Northern Botswana Veterinary Fences:
Critical Ecological Impacts
January 1998

By

Arthur Albertson

CONTENTS
  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF STUDY
  3. SURVEY STRATEGY AND METHODS
  4. IMPACT OF FENCES
  5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
  6. PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING THE CRISIS
  7. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS
    8.
  1. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT OF REMAINING WILDLIFE HABITAT IN NORTHERN BOTSWANA
  2. CONCLUSIONS
  3. RECOMMENDATIONS
  4. APPENDIX 1: WILDLIFE IMPACTS
  5. APPENDIX 2: STATISTICS
  6. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
  7. REFERENCES
Regional Map                   Photo Assay          


>>>>>> Update July 1998 <<<<<<
>>>>>> (Available in Adobe Acrobat PDF format). <<<<<<



With kind support from:

The WILD Foundation
working for wilderness and people

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 

Major additions to Botswana’s veterinary fences have recently been installed, cutting into some of the country’s last wildlife areas in the northern province of Ngamiland.

The vast wilderness to the west of the famous Okavango Delta is newly bisected by the Samuchima, Ikoga and Setata fences. To its north, the once open border with Namibia’s West Caprivi Game Reserve is now marked by a double electrified fence which has been linked to an extension of the Northern Buffalo Fence,-- sealing off vital wildlife habitat, terminating cross-border migrations and isolating the wildlife of the Okavango and Kwando ecosystems from their wet season dispersion range. The decommissioned Nxai Pan Buffalo Fence, also remains a lethal hazard to migrating wildlife.

Erected to control the spread of cattle diseases affecting the beef export industry, but apparently also linked to future unpublished development plans, the most recent installations (also erected without consultation or assessment of impacts), added another 650 kilometers of fences, - bisecting remote wilderness areas largely devoid of cattle but vital for remaining wildlife.

Ill-placed veterinary fences prevent vital wildlife movements, fragment populations, separate young animals from their herds and impose agonizing deaths from entanglement and dehydration. In combination with droughts and cattle developments, veterinary fencing infrastructure, has largely responsible for the dramatic decline of Botswana’s wildlife, by eroding the ability of populations to reproduce and survive critical times

Over the years, severe negative effects resulting from fencing has been reported. These effects, now exacerbated by the new fences in Ngamiland, are rapidly accumulating.

There have been positive signs of change, such as the formation of an inter-ministerial committee on fences and the announcement of plans for a retroactive environmental impact assessment. However as yet, no mitigation action has been implemented to help relieve current critical impacts, and both conservationists and local communities are becoming increasingly despondent.

This report sets out to provide an initial assessment of the effect of Ngamiland’s fences on wildlife and local communities. It is intended to provide recommendations for implementing emergency mitigation action – that, if implemented without delay, could save valuable time and avoid further damage to affected populations.

It is also intended to highlight the seriousness of the issue, the critical and long enduring effects on the region’s bio-diversity and people, and the need for urgent evaluation of the wider issues.

The report documents extensive ground observations (over 1 500 kilometres traveled alongside fences), aerial observations, and interviews with local communities, conducted by the author during October and November 1997. New fences were concentrated on, but some of the older fences were also observed.

It should be noted that this is not a comprehensive research project, but a documentation of direct observations (with supporting photographic evidence) from which conclusions and assessments have been drawn as objectively as possible.

The major observed effects of the new veterinary fences are:

 

 

Conclusions that can be drawn are as follows:

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Northern Botswana is internationally recognized as one of the world’s last remaining sanctuaries of free ranging wildlife. However wildlife here is declining, and is continually threatened by ongoing habitat fragmentation resulting from the construction of fences in the Okavango region.

Construction of new veterinary disease control fences has intensified in the last two years- mostly in response to an outbreak of Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP) that threatened to invade export-orientated commercial ranches to the south of this wildlife area.

Veterinary control fences, endorsed by the International Organization of Animal Health as "valuable tools in disease control," are primarily intended to safeguard Botswana’s beef export industry. However, the fences in question (erected without environmental, social or economic impact assessments) mostly bisect huge wildlife areas with few or no cattle and, since construction, have caused widespread damage to wildlife populations in many parts of Ngamiland.

Although not singly to blame, veterinary fences, in combination with drought and subsequent cattle developments, are widely regarded as being the main cause of wildlife declines in Botswana. Aerial surveys show conclusively, that where veterinary fences have been erected, sharp declines in wildlife numbers follow, such as has been observed for Central district, now largely devoid of its once abundant wildlife.

A wide range of sometimes very subtle, direct and indirect impacts, over and above the popularly conceived ‘massive die-off’- type impacts, work in combination to erode the long-term viability of populations.

Other planned fence related developments which threaten this fragile area include the implementation of the ‘Fencing Component of the New Agricultural Development Policy of 1992’, the creation of a new commercial beef export zone in southern Ngamiland district and implementation of private game ranches.

Ecologists warn that the fencing policy is not compatible with the dynamic ‘drought-driven’ Kalahari ecosystem that covers most of Botswana. They point out that the resilience of this sensitive ecosystem is undermined by fencing and practices such as rotational grazing, which tends to alter plant species compositions and compromise the ability of these ecosystems to recover from droughts.

Notwithstanding the potential ecological and social impact of other proposed developments, the veterinary fences alone are feared to have the potential to severely damage remaining wildlife populations outside protected areas in Northern Botswana.

Significant damage has been done in the last two years and attempts to mitigate these impacts have been hampered by indecision. The general lack of knowledge concerning the actual ecological impacts of these fences, and the resultant misconceptions, have not been helpful in an issue in which timing is absolutely crucial.

This report provides an overview of the obvious ecological impacts as recently observed. It is hoped that it will bring home the reality of the ongoing situation that has gone largely unnoticed.

 

 

 

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF STUDY

 

Virtually no knowledge exists on the nature of past and current impacts of fences in Northern Botswana. Furthermore, little has been done to monitor both the ecological and social impacts. There is also no record of local attitudes and feelings concerning these fences. Hence the need for an extensive survey of not only the ecological impacts, but also social aspects.

The main objective behind the observations however, was to assess critical late dry season ecological impacts of new veterinary fences in Northern Botswana, and to provide practical recommendations for mitigation action.

This report provides a ‘snapshot’ view of impacts observed over a relatively short period of time. It amounts to a fraction of potentially observable impacts. It should also be noted that the time of year during which these observations took place, is considered to be a relatively high impact time of the year, with the movement of wildlife to dry season habitat, water etc.

Several factors limited the scope of this assessment (see later). This study is therefore not intended to serve as a comprehensive evaluation of late dry season impacts. Instead, it rather provides an insight into the nature of recent impacts.

The report draws primarily on conclusions from extensive observations and local knowledge, in order to establish the overall situation pertaining to each fence. All relevant observations are accurately documented (full details in appendix) and where appropriate, supporting photographic evidence is included.

Primary objectives of this report are:

  1. To provide practical information that can be used in the evaluation of impacts and the implementation of mitigation action.
  2. To provide an insight into the nature of current impacts, in order to increase awareness of the reality of the situation, and the danger of continued delays in implementing mitigation action.
  3. To document the views of local communities affected by the fences.
  4. To increase awareness of relevant facts surrounding the fencing issue and the future development of the region.

 

 

SURVEY STRATEGY & METHODS

 

Focus was placed primarily on the new veterinary fences, in particular, s ections constructed within the last two years ( see map). The following fences were observed:

The Ground-based observations were conducted during October 1997. This involved closely following each of the fences by vehicle, with frequent stops to make close observations of impact evidence. Where possible, this was repeated several times. This activity was conducted where possible during the early morning in order to maximize chances of observing wildlife contact with the fence.

Aerial observations were undertaken in early November 1997 for the Nxai Pan Buffalo Fence; Setata; Northern Buffalo and eastern portion of the Caprivi Fence. Flights were, where possible, also conducted during cooler hours of the day.

All observations directly indicating or inferring negative impact on wildlife were recorded. Factors recorded included:

All the relevant information was combined with local knowledge in order to establish past and current impacts, species most affected, critical wildlife impact zones etc.

The documenting of community knowledge was enabled through extensive interviews, interpreted by a field assistant, fluent in Setswana, English and Khwe. The Chief of Ngamiland, Kgosi Tawana II, kindly provided written permission to conduct these interviews.

 

Limitations

Several factors affected the efficiency of data collection and the degree to which it was possible to evaluate the full extent of impacts at the time of observation. These included:

Note on data presentation:

Each of the separate sections that follow has these general sub-sections:  

Reference to photographs and relevant maps is strongly recommended while reviewing each of these sections. Full details of impact observations are documented in Appendix 1: Wildlife Impacts. It is however not essential to read this appendix section.

 

Note on community observations and views:

‘Community observations’ specifically deals with local input concerning wildlife impacts, whereas ‘community views’ documents general feelings and attitudes towards the fences and its impact on their lives. Quotes extracted from interviews with local people have been interpreted as closely and accurately as possible.

 

Note on map data:

IMPACT OF FENCES

SETATA FENCE

The 200km fence, cuts through the last remaining refuge of desert wildlife in Northern Botswana. The area harbours the largest remaining sub-populations of gemsbok and eland in Northern Botswana. Noted for its remoteness and pristine wilderness character (See photo 1.a ), the core of this area was free of any kind of development or infra- structure prior to construction of the fence in early 1996. Initially declared a temporary disease control measure to help control cattle lung disease (CBPP) in 1996, the fence was later declared permanent.

Prior to construction, the Ngamiland Land Use Officer warned the Department of Animal Health and Production (DAHP) of the potential negative impacts and proposed an alternative alignment that they believed would serve disease control purposes equally well, but with minimal perceived environmental impact. This appeal was ignored and construction continued through the wildlife area.

The fence continues to impact on local communities dependent on natural resources, in particular the Zu/wasi Bushmen. Imminent drought and future possible ranching developments will exacerbate the effects.

 

1 Natural migrations of the region

Most wildlife in the area, like other marginal Kalahari areas, is highly mobile. The Zu/wasi indicate a strong seasonal north-south movement of many species, including a north-east to south-west movement of water dependent species to and from the Okavango area ( see map).

The general wildlife movement area extends from the Kuke area in the south, up to the area east of Kangwa, an area of ± 28 000 square kilometres. Most species in this area tend to move south during the rainy season to make use of seasonal water pans and grazing. Movement of water dependent species to the south is also often channeled along fossil river valleys.

At the end of the rains, with the drying out of the southern areas, most wildlife returns north to more permanent water holes and specific vegetation communities there. These vegetation communities, situated only in the northern areas, have plants with specific nutrient and water contents that are critical to the survival of many wildlife species during the hot dry season. (e.g:- shoots of young Manketti trees (Ricinodendron rautanenii)).

The Zu/wasi point out that these general movement patterns may change or extend further than normal in response to environmental disturbances and stimuli such as fires, droughts and variations in rainfall etc. This indicates that an even larger potential ‘reservoir’ of spatially dispersed resources is needed to ensure the long-term survival of these populations.

Since construction of the fence two years ago, large numbers of wildlife have become trapped to the south of the fence. Unable to return to their dry season range and critical resources to the north, these stressed populations are now forced to try and survive in this dry area on a permanent basis.

 

2 What happened after fence construction

The people of Xai-Xai indicate that the fence was constructed at a time when wildlife had already migrated into the southern wet season range (i.e. the area south of the Setata fence). They have been trapped there ever since construction in early1996.

They described a high initial die-off, when wildlife were unaware of the barrier-- citing many examples of death by entanglement (giraffe, ostrich), and death from broken necks resulting from animals running into the fence or tripping over it (deaths of hartebeest, gemsbok, kudu were described).

This die-off was later exacerbated by the end of the 1995-96 rainy season, when game attempted to return to dry season range to the north. During a trip conducted shortly after the fence was constructed, in which Bushmen accompanied staff of the USAID Natural Resources Management Project, the following deaths were reported:

One interviewee, who was also present on that trip, pointed out that : "Many more have died after that time … it is not only those animals." A DAHP worker at a camp on the fence-line said: " Many animals have died, especially hartebeest and gemsbok and also kudu, giraffe and ostrich. …..a lot of wildebeest tried to go north when the water dried up. They were stopped by the fence and then headed east towards the road (east) to find water."

 

3 Wildlife Impacts

3.1 Community observations

The Zu/wasi note an absence of game in areas to the north of the fence and say that most of the regional wildlife population is confined to the south of the fence -- "Some are walking up and down, trying to get through the fence and others are at old waterholes. They are dying that side," said one Zu/wasi hunter.

The lack of water to the south of the fence poses a great threat to populations there. As one resident pointed out: " ..a lot of animals are on the other side of the fence, without water and their foods. I don’t know if the rains will be good. If it does not rain a lot, many are going to die. …. If there is a fire on that side, they are also going to be trapped and burnt on the fence."

They indicated that wildebeest in particular face the possibility of dying soon. Usually dependent on water, the wildebeest now can only get water from roots and melons. Surface water on the southern side of the fence had apparently completely dried up by the time the observations were undertaken.

The fence also cuts territories of localized wildlife permanently occupying the area bisected by the fence, restricting movement and fragmenting herds. They indicated that the movement of wildlife against the northern side of the fence, at that time, was due to individuals trying to join groups to the south.

When questioned about fence induced deaths the Zu/wasi indicated that kudu have now learnt to jump the fence. Contrary to the widely held belief that eland are not affected by fences, local eland are apparently reluctant to jump over the Setata fence. The Zu/wasi attribute this to fear of the fence, vehicles and people, presence of calves (who are unable to jump), and the fact that the fence is double in certain areas.

Regarding evidence of fence-induced deaths, one Zu/wasi hunter said: "It is difficult to find dead animals on the fence because they (veterinary staff) take away the carcasses and throw them into the bush away from the fence."

They also indicate that stressed animals sometimes die away from the fence.

"Some animals (like wildebeest and zebra) will stay at the last water holes and will die there," said another Zu/wasi man.

 

3.2 Personal observations

 

4 Summary of ecological impacts.

 

5 Community views

The area affected is the traditional territory of the Zu/wasi Bushmen. Another little known traditional group, relies entirely on this area for their hunting and gathering requirements.

The Zu/wasi say that with the lack of wildlife in their areas, hunting success rates have been very poor. As a people, they made a mutual decision to forgo their occupation of areas south of the main village of Xai-Xai, in the hope that wildlife would return. They feel that their subsistence base and community resource management projects have been badly affected by the fence.

Community resources management projects have been established to provide these people with hope for the future through the development of sustainable wildlife utilization activities, such as traditional resource utilization, craft work, trophy hunting and eco-tourism ventures.

Residents say they receive little support for these sustainable development initiatives. The Daily news (Friday Oct 31, 1997), notes the following dialogue from the assistant minister of finance and development planning (while addressing a series of kgotla meetings at Xai-Xai, Kangwa and other settlements): ‘He….urged Basarwa (Bushmen) not to be misled by those who claimed they were being denied their traditional lifestyles. …should stop encouraging their children to base their future on inheritance wealth. ……he urged his constituents to abandon tribal inclinations and work towards a common purpose.’

A Xai-Xai resident and chairperson of one of these initiatives, the ‘Xai-Xai quota committee,’ says: "We want to protect our wildlife and use it carefully, to see it survive in the future." In 1996 this committee sent a letter to the government informing them of the negative effect of the Setata fence and requesting interdepartmental discussions in the hope that the fence would be removed. To date they have not received a reply.

On 15 October 1997, CBPP coordinator Mr Seeletso (former DWNP director) addressed a kgotla at Xai-Xai. He said the issue of fence impacts was being dealt with, but also urged people to report any breaks in the fence in order to facilitate veterinary maintenance efforts.

In response to this request, one Bushman said: " The government is focussing too much on cattle, but forget that we do not own cattle. Wildlife is our cattle. What is the government trying to do with this fence? It is killing a lot of wildlife and is very bad for our lives."

In his interview, the Chief of Xai-Xai, pointed out: " There was no consultation. We want the fence to come down, but what else can we do? This is a democracy. They should consult us first."

 

6 Conclusion

There appears to be a very real danger of irreversible damage to the already stressed and depleted wildlife populations of the region unless immediate mitigation steps are taken. The past two years have seen above average rains, but droughts in the near future will further accelerate the decline of these populations restricted.

Delays should be avoided at all costs to enable the rapid implementation of mitigation action. The removal of fence sections within the 75 km critical zone is a minimum requirement. This would not compromise disease control because:

  1. Lung disease has been eradicated from Ngamiland.

  2. The Namibia border has been secured and now provides an effective disease barrier. (See photo 1.h). Note: four parallel fences now separate Namibia and Botswana.

  3. Cattle are only found near the eastern-most extremity of the fence and nowhere near the critical zone indicted ( see map). Note relative cattle and wildlife distributions.

The Department of Wildlife and National Parks, in a paper entitled ‘Veterinary disease control fences: evaluations and recommendations to reduce ecological and wildlife health impacts,’ suggests that a realignment of the Setata fence in a southerly direction along the 22° east longitude ( see map), is the best possible solution to minimize impacts and allow wildlife recovery. At the same time, it would still adequately serve as a barrier in the unlikely event of a future outbreak.

This alignment was also proposed by the land utilization office before construction started. The DWNP paper, however, also states the disadvantages of this option as:

  1. ‘May be politically unacceptable’.

  2. ‘Some marginal land not available as a future EC export area’.

The DAHP has recently made it clear that they do not accept this ‘22° longitude’ option. Instead, the DAHP is considering the option of realigning the fence parallel to, and north of, the existing Setata alignment so as to allow the fence to join up with the Namibian "Red Line." This was also requested by the Namibian veterinary department.

Senior Wildlife Officer Jan Broekhuis, in a paper entitled ‘land-use planning for wildlife conservation and economic development’ states that: "..it becomes clear that there is also scope to create a new EU export zone in the southern part of Ngami- land district. This could threaten the present resource base in the area and it would increase pressure to open area for livestock grazing."

The proposed DAHP realignment ( see map), apart from allowing the creation of this new export zone, will also impact on wildlife in the area. It will limit north-south wildlife movements and will cut off movement to and from the Okavango delta. The proposed route also cuts through an area noted, by locals, for its populations of eland and giraffe.

Xai-Xai residents feel that a similar die-off will take place if the fence is constructed there. The chief says: "We don’t know anything about this. It will also kill wildlife there. The people of Kangwa and other settlements should also be consulted."

Although experimental ‘wildlife friendly’ fence designs are being considered for the realigned fence, in no way does this guarantee "wildlife friendliness." The DAHP wildlife section, in a paper entitled ‘Veterinary disease control fences: A veterinary perspective,’ points out that: " None of us can be certain that fence modifications will work, and that realignment will return the ecosystem back to its original state and therefore, in theory should return the system back to good health. The damage to the ecosystem may be irreversible."

Some maintain that the real reason for favouring the proposed DAHP alignment and not the alignment proposed by DWNP, is political pressure to see the creation of a new beef export area and ultimately, the opening-up of virgin land in this area to commercial cattle ranching.

It is also noted that the area north of the Kuke fence has been targeted for the implementation of fenced ranches under the new Agricultural Development Policy. It is further rumoured that fenced game ranch blocks (each of 20 km X 30 km) are being put out for tender along the western border of Namibia.

These developments will paddock a significant portion of this sensitive Kalahari ecosystem, - further restricting available wildlife range and denying these populations the conditions required for recovery.

Furthermore, communities are unaware of the plans, which will dispossess traditional inhabitants of ancestral land in favour of exclusive ownership by private individuals and syndicates.

 

 

IKOGA FENCE

 

The Ikoga fence (See photo 2.a) was the second "emergency CBPP control fence" to be erected (late 1995) in Ngamiland during CBPP control efforts. Like the Setata fence, it was constructed from the Okavango, due west to the Namibian border. As with other new fences, due to the emergency nature of the CBPP campaign, no impact assessment or consultation with local communities was undertaken.

Although the affected area is not recognized as a major wildlife migration area, this fence has had negative impacts on surviving pockets of wildlife still inhabiting the region.

 

1 Characteristics of the area

 The areas adjacent to the fence are traditionally occupied by a sparse but significant cattle population. The Baherero tend to keep their cattle confined to molapos (valleys), making occasional treks to other areas during times of food or water stress.

The undulating fossil dune woodlands south of Tsodillo hills, and the flat Kalahari woodlands adjacent to Namibia’s Kaudom Game Reserve in the west, also harbour the last remaining pockets of wildlife in the north-west corner of Ngamiland district.

In these areas, localized populations of eland, gemsbok, wildebeest, ostrich and kudu move within large areas according to the seasonal availability of food and water. Near the border of Namibia, there is a north-south movement trend, triggered by rains and the availability of seasonal pan water.

In addition to these movements, an east-west seasonal movement of wildlife also occurs along east-west aligned valleys (molapos). During the wet season, zebra, elephant and wildebeest tend to migrate westwards along these valleys, later retreating with the onset of the dry season, towards the Okavango. Bushmen of the area also indicated that large numbers of game move up the Xaudum valley as far west as Nxau-Nxau.

 

2 Wildlife impacts

2.1 Community observations

 Since construction of the fence during the rains of 1995, the prime impact area has been the extreme western 20 km of the fence-line adjacent to the Namibian border.

One interviewee indicated that: " Animals die along the fence every month." The Chief of Nxau-Nxau says there "…has been a lot of interference because of the fence. The fence has caused a lot of animals to be killed long that section just after it was built (referring to the 20 km westernmost section). The veterinary workers told me that many gemsbok, wildebeest, kudu, and ostrich were killed on the fence during the dry season when they tried to move."

A veterinary worker stationed at a camp along the fence, acknowledged to the author, the following mortalities along the 20 km section during 1996:

Villagers mentioned a large pan to the north of the fence that is a very important resource for the wildlife in the area, which congregate there during the wet season, later dispersing during the dry months. Now they say this seasonal movement is prevented by the fence.

Apparently most movement obstruction takes place during the rains and they were not aware of any wildlife concentration at the time of interview.

Interviewees reported lion and wild dog activity along the fence-line, suggesting that they were taking advantage of wildlife trapped along the fence-line.

Obstruction of elephant movement was reported for the fence-line east of Nxau-Nxau. Police stationed at the Namibian border intersection, reported that elephant still regularly cross into the area from Kaudom Game Reserve, despite the presence of four fences.

 

2.2 Personal observations

 

3 Summary of ecological Impacts

 

4 Community views

As with the Setata fence, the people were not consulted about the fence. Although they did not initially raise objections during construction, some people are now complaining that the fence is restricting their own movements between villages. They also fear that the movement of their own cattle (especially during droughts) will be compromised by the fence once re-introduction of their cattle has been completed.

Local chiefs at a government meeting at Gumare in 1996, agreed that the fence should remain. Other community members were excluded from discussions. The chief of Nxau-Nxau did not want to express his personal views on the fence, but indicated that many people are unhappy.

Bushmen visited by the author north of the fence still rely heavily on hunting and gathering. Although apparently dependent on wildlife in the area, these people declined to comment on the impact of the fence.

 

5 Conclusion

The Ikoga fence is not as regionally critical as other fences. However evidence (e.g. past reports of deaths) suggests that substantial damage may have been done over the past two years to the viability of localized wildlife populations bisected by the fence.

As these populations are relatively small, they are unlikely to have the resilience necessary to withstand ongoing declines or future die-off in the event of droughts and fires. The fence will continue to damage these populations to the point where recovery may not be possible. At present the fence does not apparently affect East-West movements.

The area south of the Tsodillo Hills has been targeted for future ranch development under the New Agricultural Development Policy. Also, the entire western border area is rumoured to be zoned for the implementation of private game ranches.

Again, locals are unaware of these and proposed developments, which threaten not only to excise remaining wildlife range, but also to block off the east-west movement of wildlife to and from the Okavango delta.

The Samuchima emergency CBPP control fence, north of the Ikoga fence, was not surveyed due to time constraints. Some wildlife is suspected to inhabit areas to the north of this fence in the extreme west. It has been noted that ranch development is already underway in the area north of the Samuchima Fence- placing this enclosed ‘pocket’ of wildlife in great threat. This also needs to be further investigated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAPRIVI FENCE

 

During the CBPP campaign in 1996, the minister of agriculture said that the "only practical way" of preventing the cross border movement of cattle was the construction of a fence along the entire northern border with Namibia.

Construction of the 170 km fence coincided with the onset of the 1996-1997 wet season. The double fence, completely electrified by December 1997, stretches from the Kavango River in the west to the Kwando River in the east (See photo 3.e). Approximately 1 000 ha of woodland was cleared in preparation for the fence (1 ha = 100m x 100m).

Again, the affected area is largely cattle free ( see map ). Cattle distribution does not extend further than 50 km east of the Kavango River. As the greater portion of the fence does not serve any possible disease control purpose, there have been repeated (and to-date unsuccessful) diplomatic pleas for the removal of critical sections.

Since construction of the fence in early 1997, resultant impacts have included: deaths of a wide variety of species; massive movement disturbances; vegetation destruction; crop raiding; rampaging elephant herds and attacks by these herds on local people.

Namibian conservation authorities have predicted declines of populations in West Caprivi Game Reserve (WCGR) of up to 80 % as a result of the fence.

The fence also cuts the Khwe ‘migration area’, impacting negatively on their resource utilization and social movement patterns.

 

1 Natural migrations of the region.

 The area now bisected by the double electrified barrier, harbours valuable remaining wildlife habitat that forms a critical migration link between the WCGR and protected areas in Botswana.

Wildlife in protected areas of Namibia tend to concentrate near the Kavango and Kwando Rivers in the dry season, migrating inland and into Botswana during the wet season to utilize temporarily available resources. This movement is also necessary to alleviate pressure on habitat adjacent to the rivers.

Satellite radio-telemetry has revealed that most of WCGR’s 4 500 elephants disperse into Botswana during the wet season. Other species such as eland, sable, roan, and buffalo, in their wet season dispersion, also tend to migrate into Botswana. East-west movements are often channeled along valleys and depressions, which tend to hold water and concentrations of food resources.

These natural movements have now been terminated. Electrification of the entire fence-line, in order to prevent tampering of the fence by elephant attempting to pass over, was completed over December 1997.

 

2 Wildlife Impacts

2.1 Community observations

 The area now bisected by the Caprivi fence forms the core of BugaKhwe, XoKhwe and XomKhwe territory, with communities now separated to the north and south of the Caprivi border. The settlements are closely linked socially, with relatives frequently visiting one another, resulting in much cross border movement.

Hunting and gathering still forms the basis of survival for Khwe in these areas, particularly those in West Caprivi Game Reserve (WCGR). They expressed anger and deep concern about the effect of the fence on their people and wildlife.

Kabonde =wagani of Xamxom in WCGR says that: "… the fence was made during the rains and many animals had already moved into Botswana. When the rains ended, the animals could not come back to their territories on this side (Namibia). ….animals were free to move, but they can no longer do that."

Another Xamxom resident, Marokwa Komane explained that: "Animals on the Botswana side want to come to this side. They are very thirsty and they will die," referring to wildlife trapped to the west of the Caprivi & Northern Buffalo Fence intersection.

"There are also other animals on this side ( Namibian) that are trying to go into Botswana. …like the elephants that are trapped here."

The Khwe of Xamxom, and /Dobega (both situated close to and just north of the Caprivi fence, in Namibia) indicate that species most impeded by the fence are: Elephant, roan, sable, eland, giraffe. Less affected species are buffalo and zebra. The Khwe in Namibia indicated that most impacts take place along the fence-line closest to the Kwando River.

The Khwe at Wosha, in Botswana, indicate little wildlife obstruction along the far western section of the fence, except for elephant and some movement of other species during the wet season.

Residents of Namibian villages Xamxom and /Dobega report the following fence-induced deaths for 1997:

Most of these animals died on the northern side of the eastern 28 km section (between the NBF intersection and the Kwando River. Some of the carcasses were also found on the south side of the fence, in the western corner of the Caprivi & Northern Buffalo Fence intersection.

The Khwe say that it is difficult to know how many are really dying because they do not go to the fence very often.

They also say that government workers stationed at camps on the Botswana side have shot animals along the fence. Kasesanyata of /Dobega claimed to have witnessed workers cut up and remove the meat of a giraffe. "We were hungry and we walked up to the giraffe to take meat. They came in their trucks and shouted at us, saying we were not allowed to take the meat. Then they cut up the giraffe and put the meat into a landrover and drove away with it back to their camp."

Another Bushman at /Dobega added: "If we killed a giraffe for food we would be arrested and put in jail, but when their fence kills our animals nothing happens to them, …no-one arrests them."

 

2.2 Personal Observations

 

3 Summary of ecological impacts

 

4 Community views

The World Wildlife fund, I.R.D.N.C & Namibian Ministry of Environment and Tourism are helping the Khwe to establish a conservancy in their area with a view to providing a sustainable future for these people through eco-tourism ventures and other wildlife related activities.

Residents of four communities affected by the fence (of a total of about 10), - /Dobega, Xamxom in Namibia; Wosha & Shishikola in Botswana were interviewed.

The headman of /Dobega states: "Wildlife is our development. We want to care for our wildlife, so why are they putting up a fence that is killing our wildlife?"

On the Botswana side, Khwe at Wosha look after a herd of cattle owned by an Ovambo man on land once exclusively theirs. Despite the fact these Khwe receive no payment, the cattle owner had recently ordered them to pay for the use of water from his bore-hole.

A traditional healer from the community had this to say: "The government is talking about caring for wildlife, but they are killing wildlife with this fence."

Another man at Wosha added: "The government blames us for killing wildlife and says we are finishing all the wildlife, but it is the government who is killing wild- life. We don’t want them to blame us anymore. They must blame themselves."

Khwe of this settlement and others in Botswana like Tobera, still partly rely on plant foods to survive. They complained that now they are no longer able to access important gathering areas to the north of the fence and that SSG (police special support group) members told them they would be shot if they crossed over the fence.

All Khwe interviewed expressed concern over the affect of the fence on their people. Headman Johannes Dumba of Xamxom (see photo 3.h) explained: "We have many relatives living on the other side of the fence in Botswana. Before the fence we were free to visit them but now we can no longer do that. …If someone dies how can I visit them? How will I ever know if my children are alright? We are Khwe and we must visit our relatives. We have always been doing that and the fence is making a big problem for us. …..We are very sad."

"We are scared of going because they will catch us. It is not just me- everyone here is very sad and angry about what the fence is doing to our people and our animals," he added.

"The fence makes me sad but what can I do, the government has already made their decision," explained the /Tennekhwe headman of Shishikola.

 

5 Conclusion

 Critical ecological and social impacts have been noted during 1997, including a substantial number of fence-induced mortalities. These impacts threaten to worsen in 1998, with the wet season movements, dry season movements, and further destruction of habitat within West Caprivi Game Reserve.

In the past year, an increase in cases of crop raiding has been reported. There have been recent reports of rampaging elephant herds attacking villages and people in Caprivi, possibly as a result of stress caused by overpopulation and confinement to small areas.

It has also been reported that elephant herds, no longer able to disperse into Botswana, are being deflected into Angola in order to meet food requirements. The presence of armed poaching gangs and military activities in southern Angola, places these herds in great jeopardy.

A local safari hunting operation based in West Caprivi Game Reserve, reports that poaching of elephant, has increased in recent months, with 3 to 5 poached carcasses encountered for every one hunted legally with a license. They attribute this to the current concentration of elephant in the eastern section of WCGR and increased access provided by the fence cut-line.

The Namibian government has recently endorsed the idea of a tri-national management plan for elephant. Both Namibia and Botswana have acknowledged the need for effective management of the regional elephant population, in the light of the recent CITES agreements. The massive disruptions that threaten the regional elephant population, puts such cooperation and agreements in jeopardy.

Conservationists and authorities have appealed for emergency cooperation between Botswana and Namibia in order to mitigate these impacts, which many say, can be done without compromising cattle disease control policy- referring in particular to the 30 km section adjacent to the Kwando River.

A Namibian proposal to cordon off a small portion of land adjacent to the Kavango River, in order to confine the small number of cattle living on the Namibian side, would appear to provide an effective solution- by preventing the possibility of cross border cattle movement and therefore removing the necessity for the Caprivi fence. Conserva- tionists say the western section of the Caprivi fence (adjacent to the Kavango River) could remain intact as an additional safety measure. Another, apparently ideal solution is described under the recommendations section.

 

 

 

 

 

NORTHERN BUFFALO FENCE

 

Construction of the Northern Buffalo Fence (NBF) to the north of the Okavango, commenced in 1991. Despite objections from local communities and conservationists, two thirds of the proposed 150 km fence was completed during that year. Construction halted for 5 years, until late 1996, when the fence was finally extended during the CBPP campaign to join the new Caprivi border fence. The cutline and access roads for the recent extension also resulted in the destruction of 70 hectares of woodland habitat.

The fence now seals off 7 200 square kilometres of wildlife habitat from the greater regional ecosystem that includes Moremi and Chobe National Parks and Namibia’s West Caprivi Game Reserve (WCGR). This has terminated vital migration routes between these protected areas and threatens already declining populations trapped to the west and north of the fence.

The wilderness now cut off by the NBF and the Caprivi fence is well known for its wildlife, which includes rare and endangered species. Mostly dry, marginal land, the area is poorly suited to cattle raising, with cattle mostly restricted to the banks of the Okavango River ( see map).

Local BugaKhwe (Bushmen) are traditionally dependent on the resources of the area and until construction of these fences, were free to move in order to gather foods and to visit relatives in Namibia and along the Khwai River.

A large area was originally earmarked for the development of wildlife utilization, to help provide a sustainable future for these people. With the wildlife declines now made worse by the completion of the fence, the chances of such development opportunities is slim, leaving proposed cattle development of questionable benefit to local communities as the main option now.

 

1 Natural wildlife migrations of the area

 

Although much reduced, significant numbers of wildlife still inhabit the area now cut off to the west of the fence. The DWNP estimate the following numbers for some of the species in the area (1993 to 1995):

  • Sable 500 (16 % of total Botswana population)
  • Elephant 3 500
  • Tsessebe 800 (8 % of total Botswana population)
  • Buffalo 1650 (6 % of total Botswana population)
  • Zebra 700

In addition, rare and endangered species such as wild dog, roan and oribi still inhabit remote parts. Botswana’s largest remaining populations of sable and roan are also found in this area. Now cut off by the NBF and Caprivi Fences, all these populations face an accelerated decline.

Most species here require large home ranges to meet their survival requirements, and the areas needed during adverse times are even greater. In addition to the relatively smaller territorial movements of localized populations, there is a general dispersal of wildlife populations away from the Okavango and Kwando River systems with the onset of the rainy season, towards the interior.

With progression into the dry season, and the retraction of water, movements are reversed. Both a north-south and an east-west trend have been identified ( see map), with movements in the latter, often channeled along valleys (molapos).

These movement patterns may alter in response to environmental disturbances such as fire and localized droughts. Populations need this flexibility to cope with unexpected environmental stresses.

The NBF not only cuts off the larger migratory patterns of, for example, zebra wildebeest and elephants, but also fragments and restricts the movements of localized populations who’s territories have been bisected by the NBF, such as eland, roan, sable, tsessebe and giraffe.

 

2 Wildlife Impacts

2.1 Community observations

The Khwe (Bushman) communities note continued wildlife declines in their area. Villagers at /Dobega, Godikwa, Shishikola and Wosha, attribute these declines at least in part, to the restriction of movement imposed on wildlife by the NBF.

One Bushman at Godikwa, an ex-DAHP worker who has worked on the fence for several years, said: "with my own eyes I have seen every kind of animal die along the fence, except for elephant. Many, many animals have been killed on the fence since 1991."

"It is very difficult to find the dead animals because they (vet. workers) take away the bones and bury the skins of the animals," says another Godikwa resident.

One man, who a few days prior to the interview, had witnessed veterinary workers remove the carcass of a zebra from the fence, said: "The veterinary workers will never talk to you about the dead animals because they are scared of losing their jobs."

Khwe of Godikwa, Shishikola, \Dobega and Wosha, indicate substantial and ongoing deaths as a result of the NBF blocking natural wildlife movements. For the recently extended 45 km section (from beacon 566 northwards), the following deaths were reported by those interviewed:

 

  • 5 Giraffe - deaths reported for January to June
  • 2 Giraffe - deaths reported for July to September
  • 2 Buffalo - died in September
  • 2 Elephant (cow and calf) - died in September- not conformed
  • Roan (numbers unknown) - died in September

 

One old man at /Dobecha described the death of one of the above elephants: "the front legs went into the fence between the cable and the wires and then the elephant fell forwards, over the fence on the other side. In that way it became trapped and died."

Informants say there are probably many other deaths they did not learn about as they rely on information from Bushmen moving through the area or from veterinary workers.

The people confirmed that wildlife to the west of the NBF was (at the time of interview) trying to go east towards the Kwando. "A lot of wildlife are trapped on this side (western). Many sable are also trapped and trying to get through, " explained a resident.

Another resident of Godikwa said: "Animals now have no water on this side (western side) of the fence. ….elephant and wildebeest are trying to get their water from leaves."

The headman of Shishikola also pointed out that: "The elephants have no water here and are trying to get to the Kwando River. They move mostly at night when it is cool and the big government trucks are gone."

Godikwa residents say predators have increased in their area because they are attracted by game that is now congregated against the western side of the NBF. They reported recent cases of deaths of dogs, horses and donkeys as a result of a concentration of lions in the area.

 

2.2 Personal observations
  • Wildlife Concentrations and critical impacts identified in the following areas:

    1. West side of NBF extension (north of beacon 566) in July, of elephant, roan, eland and tsessebe (see photo 4.g, 4.h, 4.m, 4.n). Herds were fragmented and highly stressed. High concentration of elephants and resultant vegetation destruction observed

      2. Note concentration of spoor immediately next to fence on west side (Photo 4.e).

      Later in dry season, consistent pressure was still observed, although slightly reduced, possibly as a result of die-off and shift of populations such as elephant towards the south.

      Photo 4.f illustrates parallel paths against the western side of fence.

      From direct and inferred evidence a concentration of: kudu, wildebeest, giraffe, elephant was noted (late dry season). Photo 4.p shows the gate at the Caprivi & NBF intersection. Note how the gate has been severely damaged by elephant contact from western side.

      Some populations in this northern area have possibly suffered irreversible damage as a result of disruption, fragmentation and die-off.

       

    2. North side of NBF, west of beacon 264: elephant, wildebeest, zebra. Wildlife was observed heading west along parallel paths, in particular elephant, who may have been deflected towards the south because of completion of the fence in north, preventing access to Kwando River. Wildlife observed attempting to head southwards, see for example photo 4.c, showing wildebeest attempting to push through to the south of the fence. Herd fragmentation apparent for tsessebe and giraffe, both of which observed interacting with herds on south side of fence (see photo 4.d, 4.i). Groups outside the fence typically consisted of few individuals, with imbalances in age structures. Concentration of buffalo on south side of fence, west of beacon 264, indicated a need to access resources to north of fence, and possibly also to relieve over crowding of areas to south of fence. Photo 4.o clearly shows how resources have been cut-off from wildlife.

     

  • Few visible mortalities were encountered as result of fence clearing and maintenance activities. See photos 4.j, 4.k and 4.b, of giraffe and buffalo north of beacon 566 and west of beacon 264 respectively.

  • Movements of wildlife mostly at night to avoid heat stress.

 

3 Summary of ecological impacts
  • Critical wildlife concentration evident against fence-line:

    • North of beacon 566.
    • West of beacon 264.

  • Species affected: elephant, wildebeest, buffalo, roan, eland, giraffe, tsessebe, kudu.

  • Wildlife unable to access critical resources, resulting in movement obstruction. Fragmentation, dehydration stress, fence-induced injury, fence-induced deaths were also observed.

  • On going die-off of wide variety of species- exacerbated by drying conditions. Deaths reported in 1997 along new extension include: roan, elephant, buffalo, giraffe.

 

4 Community views

"We have complained at kgotlas for many years now, but the civil servants don’t answer us," said one Bushman at Godikwa. "Before they started building the fence, they asked us if we wanted it and we said no, but they still went ahead."

"We don’t want cattle here, we want to use our wildlife and gather our plant foods. Now it feels like we are in prison," said the headman of Godikwa. Godikwa residents explained how they used to be able to move down to the Okavango to collect wild fruits and papyrus. Now they are not allowed to cross over the fence and they say they are sometimes shot as suspected poachers.

An ex-veterinary worker: " I don’t understand why they don’t take down this fence. They explained to me that they were finishing the fence to stop the spread of cattle lung disease, but the disease is gone and there is a new fence along the border- there is no need for this fence now."

Godikwa and Shishikola Khwe were not consulted about the fences, nor the electrification of the border fence. Those at Shishikola complain that the fence cuts off summer grazing for their livestock, which like the wildlife of the area, also have to move seasonally in order to survive.

At the Okavango Peoples Wildlife Trust conference held in Maun in 1997, representatives from communities affected by the NB, came out strongly against the NBF, asking for the entire length to be removed as it ‘only serves as a trap for wildlife’.

 

5 Conclusion

Not only is the survival of local and migratory populations severely threatened, but the viability of adjacent populations in the Okavango and Kwando ecosystems, are also under threat.

To date, massive obstruction of natural migrations has been accompanied by an ongoing fence-induced die-off of many species, made worse by the recent northward extension of the fence to intersect the new Caprivi fence.

A warning by the ‘Ad Hoc Committee on Fences’ in July 1997, and by the author in August 1997, of an imminent die-off of wildlife trapped to the west of the NBF, was submitted to the relevant government departments.

These reports appealed for emergency mitigation action to be implemented in order to avoid a die-off of, in particular, of roan antelope calves and sub-adults. (See photo 4.m & 4.n of some of the animals referred to).

These requests were ignored, with the result being a die-off of wildlife against the fence in September 1997, - including roan. This could clearly have been avoided had these warnings been taken seriously.

The implementation of this emergency mitigation would not have compromised disease control policy as cattle are found nowhere near the fence, particularly with respect to the new extension ( See map - note cattle and wildlife distributions).

Fragmentation of herds (including rare and endangered species) and termination of migration routes, by both the NBF and the Caprivi fence, threatens not only local wildlife, but also the viability of wildlife in adjacent areas, which need access to these areas.

Existing protected areas are too small to sustain wildlife on a permanent basis throughout the year. Wildlife must migrate away from the parks and as such, the protected areas of Northern Botswana are not self-sustaining units.

A DWNP paper explains that areas to the east of the NBF are at or close to carrying capacity, and that "…already further reductions of wildlife populations, buffalo and zebra in particular seem likely."

"The recent construction of the fences has de facto zoned the area for livestock development and limited the development opportunities that are available for this remote area. Use of the area for livestock production will ultimately lead to the demise of those wildlife populations."

Government sources indicate that the area now cordoned off by the NBF has been earmarked for further cattle development. However this area is poorly suited to cattle. Ground water is generally salty and too deep, the poisonous plant Dichapetalum cymosum is abundant and the area is mostly densely wooded).

During 1997, several thousand Buffalo (suspected of carrying Foot & Mouth disease) were herded through to the southern side of the NBF – perhaps in preparation for proposed cattle developments in this area.

Employees of BENMAS, the company who have recently completed the electrification of the Caprivi fence to the Kwando River, say that the NBF may also soon be electrified in order to prevent elephant damage to the fence.

 

 

 

NXAI PAN BUFFALO FENCE

 

The ‘Nxai Pan’ Buffalo Fence (NPBF) was erected in 1968, in remote wildlife range north-west of the Nxai Pan National Park. 100 km in length, it bisects an important migration route between Nxai Pan National Park and protected areas to the north-west. This area is also completely without cattle.

Now recognized as no longer serving any veterinary purpose, it has been officially declared a ‘decommissioned’ fence and is mostly excluded from maintenance schedules. Many people are of the mistaken impression that years of neglect have rendered the fence no longer a barrier to wildlife movement.

Despite many years of decay, the fence is however still mostly intact and continues to prohibit natural wildlife movement, threatening the viability of local and migratory populations.

 

1 Characteristics of the area

Although lacking surface water for most of the year, the affected area is valuable range for arid-adapted species like gemsbok and eland (perhaps the second largest remaining sub-populations in Northern Botswana after those of the Setata area). It also serves as an important seasonal migration route for elephant, buffalo, wildebeest and zebra.

The migratory species tend to move towards the Nxai pans during the wet season and then migrate back towards the north-west, to the permanent waters in the Okavango and Linyanti systems.

The region bisected by the fence is also the traditional territory of the Matamakai and Makerekhwe Bushmen (now settled at Puduhudu and Nxabe). Apart from possible use of this area by these people, there is no human activity or livestock in the area

As community input was not available for this fence, assessment of impacts relied entirely on ground and aerial observations.

 

2 Wildlife Impacts: personal observations

The main difficulties experienced, as with other fences, were extreme heat and limited observation time. Because fence maintenance appeared to be very infrequent, it was however possible to assess fence-induced mortalities more thoroughly than with other disturbed and well-maintained fence-lines.

  • Extensive evidence of past and current impacts on localized and migratory wildlife populations. Species most affected at time of observation were: elephant, giraffe.

  • General wildlife movement obstruction was evident on both sides of the fence. Photo 5.a clearly shows parallel paths concentrated against the north and south sides.

  • 98.74 % of the fence-line is impassable to wildlife despite years of decay and fence damage by elephants. (A total of only 1.26 km of the 100 km fence has deteriorated to the extent that it is possible for wildlife to pass over).

  • 18 carcasses / animal remains were observed alongside the fence. These included the following: elephant, eland, giraffe, buffalo, wildebeest, (See photos 5.c to 5.m).

  • Elephant concentration on the south side of the fence. Observed animals were fatigued and in poor physical condition. Herd fragmentation was also evident (in one case resulting in the separation of sub-adults from the parent herd). Observed animals appeared wary of fence and reluctant to pass over.

    Movement of elephants appeared to be channeled into the corner of the Makalamabedi - NPBF intersection. It was also in this area that 10 elephant carcasses were noted on the southern side of the fence. ( See map).

Also see Photo 5.b of elephant bull against south side of fence.

 

3 Conclusion

Although impacts did not appear to be critical at the time of observation, movements of localized and seasonal wildlife populations have been, and continue to be, obstructed by the fence. A die-off of elephant sub-adults appeared at the time of observation to be a possibility. Their viability will therefore continue to be negatively affected.

Although decayed to a certain extent, this decommissioned fence is still mostly an impassable barrier and should be taken down in order to allow the free movement of local and migratory populations, and prevent future die-off along the fence.

The viability and potential of the Nxai Pans National Park is also compromised by the fence, which poses a lethal hazard to wildlife migrating to and from the park.

After the observations were conducted, the DWNP was questioned about the death of the ten elephant, by Okavango Peoples Wildlife Trust staff. The DWNP regional director confirmed that nine of these elephants were shot in 1996, by DWNP staff, under the directive of the previous regional director, because the elephant were damaging the fence. The DWNP were apparently unaware of the cause of death of the most recently shot elephant (See photo 5h, 5i ).

Strangely, these elephant were therefore killed for tampering with a fence that for some time now, has been disregarded and neglected by veterinary officials.

 

 

 

PHEFODIAFOKA FENCE

 

Note: Although not in the main observation area, this fence is included for its interest value (see map).

The Phefodiafoka Fence forms the North-Eastern boundary of the Central Kalahari Game Reserve (C.K.G.R.). It was built in 1996 by DWNP and DAHP:- To stop cattle intrusion into the C.K.G.R; in response to complaints of stock losses from predators; and as part of disease control objectives.

Ground observations were conducted over October 10-12, 1997. Time constraints limited observation of this fence, but the following observations are noted:

In October 1996, a fire trapped and burnt hundreds of wild animals against this fence. This was well documented by the local press.

The fence also bisects an important migration corridor between the Central Kalahari and the Boteti & Lake Xau areas, - with massive migrations recorded here in the past.

Unlike other fences discussed above this fence was requested by local commun- ities, and a substantial cattle population does exist close to the fence. The fence does have some value in that (like the Southern Buffalo Fence) it is limiting cattle intrusion into the CKGR. Such advantages have to be weighed up against the imposed losses and reduced viability suffered by wildlife populations trapped outside the fence.

A possible solution to this problem would be to re-route the fence to allow wildlife to gain access to the Boteti area. This would allow recovery of the migration route and would have positive implications for the viability of CKGR populations. This would also however involve the partial displacement of cattle owners.

As with other fences the wider environmental, social and economic issues also need to be considered in evaluating this fence and implementation of possible solutions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

 

Observed direct effects of the fences can be summarized as follows:

 

Ecological:

Social:

 



 

PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING THE CRISIS

 

Two years have passed since the construction of the first CBPP fence, yet the resultant ecological and social impacts have been slow to come to the attention of authorities and the public at large. There have however been some positive signs, in particular:

 

A recent conference on conservation and management of wildlife in Botswana, held in October 1997, was seen by many as ground breaking. For the first time, open dialogue took place between all stakeholders on the issue of veterinary fences and wildlife.

There were promising signs of compromise on the veterinary disease control policy. Director of DAHP, Mr Raborokgwe, stated that: "The DAHP is willing to accept the removal and/or realignment of some fences that are not essential for sanitary reasons, so that migratory corridors can be opened…. Any future fences should only be constructed after proper and full ecological assessments have been undertaken."

In spite of the encouraging signs of compromise however, no physical action has yet been implemented to alleviate the increasingly critical impacts. The Ad Hoc Committee on Fences, in existence now for one year, has repeatedly put forward recommendations for emergency mitigation action, - stressing the need for expedience.

The Chairperson of this committee ensured that only recommendations acceptable to all stakeholders, including the DAHP, were put forward as recommendations. Recommendations put forward to cabinet included:

 

  1. The removal of the extreme eastern 28 km section of the Caprivi fence.
  2. Temporary removal of sections of NBF to relieve critical wildlife build-up.
  3. Delay completion of the electrification of the Caprivi fence until the outcome of the EIA.
 

To date, none of these or other recommendations, put forward to cabinet have been accepted or implemented. This has raised doubts about the commitment of some higher authorities towards addressing the problem. The Namibian cabinet has also been criticized for not facilitating efforts to resolve the Caprivi fence crisis.

Critical impacts, including recent cases of wildlife die-off (e.g. of roan antelope and elephant in September 1997, along the NBF extension) could have been avoided, had such recommendations been approved and implemented by cabinet.

Local communities and conservationists are increasingly despondent with the continued bureaucratic delays and indecision that plague efforts to slow the destruction of affected wildlife populations.







FUTURE DEVELOPMENT PLANS

 

Several new developments have been proposed for Ngamiland (also see maps). Some of these plans are rumoured and it was not possible to positively confirm them. None of these plans have been widely publicized and no community leaders appeared to have any knowledge of these plans (with the exception of no.5).

 

  1. The implementation of further cattle development north of the Okavango delta.
  2. The implementation of fenced game ranches adjacent to the south side of the Southern Buffalo Fence (up to latitude 19° 30 south).
  3. The implementation of fenced game ranches adjacent to the western border with Namibia, from Kuke up to the extreme north-west corner.
  4. The implementation of fenced ranches adjacent to south side of the Caprivi Fence.
  5. Electrification of the western border with Namibia.
  6. Electrification of the Northern Buffalo Fence.
  7. The creation of a new beef export zone in southern Ngamiland, with new northern limit of beef export zone at proposed realignment of Setata Fence (lat. 20° south).

 

Implementation of the following developments have also been noted. These coincided with the CBPP campaign but were not related to the control of CBPP:

  1. The recent completion of the NBF.

  2. The herding of buffalo from east of the NBF to the west of the fence.

  3. The change in status of CBPP control fences from ‘temporary’ to ‘permanent’ spite of completion of CBPP eradication and securing of border fences).

This has caused concern that fencing developments, including the implementation of private commercial cattle ranches, are being prioritized in Ngamiland.

Implementation of ‘The Fencing Component of the New Agricultural Development Policy of 1992’ is also perceived as a threat. Underway in other districts of Botswana, but has been delayed in Ngamiland. Areas identified for its implementation include wildlife areas such as: south of Tsodillo hills; north of Kuke Fence; western fringe of the Okavango.

Through this policy, much pressure is being placed on the traditional sector to switch to commercial production, with the stated rationale that this will boost productivity of the livestock sector and reduce overgrazing.

"Quick and efficient implementation of the fencing component of the fencing component of the new Agricultural Development Policy stands between success and disaster for the Botswana Livestock industry," says executive chairman of the Botswana Meat Commission, Dr M. Mannathoko. "The Livestock industry and the rangeland of Botswana will only survive through fencing….," he adds.

On the other hand, this policy has been heavily criticized by ecologists and sociologists (White, Perkins, Selolwane etc.), who maintain that the proposed fencing of communal lands, with exclusive rights given to individuals and syndicates, will:

Sustainable development of remaining wildlife habitat in northern Botswana

 

Wildlife utilization is increasingly recognized as a sustainable form of land-use that is well suited to wildlife and marginal areas. It has minimal impact on resources and provides good economic returns with minimal investment of capital.

Regarding wildlife utilization in Botswana, wildlife economist J.Barnes notes:

"In large parts of the country, wildlife use has a comparative economic advantage over commercial livestock production. As a very general rule, wildlife viewing tourism should get priority in the use of scarce capital, labour and management resources. Potential for wildlife utilization appears to be some four times the present levels of use."

He adds that the "use of free-ranging wildlife populations is more profitable than more capital intensive ranching and farming of wildlife." (Barnes 1994). Also see Appendix 2: Statistics.

Comparisons of, and discussions concerning, the development of livestock and wildlife industries in remaining wildlife habitat is still regarded as being very politically sensitive and this has often been termed a ‘conflict of interests’ issue.

However in cases of ‘competing wildlife versus cattle interests’, there is a need for objective evaluation within the context of overall environmental, economic and social sustainability factors.

Livestock forms an integral part of the culture and sentimentality of Batswana. However the following statistics are noteworthy as they do relate to sustainability issues:

  1. 1.97% of formal and 52% of informal sector were employed in the livestock sector in 1995, compared to 2.92% and 65% respectively in 1985\86.
  2. 57% of households did not own cattle in 1993\94, compared to 50% in 1985\86.
  3. 90.71% of cattle-owning households obtained their main source of income from profits from livestock + crops in 1985/86. In 1993\94, between 22.74% and 31.95% of cattle owning households obtained their main source of income from profits from livestock + crops. This indicates a reduced dependency.
  4. Government expenditure in the livestock sector far exceeds contribution of the sector to the economy.

(Sources -see References: 6, 8,13.) and Appendix 2: Statistics

Statistics show, on the other hand, that tourism is providing an increasing number of jobs and is increasingly contributing to the national economy (11.5 % growth rate in 1996 compared to 1.1% for livestock industry). See Appendix 2: Statistics

Considering the above, it can be argued that wildlife development deserves to be prioritized in remaining wildlife habitat of Northern Botswana.

As put by Jan Broekhuis of DWNP: "In the end it is a choice. A choice between increased reliance on livestock and the real prospect of further marginalization of rural communities on the one hand, or the wise use of the wildlife and other natural resources for the economic development and empowerment of rural communities on the other. A choice that should not be made for short term financial or political gain, but for the long term development of Botswana and its people."





CONCLUSIONS

 

 

  • The dramatic decline in Botswana’s wildlife numbers continues. Damage to remaining populations has been exacerbated in the last two years with the construction of new fences. Continuing stresses and declines may soon push populations to the point of no recovery.

  • The viability of the entire regional ecosystem is being severely compromised. Remaining wildlife outside protected areas will not survive unless mitigation is urgently implemented.

  • The viability of the protected areas themselves is being endangered, which may have serious implications for the existing tourism industry.

  • The viability of wildlife populations of adjoining states is also severely threatened.

  • The livelihood of communities reliant on natural resources, those becoming increasingly dependent on tourism, and the potential for them and the national economy to benefit from expansion of the still underdeveloped tourism industry, is threatened. Poverty in affected communities will also be exacerbated.

  • Community Based Natural Resource Management Programmes, in which donors have invested a vast amount of time and money in promoting the upliftment and development of local communities, are in some cases being counteracted by the new fences.

  • There is enormous potential for capitalizing on the unique natural resources of the region. For example, the creation of a trans-boundary park with neighboring states could make this area Africa’s greatest tourist attraction, with unparalleled economic value to the national economy and regional communities. Fences in wildlife areas eliminates this possibility.

  • Proposed future fence-related developments (including cattle and game ranches) are not suited to the Kalahari ecosystem and will further damage the unique open wildlife system that is Northern Botswana. This will likely result in:

    • Further fragmentation, environmental degradation and migration disruption.

    • Displacement, alienation and dispossession of local communities.

    • Reduced opportunity for community empowerment and upliftment through development of suitable and sustainable resource utilization activities.

    • Destruction of the subsistence base of minority communities such as the Khwe.

    • Increased dependence on social welfare programmes, handouts from future ranch owners etc.

  • The justification for erecting fences in wildlife areas with few or no cattle is highly questionable. Time is rapidly running out for remaining wildlife, and when considered in the light of negative ecological & social effects, and overall sustainability factors, justification becomes more questionable still.

Furthermore, a simple comparative analysis of the potential economic contribution of the industries concerned, high lights the folly of spending huge sums of money erecting and maintaining fences- with incalculable detriment to the increasingly valuable, but rapidly shrinking wildlife areas of Botswana and neighboring states.




RECOMMENDATIONS

 

A Short Term Action

To help minimize current critical impacts, the following fence sections should be removed immediately, in advance of the EIA study proposed by the government.

    Setata Fence: Extreme western 90 km of fence-line.

    Ikoga Fence: Extreme western 20 km; 40 km section south of Tsodillo Hills.

    Caprivi Fence: Extreme eastern 40 km of fence-line.

    Northern Buffalo Fence: Fence-line north of beacon 566. Fence-line west of beacon264.

    Nxai Pan Buffalo Fence: Entire fence-line

These steps are not likely to compromise veterinary disease control efforts, as no cattle (potential disease carriers) are found near these fence sections. (Refer to maps).

 

B Medium Term Action

  1. Consult local communities, tribal administration, district government and conservation bodies on existing and planned developments.

  2. Implement thorough environmental, social and economic impact assessments of all existing and future fence-related developments.

  3. Monitor current impacts of fences on wildlife and population viability.

  4. Declare the area East of the Okavango River a cattle free zone, or alternatively an isolation zone with further cattle developments prohibited. This will:

    • Allow removal of Northern Buffalo and Caprivi Fences, - with Okavango River serving as a future disease barrier and thereby also reducing disease control expenditure.

    • Promote the recovery of local and regional wildlife populations & enhance the viability of adjacent protected areas.

    • Help protect the Okavango River from overgrazing.

    • Promote the development of Community Based Resource Management

    • Allow the development of a Trans-boundary Park.

    • As mitigation, development of alternative agricultural activities, community based resource utilization projects, temporary provision of aid (with assistance of international donors) is suggested.

  1. Harmonize land-use on both sides of the border with Namibia. This could be a precursor to the creation of a Trans-boundary Park with neighboring SADC states

  2. Evaluate and compare the economic merits and potential of the livestock and wildlife industries to contribute towards:

    • Sustainable regional development and national income.

    • Alleviation of poverty and empowerment of communities.

    • Protection of biodiversity and natural resources.

  3. Emphasize veterinary disease control efforts at boundaries of wildlife habitat, as opposed to within wildlife areas.






Appendix 1: WILDLIFE IMPACTS

 

Please note: Appendix 1 is only intended for the use of those interested in or requiring full details of all ground and aerial observations.

Also refer to photographs and relevant maps, in particular the red dots, indicating sites where cases of wildlife concentration / movement obstruction were actually observed.

 

1 Setata fence

1.1 Ground observations

Conducted on Oct 13 from Tsau to the Namibia border, and on Oct 18 from west to east.

(a) Observed wildlife concentration / movement obstruction

 

Gemsbok (Oryx gazella)

 

Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus)

 

Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus)

 

Ostrich (Struthio camelis)

 

Wild dog (Lyacon pictus)

 

(b) Spoor (inferred behaviour)

Concentration of spoor on south side (generally absent on north side), from 15 km east of the Namibian border intersection up to about 90 km east. Within this 75 km zone, spoor of the following species (in descending order of abundance) noted: Gemsbok, hartebeest and wildebeest. Infrequent spoor on the southern side, of eland and giraffe also noted. Predator spoor (wild dog and leopard) noted on both sides of the fence in this zone.

Most spoor apparently as a result of night and early morning activity. Closer interpretation revealed that regular physical contacts were made with the fence, indicating the need for wildlife to head north of the fence.

Prominent parallel game paths were situated about 10 to 15 metres away from the fence- mostly on the south side (from 20km to 80km east of the border). These paths were very well used and appeared to be favoured movement "channels." The infrequent spoor on the north side was usually of lone individuals, not groups.

 

(c) Fence damage (inferred behaviour)

14 fence damage sites were inspected to establish inferred behaviour. From scuff marks, position of broken wires and poles, it was established that in 11 cases, the intended direction of movement was towards the north. These damage sites were situated from 20 km east of Namibian border, to 80 km east.

 

(d) Mortalities

The remains of 3 Ostrich carcasses were found at 127km, 135km and 55km east of the border. All were within 3 metres of the fence. At one carcass site (see photo 1.c), ground marks indicated that the carcass had been dragged away from the fence.

A giraffe skull was found next to the fence (photo 1.b). Old remains (not identified) were also found in between doubled fence sections.

 

(e) Evidence of poaching

Vehicle tracks heading off from fence cut-line towards the south suggests possible illegal poaching by vehicle. Recent reports of an absence of eland in the area may be as a result of poaching activities. Used shotgun cartridges were found alongside the fence.

 

1.2 Aerial observations:

Conducted on Sunday 9 November 1997, from the intersection of the fence with the main tar road, west to the Namibian border and back along the same route.

 

(a) Observed concentration / movement obstruction

Gemsbok (Oryx gazella)

Hartebeest (Alcelaphus buselaphus)

 

Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus)

 

Ostrich (Struthio camelis)

 

(b) Game trails (inferred behaviour)

Game paths parallel to the fences- mostly on south side of the fence.

 

 

2 Ikoga fence

Ground observations

Conducted along the entire length of the fence from the Namibian border to the intersection with the tar road near the Okavango River, on 21 and 22 October 1997.

(a) Observed wildlife concentration / movement obstruction

Gemsbok (Oryx gazella)

 

Ostrich (Struthio camelis)

 

(b) Spoor (inferred behaviour)

Some spoor build-up noted, on both sides, from 5 km to 15 km east of Namibia border of: gemsbok, eland, ostrich and wild dog. Spoor was old, suggesting movement impediment several days prior to observation date, possibly coinciding with a brief rain shower. Also little evidence of night activity, indicating that wildlife build up was not consistent at the time. From 80 to 115 km east of Namibia border, spoor concentration on both sides, of gemsbok (in the west) and ostrich, kudu (in the east).

 Some evidence of elephant movement impediment on the north side from 30 to 80 km east.

 

(c) Fence damage (inferred behaviour)

Few fence damage sites encountered. Repaired fence sections encountered from the border up to 25 km east, suggesting that at times this area is an important impact zone.

 

3 Caprivi Fence

3.1 Ground observations

Conducted on 24 and 25 October 1997, on the Namibian side from 80 km west of the Kwando River, eastwards, to the Kwando River. Later, on 26 and 27 October 1997, on the Botswana side, from the Kavango River, up to the NBF-Caprivi intersection, 132 km to the east.

 

(a) Observed wildlife concentration / movement obstruction

Eland (Taurotragus oryx)

 

Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardus)

 

Zebra (Equus burchelli)

 

Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros)

 

Elephant (Loxodonta africana)

 

(b) Spoor (inferred behaviour)

Concentration of spoor alongside the fence:

  1. Extreme western 20 km of the fence, adjacent to Kavango River (south side). Only elephant spoor observed.

  2. Extreme eastern 60 km of the fence, adjacent to Kwando River. Spoor concentration on both sides but particularly high on the northern side, especially extreme western 40 km. Species affected: sable, elephant, roan, eland, buffalo, giraffe.

Moderate spoor concentration was evident on the south side of the fence from 60 km west of the Kwando, to the Caprivi &NBF intersection. It was not possible at the time to determine spoor concentration on the south side from this intersection to the Kwando, but it is assumed that concentration there was also moderate.

Most abundant spoor was of elephant. Photo 3.f clearly shows the concentration of spoor against the northern side of the fence. Note also the damaged fence,indicating attempts to cross over towards the south.

Frequent spoor concentrations were noted for giraffe, eland, roan, sable, mostly on the northern side. Spoor interpretation indicated frequent attempts by these species to find passages through to the south. Abundant kudu spoor was noted on the southern side, west of the NBF-Caprivi intersection.

  1. Fence damage (inferred behaviour)

    2. The Caprivi fence was found to be frequently damaged along the extreme eastern 20 km adjacent to the Kwando River. Direction of breaks were all towards the south.

    See photo 3.f.
  2. Vegetation damage (inferred behaviour)

    Vegetation to the north of the fence was found to be severely damaged, in contrast to the vegetation on the south side. The damage, limited mostly to the extreme eastern 30 km section of the fence (from the NBF-Caprivi intersection to the Kwando River), is attributed to the current severe elephant pressure on the northern side. Photo 3.g. clearly illustrates the damage resulting from the build-up next to the fence.



3.2 Aerial observations

Conducted on 10 November 1997, from the Kwando River up to 40 km west.

(a)Observed wildlife concentration / movement obstruction

Elephant (loxodonta africana)

 

 

4 Northern Buffalo Fence

4.1 Ground observations

The NBF was observed on three separate occasions. Firstly from 19 to 21 July 1997, on 1 October 1997 and again from 27 Oct to 30 Oct 1997. The full details of the July survey are also documented in a separate report (presented to the Botswana Government in August 1997).

 

4.1.1 Observation 1: July 19-21 1997

Conducted over the entire fence-line except the section west of beacon 264.

(a) Observed wildlife concentration / movement obstruction

Roan (Hippotragus equinus)

 

Elephant (Loxodonta africana)

 

Eland (Taurotragus oryx)

 

Buffalo (Syncerus caffer)

 

(b) Spoor (inferred behaviour)

Massive spoor concentration was evident on the west side of the fence from BPS 566 to the Caprivi-NBF intersection. Spoor was absent on the eastern side. Photo 4.e clearly illustrates the pressure against the western side. Spoor of roan, eland, tsessebe, and particularly elephant (breeding herds) was most prevalent. Well- worn parallel game paths, mostly resulting from elephant movement, were also noted along the western side of the fence (but were less prominent on the eastern side).

A significant build up of spoor, particularly of elephant, was also noted on the northern side of the NBF near beacon 264.

 

(c) Fence damage (inferred behaviour)

At numerous points the fence had been severely damaged by elephants attempting to move towards the east. Without exception, the direction of breaks was from west to east indicating movement pressure towards the east.

Most of this fence damage was limited to the recently constructed section from beacon 566 to the Caprivi border.

 

(d) Mortalities

A giraffe carcass was found on the fence 38 km south of the Caprivi fence. The hind legs of the animal were both locked between the cable and the two top strands of wire. Death was most likely as a result of a combination of shock, dehydration and possibly suffocation (fluid in lungs). (See photo 4.j. & 4.k.)

GPS coordinates for carcass site, taken on 19 July 1997, are: S 18° 20.856; E 23° 02.278. It is interesting to note that this site was revisited on 29 October 1997. No trace of the carcass could be found. The removal of evidence by fence maintenance crews highlights the difficulty in assessing the extent of fence-induced deaths.

 

4.1.2 Observation 2: October 2, 1997

Note: this survey included only the fence-line west of beacon 264

 

(a) Observed wildlife concentration / movement obstruction

Buffalo (Syncerus caffer)

 

Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardus)

 

Tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus)

 

Zebra (Equus burchelli)

 

Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros)

 

4.1.3 Observation 3: 27-30 October 1997

(a) Observed wildlife concentration / movement obstruction

Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardus)

 

Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus)

 

Tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus)

 

Kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros)

 

(b) Spoor

A significant spoor concentration of elephant, giraffe, and wildebeest was noted against the west side of the fence from beacon 566 to the Caprivi border fence. The concentration of spoor on the west side was not however as marked as in the July 1997 observation, especially with respect to elephant. This slight reduction in pressure from the west is possibly attributable to a shift in wildlife populations further south after failing to break through the fence towards the Kwando River.

 

(c) Fence damage

With the exception of one minor damaged section near beacon 264, no breaks were noted during observation 3, probably as a result of the current activities of fence maintenance crews. This was in stark contrast to the condition of the fence in July when many sections of the fence had been severely damaged by elephant in attempts to pass through towards the east.

 

(d) Mortalities

Due to fence clearing activities, no recent fence-induced mortalities were apparent. Some evidence of past mortalities was encountered. See photo 4.b, for example, showing the remains of a buffalo along the northern side of the fence (west of beacon 264).

 

4.2 Aerial observations

4.2.1 Observation 1: 1 October 1997.

Note: this survey was conducted over the fence-line west of beacon 264

(a) Observed wildlife concentration / movement obstruction

Buffalo (Syncerus caffer)

 

Zebra (Equus Burchelli)

 

Tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus)

 

Elephant (Loxodonta africana)

 

4.2.2 Observation 2: 10 November 1997

Note: this survey was conducted over the entire length of the NBF.

(a) Observed wildlife concentration / movement obstruction

Elephant (Loxodonta africana)

 

Wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus)

 

Buffalo (Syncerus caffer)

 

(b) Game trails (inferred behaviour)

Prominent, parallel game paths were noted- at variable distances from the fence but generally not further than about 50 metres away. See photo 4.f, showing parallel paths alongside west side of NBF.

The fence-line between beacon 566 and the Caprivi border, and the area west of beacon 264, exhibited an abundance of these parallel paths. In the former area, the paths were generally restricted mostly to the west side of the fence and in the later, generally to the north side of the fence.

 

 

 

 

5 Nxai Pan Buffalo Fence impacts

5.1 Ground observations

Conducted on 5,6 & 7 November 1997, from the start to the end, 100 km to the east.

(a) Observed wildlife concentration / movement obstruction

Elephant (Loxodonta africana):

 

(b) Spoor (inferred behaviour)

Elephant spoor frequently concentrated along south side of fence from the intersection with the Makalamabedi fence (i.e the start) up to about 40 km east. Massive spoor build-up was evident on the south side, up to 15 km east. Note that this is also the area in which a concentration of elephant carcasses was found.

Occasional spoor build-up alongside the fence on both sides, of gemsbok, wildebeest and giraffe. Spoor concentration of these species was particularly evident from 33 km to 60 km east of the start of the fence.

Well-used, parallel game paths were noted on both sides.

 

(c) Fence damage (inferred behaviour)

Severe fence damage was evident along many parts of the fence, in particular from 15 km to 50 km east. Typically, damaged sections were about ten to 30 metres in length, and most had been pushed over but not completely flattened to the ground.

At all damage sites, the main cable was unbroken. In very few of these damaged sections was the fence found to be completely flat on the ground --and therefore passable to wildlife.

A total of 1 260 metres of the fence was damaged to the extent that the passage of wildlife was possible. This translates to 1.26 % of the total fence-line. It can therefore be concluded that the fence remains a barrier to most wildlife species for 98.74% of the total fence-line.

 

(d) Mortalities

Only the extreme western 15 km of the NPBF appeared to be regularly maintained. Because of this, carcasses had not been removed and it was easier to assess the extent of fence-related deaths.

The following carcasses were recorded. Other remains were evident alongside the fence, but were too decomposed and scattered to positively identify.

 

All the above were found immediately alongside the fence, except the elephant, buffalo and one of the wildebeest, which were found several metres away from the fence.

The elephant carcasses were all found within the area currently experiencing high elephant activity and concentration. Nine of the ten carcasses were between 1km and 5 km east of the start of the fence ( see map). All were positioned on the south side of the fence, and all were about 20 metres from the fence.

The tenth carcass was found at 8.5 km east, and was very fresh, with little decomposition evident. The tusks had also been removed, possibly with the aid of a piece of wire found nearby. Vehicle tracks were clearly evident leading from the carcass to a point on the fence directly opposite the carcass. At that point, several wires had been recently repaired.

 

5.2 Aerial observations:

Conducted on the Nov 8 from Makalamabedi intersection, up to 80 km east.

(a) Observed animals

Elephant (Loxodonta africana)

Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis)

 

(b) Game trails (inferred behaviour)

Prominent parallel game paths were noted from the start of the fence to about 65 km east. For most of this 65 km section, the paths are clearly evident on both sides of the fence, with the exception of the first 25 to 30 km, where the paths were mostly concentrated on the south side. Photo 5.a clearly illustrates these trails.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX 2: STATISTICS

 

 

 

ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF RESOURCE UTILIZATION ACTIVITIES

 

Comparative estimated returns to selected natural resource utilization enterprises in Botswana in 1990.

 

Internal rate of return (%)

Economic

Internal rate of return (%)

Financial

Community projects- prime Wildlife area

55

21

Safari hunting

45

16

Tourist lodge

35

18

Community projects- poor wildlife area

28

21

Game ranching

7

6

Cattle ranching

na

5

 

Source: Barnes, Jonathan. Alternative uses for natural resources in Botswana:

Wildlife Utilization. 1993.

 

 

Tourism

 

1982: Number of visitors to Botswana

300 413

1993: Number of visitors to Botswana

897 694

Money spent (declared)

212 MP

Foreign exchange earned in 1992\93

158 MP

(as % of total export earnings)

4.1%

Foreign exchange earned in 1995\96

200 MP

Average annual growth rate (in real terms)

11.5 %

1988\89: Number of people formally employed

2 800

1995: Number of people formally employed

5000

1988\89: Number of people employed (formal + informal)

5 000

1995: Number of people employed (formal + informal)

27 000

 

 

Sources:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIVESTOCK ECONOMIC INDICATORS

 

1980: Meat and meat products as % of total exports

7.2 %

1994: Meat and meat products as % of total exports

3.6 %

1995 (first half): Meat and meat products as % of total exports

3.3 %

1996 (first half): Meat and meat products as % of total exports

2.3 %

 

Revenue earned

Contribution to GDP, of cattle, meat and meat products (1994\95)

3.1%

Direct Government revenue from livestock sector (1990\91)

28 MP

Direct Government revenue from livestock sector (1994\95)

23 MP

 

Expenditure

Government expenditure in livestock sector (1994\95

138.4 MP

Direct government recurrent expenditure on livestock sector, as % of GDP (1994\95)

2.3%

Increase in government recurrent expenditure in cattle sector from 1991 to 1995

61.6%

Government expenditure in CBPP campaign in 1996 & 1997 (unofficial estimate, not confirmed)

> 1 500 MP

 

Other indicators

 

Average annual growth (in real terms) of livestock sector

1.1%

Botswana Meat Commission tax payments to government (1966 to 1996)

220 MP

Botswana Meat Commission payments to beef producers (1966 to 1996) +
bonuses

1 500 MP +

162 MP

Increase in payments to producers (1994 to 1995)

19 %

Income tax payed per annum, by cattle producers to Government of Botswana (source: Botswana Gazette, 31 July 1996)

< 2 MP

 

Sources:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

 

I am indebted to the following people for their assistance, support and encouragement.

For further information and assistance with funding, please contact:

 

 

Arthur Albertson.
Tel\Fax: (27) 11 478-2707
E-mail: arthur@SHE.co.za

Okavango Peoples Wildlife Trust
(Maun, Botswana).
Tel\Fax: (267) 661-717

The WILD Foundation
International Center for Earth Concerns
2162 Baldwin Road, Ojai, CA 93023 U.S.A.
Tel: (1) 805-649-3535 Fax: (1) 805-649-1757
E-mail:wild@fishnet.net

 

 

REFERENCES

 

  1. ALBERTSON, A.A. (1997). New Fences threaten Botswana’s Wildlife. Ntsu Foundation.
  2. ALBERTSON, A.A. (1997). Northern Buffalo Fence: A survey of current critical impacts
  3. BARNES, J. (1993). Alternative uses for natural resources in Botswana: Wildlife Utilization, in Botswana in the 21st Century- Proceedings of a Symposium Organized by The Botswana Society, October 18-21, 1993.
  4. BOTSWANA MEAT COMMISSION (1996). 30 years of Excellence- Botswana Meat Commission Supplement to Mmegi / The Reporter vol.13, no.10,15-21 March 1996.
  5. BROEKHUIS, J.F. (1997). Land-use planning for Wildlife conservation and Economic Development. DWNP
  6. CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE (1996). Living conditions in Botswana: 1986 to 1994.
  7. CENTRAL STATISTICS OFFICE (1994). Tourism statistics 1993.
  8. DELOITTE & TOUCHE (1996). Financial and economic review of livestock sector in Botswana. Final Report.
  9. MANNATHOKO, M.M. (1997). Agriculture, particularly the livestock industry, as a form of sustainable land use, paper presented at workshop on Conservation of Wildlife in Botswana. Strategies for the 21st century, 15 October 1997.
  10. MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE (undated). Veterinary disease control fences: a veterinary perspective from the wildlife section, DAHP, Gaborone.
  11. MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (1997). Veterinary disease control fences: Evaluation and recommendations to reduce ecological and wildlife health impacts. Draft. DWNP, Gaborone.
  12. MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING (1996). Annual Economic Report 1996.
  13. MINISTRY OF FINANCE DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING (1997). Annual Economic Report 1997.
  14. RABOROKGWE, M.V. (1997). Cordon Fences and Wildlife Issues, paper presented at workshop on Conservation & Management of Wildlife in Botswana. Strategies for the 21st century, 15 October 1997.
  15. SELOLWANE, O.D. (1996). Silence of the Lambs? Ineffectual NGO Influence on Policy on the fencing of Botswana’s Communal Rangelands. Centre for Continuing Education, University of Botswana.
  16. TYLER, G.J. (1996). The contribution of community-based wildlife tourism to Botswana, prepared for the International Fund for Agricultural Development. International Development Centre, University of Oxford.
  17. ULG CONSULTANTS (1995). Final report aerial surveys. Report to the Department of Wildlife & National Parks, Botswana.
  18. WHITE, R. (1992). Livestock development and pastoral production on communal range-land in Botswana,The Botswana Society, Gaborone.

BACK TO OKAVANGO WILDLIFE SOCIETY

Last updated 23 March 1998 by Paal.Skjetne@chem.sintef.no