project. The specific tasks would include: 3.1 Assessment of the livelihood options of the project communities The Consultant will join the SA and EIA teams for the field visits in the project villages. Based on the community consultation process, interviews with focus groups and key informants, and using the secondary data the Consultant will carry out the following specific tasks:

a) Identify main livelihood types, typology of production systems, and key asset (capital) profiles of target project beneficiaries and community trusts who will be consulted under the SA and EIA;

b) Develop a representative activity budgets for major farming and livestock activities and household models. Develop a representative enterprise models for the beneficiary community trusts;

c) Evaluate the direct and indirect costs of wildlife damages for households in project communities. This could include damage costs from the destruction of crops, livestock, and property by wildlife; changes to agricultural production systems raising from human-wildlife conflicts (i.e. sub-optimal crop mixes, competition to provide water for domestic stock, destruction of infrastructure such as boreholes and fences which could result in livestock losses, etc.); and cost of various defensive measures (i.e. electric fencing, trip alarms, etc.);

d) Identify opportunities and potential for the diversification/changing of the existing production systems and development of alternative livelihood systems which would minimize human-wildlife conflict and generate immediate benefits for the project households/communities. The proposed opportunities and alternatives should be consistent with the relevant regulations on natural resource/wildlife management such as CBNRM;


e) Identify the main constraints (i.e. human capital, inefficiencies in marketing systems and market access, infrastructure, etc.) that would limit effectiveness and profitability of any new mitigation measures or income generation activities which could be funded through the small grants, as well as incentive structure for behavioral change and adaptation of new livelihood strategies, both for the target project household and community trusts/CBOs; and

f) Provide a synopsis of past and current experience and lessons learned of the mitigation of human-wildlife conflict and alternative income generating activities/livelihood strategies in Botswana and evaluate their impact on reducing damages from human-wildlife conflict and how it translates to improved incomes, food safety, poverty alleviation and improved biodiversity conservation. Provide analysis on how this can be built in the project.

3.2 Develop Menu of Options Based on the work carried out under activity (6.1) the consultant will design the Menu of Options for investment packages for the piloting of the wildlife damage mitigation options and alternative livelihood/income generation opportunities, and capacity building activities for community trusts and project households which would have the highest local economic development potential. The specific activities would include:

a) Develop the Menu of Options of technical packages and capacity building activities which are technically feasible and culturally appropriate for the project communities;

b) Provide detailed cost estimates (unit costs and projected total costs) and phasing for each activity;

c) Propose a set of beneficiary selection criteria for the grant and capacity building investments.

3.3 Economic and Financial Analysis Carry out an economic and financial analysis of the proposed technical packages in the Menu of Options which were identified under 6.1 above:

a) Calculate ERR, IRR, NPV of various technical packages and capacity building activities in the Menu of Options using 12% discount rate. For the economic analysis the consultant is expected to use the shadow prices for land and labor and border prices for tradables;

b) Carry out the sensitivity analysis of the economic and financial analysis and evaluate the risks and sustainability of the proposed investment packages; and

c) Based on the tasks above prepare indicative cost tables for various community investment schemes, implementation arrangements with a time-bound implementation plan, project management and monitoring and impact evaluation arrangements, and propose the co-financing options through the CBNRM program.

Documents

Wildlife Conflict Management and Biodiversity Conservation … and Financial... · · 2013-07-02conservation, sustainable use and ... The alternative conservation based livelihood