the role of tourism in natural resource management in the okavango ...
the role of tourism in natural resource management in the okavango ... the role of tourism in natural resource management in the okavango ...
7.2.3.1 Arable Farming and Wildlife Management There is also conflict between crop production and wildlife management in the Okavango Delta area. According to Mbaiwa (1999), 81.1 percent of the inhabitants in the three villages of Sankyo, Khwai and Mababe, who ploughed their fields and planted crops between 1996 and 1999 experienced crop damage, mostly from hippopotamus, elephants and zebras (Table 7.5). The remaining 18.9 percent of the respondents who did not experience crop damage either did not plough their fields during these years or have since stopped practicing subsistence agriculture due to anticipated fear of crop damage from wildlife. In Khwai and Sankuyo, the larger fields which used to lie on the western side of the village have been abandoned due to wildlife destruction, thus restricting crop cultivation to small gardens situated behind huts in the compounds (Mbaiwa, 1999). Table 7.5: Number of Farmers Experiencing Crop Damage from Wildlife between 1996 and 1999 Responses Number Percentage Ploughed 77 81.1 Did not Plough 4 4.2 Stopped Ploughing 14 14.7 Total 95 100 Source: Adapted from Mbaiwa, 1999, p. 116. Elephant and hippopotamus are more of a problem at Khwai, elephant and zebra at Mababe and elephant at Sankuyo, in terms of crop destruction in the area. Due to livestock and crop damage, many people in the Okavango Delta regard certain species, particularly hippopotamus and elephant, as being a nuisance rather than an asset to themselves or the area. The elephant is also reported to destroy areas of wild grass used by locals for thatching, and wild fruits (veld products) through eating and uprooting trees which are resources that many local inhabitants of the Delta are still partially dependent on. Amongst the respondents who experienced crop damage from wildlife, 70.5 percent reported the matter to the DWNP, while 9.5 percent failed to do so. The explanation given for failing to report this damage was that the DWNP takes so long to respond 296
and the compensation provided is generally so small that it is not worth reporting the damage. Of the respondents that did report crop damage to the DWNP, 4.2 percent were compensated and were happy with their compensation, 24.2 percent were compensated and were not happy with the compensation, while 44.2 percent stated that they had never been compensated (Mbaiwa, 1999). The main reason given for dissatisfaction with compensation is that the amount of money they receive is generally very little, and the DWNP takes a very long time to pay this out. The DWNP is also often reluctant to award compensation as they stated that some of the areas where people are practicing crop production are wildlife areas (such as in the Khwai area) and hence damage is to be expected. According to the DWNP Annual Report for 1996/1997, government compensation rates for the period were only Pula 100 for crop damage for a minimum of one hectare. Most of the crop fields in these villages are less than one hectare and hence many of the farmers do not qualify for compensation (Mbaiwa, 1999). The local communities have suggested several ways which can be used to reduce the problems related to crop damage by wildlife in the area. These include erecting electric fences around their fields (common view at Mababe and Sankuyo), increasing compensation money, stop crop farming altogether as it cannot operate in wildlife areas (view common at Khwai) and the reduction of elephant populations and the killing of problem animals (Mbaiwa, 1999). 7.2.3.2 Livestock Farming and Wildlife Management There is also conflict, but to a lesser degree, between livestock farming and wildlife management in the Okavango Delta. Livestock ownership in the Okavango Delta is generally low, and as such, only 37.9 percent of the 95 individuals interviewed by Mbaiwa in the villages of Khwai, Mababe and Sankuyo own livestock, which comprises mostly goats and donkeys (Table 7.6). 297
- Page 269 and 270: Safari hunters or spot (commercial)
- Page 271 and 272: validated by the Tawana Land Board
- Page 273 and 274: companies, 6 (40 percent) to jointl
- Page 275 and 276: Lastly, wildlife tends to congregat
- Page 277 and 278: Table 6.17: Major Safari Companies/
- Page 279 and 280: indicates that Botswana has more ar
- Page 281 and 282: 6.4 The Economic Impact of Tourism
- Page 283 and 284: weakest with agriculture, construct
- Page 285 and 286: As noted earlier, the greater major
- Page 287 and 288: Table 6.25: Estimated Tourism-Relat
- Page 289 and 290: evenue collection from the various
- Page 291 and 292: Despite these conflicting employmen
- Page 294 and 295: According to the study carried out
- Page 296 and 297: management positions in the tourism
- Page 298 and 299: Seventy four percent of the 50 loca
- Page 300 and 301: Table 6.33: List of Private Air Cha
- Page 302 and 303: CHAPTER SEVEN Natural Resource Util
- Page 304 and 305: natural resources of water and pris
- Page 306 and 307: According to personal interviews co
- Page 308 and 309: • • • • • • • • Dea
- Page 310 and 311: Experience shows that some animals,
- Page 312 and 313: inhabitants of the Okavango Delta r
- Page 314 and 315: control is vested with central gove
- Page 316 and 317: conservation area. This led to conf
- Page 318 and 319: Table 7.4: Main Stakeholders, Land
- Page 322 and 323: Table 7.6: Livestock Ownership in K
- Page 324 and 325: Furthermore, the NCS has failed to
- Page 326 and 327: Botswana because populations of bot
- Page 328 and 329: Delta, while previously inhabitants
- Page 330 and 331: facilities that do not have boats,
- Page 332 and 333: • • • • • 7.2.6 Since the
- Page 334: different products, wood is perhaps
- Page 337 and 338: Today, Hyphaene petersiana palms as
- Page 339 and 340: populations in the rivers have drop
- Page 341 and 342: The importance of people remaining
- Page 343 and 344: CBNRM aims at alleviating poverty a
- Page 345 and 346: the wildlife populations and their
- Page 347 and 348: no longer an important livelihood s
- Page 349 and 350: • • • • • • 7.3.4 Clari
- Page 351 and 352: Leases are given for 15 year period
- Page 353 and 354: Table 7.10: Community-Based Organis
- Page 355 and 356: 7.3.6.3 The Okavango Paler's Trust
- Page 357 and 358: at the same time allowing them to d
- Page 359 and 360: eports on financial management and
- Page 361 and 362: Table 7.11: Brief Review on Progres
- Page 363 and 364: their land, etc., such as cash, mea
- Page 365 and 366: 7.4 Summary and Conclusion While th
- Page 367 and 368: 8.2 Impacts of Tourism on Local Cul
- Page 369 and 370: tourists in an area provide a sourc
7.2.3.1 Arable Farm<strong>in</strong>g and Wildlife Management<br />
There is also conflict between crop production and wildlife <strong>management</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
Okavango Delta area. Accord<strong>in</strong>g to Mbaiwa (1999), 81.1 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>habitants<br />
<strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> three villages <strong>of</strong> Sankyo, Khwai and Mababe, who ploughed <strong>the</strong>ir fields and<br />
planted crops between 1996 and 1999 experienced crop damage, mostly from<br />
hippopotamus, elephants and zebras (Table 7.5). The rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g 18.9 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
respondents who did not experience crop damage ei<strong>the</strong>r did not plough <strong>the</strong>ir fields<br />
dur<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong>se years or have s<strong>in</strong>ce stopped practic<strong>in</strong>g subsistence agriculture due to<br />
anticipated fear <strong>of</strong> crop damage from wildlife. In Khwai and Sankuyo, <strong>the</strong> larger<br />
fields which used to lie on <strong>the</strong> western side <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> village have been abandoned due<br />
to wildlife destruction, thus restrict<strong>in</strong>g crop cultivation to small gardens situated<br />
beh<strong>in</strong>d huts <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> compounds (Mbaiwa, 1999).<br />
Table 7.5: Number <strong>of</strong> Farmers Experienc<strong>in</strong>g Crop Damage from Wildlife<br />
between 1996 and 1999<br />
Responses Number Percentage<br />
Ploughed 77 81.1<br />
Did not Plough 4 4.2<br />
Stopped Plough<strong>in</strong>g 14 14.7<br />
Total 95 100<br />
Source: Adapted from Mbaiwa, 1999, p. 116.<br />
Elephant and hippopotamus are more <strong>of</strong> a problem at Khwai, elephant and zebra at<br />
Mababe and elephant at Sankuyo, <strong>in</strong> terms <strong>of</strong> crop destruction <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> area. Due to<br />
livestock and crop damage, many people <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Okavango Delta regard certa<strong>in</strong><br />
species, particularly hippopotamus and elephant, as be<strong>in</strong>g a nuisance ra<strong>the</strong>r than an<br />
asset to <strong>the</strong>mselves or <strong>the</strong> area. The elephant is also reported to destroy areas <strong>of</strong><br />
wild grass used by locals for thatch<strong>in</strong>g, and wild fruits (veld products) through eat<strong>in</strong>g<br />
and uproot<strong>in</strong>g trees which are <strong>resource</strong>s that many local <strong>in</strong>habitants <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Delta are<br />
still partially dependent on.<br />
Amongst <strong>the</strong> respondents who experienced crop damage from wildlife, 70.5 percent<br />
reported <strong>the</strong> matter to <strong>the</strong> DWNP, while 9.5 percent failed to do so. The explanation<br />
given for fail<strong>in</strong>g to report this damage was that <strong>the</strong> DWNP takes so long to respond<br />
296
Change language