Okavango Delta Management Plan Second Round of Kgotla Meetings

Results and Analysis of the Feedback Community Consultation Process on the ODMP

Hannelore Bendsen
Research Fellow Participatory Planning

University of Botswana
Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre With support from the German Development Service (DED) August 2005

Table of Contents 1 The Process of Feedback to Communities after Initial Consultations on the Okavango Delta Management Plan in the Okavango Delta Ramsar Site ....................................................................................................................... 10 1.1 Results of stakeholder consultation during the inception phase of the ODMP ................................................................................................................ 10 1.2 Feedback consultation with communities to obtain suggestions, observations and concerns from local land users on the planned ODMP activities ................................................................................................................ 10 1.3 Attendance of the institutions responsible for the different ODMP components at the kgotla meetings ................................................................................................................ 11 1.4 Selection of villages for kgotla meetings ................................................................................................................ 11 1.5 Attendance at kgotla meeting ................................................................................................................ 11 1.6 Gender representation ................................................................................................................ 13 2 Summary of the Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Resulting from the ODMP Feedback Community Consultation Meetings ....................................................................................................................... 14 2.1 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 2: Dialogue, Communication and Networking ................................................................................................................ 14 2.1.1 Ranking of communication issues .................................................................................................... 14 2.1.2 Interest of communities in being informed about and participating in the ODMP .................................................................................................... 14 2.1.3 Stakeholder participation in the formulation of planning recommendations .................................................................................................... 14 2.1.4 Feedback to concerns raised by local stakeholders 2

.................................................................................................... 15 2.1.5 Attendance of kgotla meetings .................................................................................................... 15 2.1.6 Integrated cross-sectoral consultation approach .................................................................................................... 16 2.1.7 Presentation format at kgotla meetings .................................................................................................... 16 2.1.8 Inclusion of the private sector stakeholders in the consultation exercise .................................................................................................... 16 2.1.9 Government development priorities .................................................................................................... 16 2.1.10 Coordination of communication between components and other projects .................................................................................................... 16 2.1.11 The use of village based organisations .................................................................................................... 17 2.1.12 Role of traditional leaders .................................................................................................... 17 2.1.13 Use of local technical knowledge .................................................................................................... 17 2.1.14 Training needs .................................................................................................... 17 2.1.15 Information needs of communities .................................................................................................... 17 2.1.16 ODMP documentation .................................................................................................... 18 2.2 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 3: Research, Data Management and Participatory Planning ................................................................................................................ 19 2.2.1 Local involvement in research .................................................................................................... 19 2.2.2 Community participation in the ODMP planning process .................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 4: Hydrology and Water Resources ................................................................................................................ 20 2.3.1 Changes in the hydrological regime .................................................................................................... 20 2.3.2 Control of boat movements .................................................................................................... 20 2.3.3 Channel Blockages .................................................................................................... 21 2.3.4 Salvinia .................................................................................................... 21 2.3.5 Water quality .................................................................................................... 21 2.3.6 Water supply .................................................................................................... 21 2.3.7 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 22 2.4 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 5: Wildlife Management ................................................................................................................ 23 2.4.1 The human - elephant conflict, a key issue for communities .................................................................................................... 23 2.4.2 Increase of the elephant population and expansion of their range .................................................................................................... 23 2.4.3 Crop damage by elephants .................................................................................................... 23 2.4.4 Destruction of the buffalo fence by elephants and strict veterinary measures .................................................................................................... 24 2.4.5 Elephants threaten human lives .................................................................................................... 24 2.4.6 Destruction of the natural vegetation caused by elephants .................................................................................................... 24 2.4.7 Suggestions how to reconcile the human elephant conflict .................................................................................................... 24 4

2.4.8 Access to the Conservation and Community Trust Fund .................................................................................................... 25 2.4.9 Rhinos in communal areas .................................................................................................... 25 2.4.10 Predation of domestic stock .................................................................................................... 25 2.4.11 Compensation rates and payment procedures .................................................................................................... 25 2.4.12 Land use restrictions due to the extension of the Moremi Game Reserve .................................................................................................... 26 2.4.13 Monitoring of Tourism Hunting Activities .................................................................................................... 26 2.5 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 6: Sustainable Tourism and CBNRM ................................................................................................................ 27 2.5.1 Local communities request increased benefits from and more direct involvement in the tourism sector .................................................................................................... 27 2.5.2 Delays in the land allocation process .................................................................................................... 27 2.5.3 Lack of skills to start community tourism projects .................................................................................................... 27 2.5.4 Financial assistance for community or citizen tourism projects .................................................................................................... 28 2.5.5 Problems in existing CBNRM projects .................................................................................................... 28 2.5.6 Inadequate distribution of benefits generated by the tourism sector .................................................................................................... 28 2.5.7 Possible negative impacts of tourism on the Delta ecosystem .................................................................................................... 28 2.5.8 Location of tourism activities and allocation of CHAs to communities .................................................................................................... 28

2.6 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 7: Sustainable Fisheries Utilisation and Management ................................................................................................................ 29 2.6.1 Significance of fish in the household economy .................................................................................................... 29 2.6.2 Sustainability of fishing practices .................................................................................................... 29 2.6.3 Training .................................................................................................... 29 2.6.4 New fishing regulations .................................................................................................... 29 2.6.5 Access to fishing grounds .................................................................................................... 29 2.6.6 Fish stock assessment .................................................................................................... 30 2.7 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 8: Vegetation Resources Management ................................................................................................................ 31 2.7.1 Impact of low attendance of representatives of the vegetation component in the consultation process .................................................................................................... 31 2.7.2 Significance of vegetation for the livelihoods of rural households .................................................................................................... 31 2.7.3 Substance use of vegetation resources .................................................................................................... 31 2.7.4 Commercialisation of vegetation resources .................................................................................................... 31 2.7.5 Control of veld product utilisation .................................................................................................... 31 2.7.6 Sustainable harvesting techniques .................................................................................................... 32 2.7.7 Fire as a traditional management tool .................................................................................................... 32 2.7.8 Marketing of veld products

.................................................................................................... 32 2.8 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 9: Physical Planning ................................................................................................................ 33 2.8.1 Service provision to non-gazetted settlements .................................................................................................... 33 2.9 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 10: Land Use Planning and Land Management ................................................................................................................ 34 2.9.1 Allocation procedures .................................................................................................... 34 2.9.2 Allocation Regulations .................................................................................................... 34 2.9.3 Unclear responsibility .................................................................................................... 34 2.9.4 Repossession of undeveloped land .................................................................................................... 34 2.9.5 Cadastral record keeping system .................................................................................................... 35 2.9.6 Involvement of local institutions .................................................................................................... 35 2.9.7 Allocation of land in non-gazetted settlements .................................................................................................... 35 2.9.8 Transfer of land from citizens to foreigners .................................................................................................... 35 2.9.9 Monitoring of lease specifications .................................................................................................... 35 2.9.10 Size of residential plots in rural settlements .................................................................................................... 35 2.9.11 New restrictive allocation regulation in the Okavango Panhandle (500 m rule) .................................................................................................... 35 2.9.12 Land certificates for traditional flood recession farming .................................................................................................... 37

2.10 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 11: Waste Management ................................................................................................................ 39 2.10.1 Litter .................................................................................................... 39 2.10.2 Solid waste collection .................................................................................................... 39 2.10.3 Waste Management Strategy .................................................................................................... 39 2.10.4 Monitoring of waste management in tourism camps in the delta .................................................................................................... 39 2.11 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 12: Sustainable Livestock Management ................................................................................................................ 40 2.11.1 Maintenance and enforcement of the buffalo fence .................................................................................................... 40 2.11.2 Strict enforcement of veterinary regulations (killing of cattle in the WMA) .................................................................................................... 40 2.11.3 Compensation rates for livestock killed for trespassing into the WMA .................................................................................................... 40 2.11.4 Lack of veterinary services and livestock marketing facilities .................................................................................................... 40 2.11.5 Location and impact of the veterinary fence .................................................................................................... 40 2.11.6 Border fence .................................................................................................... 40 Annex 1: List of contact persons, second round of kgotla meetings ............................................................................................................... 41 Annex 2: Attendance of the ODMP Component's Representatives at the Second Round of Kgotla Meetings ............................................................................................................... 42

Annex 3: Population Break Down of Attendees at the Second Round of ODMP Kgotla Meetings ............................................................................................................... 43

The Process of Feedback to Communities after Initial Consultations on the Okavango Delta Management Plan in the Okavango Delta Ramsar Site

1.1

Results of stakeholder consultation during the inception phase of the ODMP The results of the introductory round of kgotla meetings held at the end of 2003 and the beginning of 2004 were documented, analysed and grouped into hot spot areas by the Participatory Planner. All twelve ODMP partner institutions were asked to include these issues in their component activity plans which appear in the Inception Report. Contributions were analysed by the Participatory Planner to assess whether there was satisfactory consideration of stakeholder concerns. Where this was not adequate, suggestions were forwarded to and discussed with the Chief Technical Advisor and with the partner institutions. An analysis of stakeholder participation in the design and inception phase of the ODMP was carried out and has been included in the Inception Report. The results of this analysis were used to guide the second round of consultative community meetings. 1.2 Feedback consultation with communities to obtain suggestions, observations and concerns from local land users on the planned ODMP activities After the Inception Report was accepted by the ODMP Steering Committee on the 25th February 2005, communities were given feedback on the planned ODMP activities. Between the 31st January and the 12th April 2005, 43 kgotla meetings were held in all the major villages and remote area settlements in the Okavango Delta Ramsar site. The objective was to inform the communities of what activities had been planned and included in the Inception Report by the different project partner institutions, taking into account the issues that local land users had raised during the introductory round of kgotla meetings. The kgotla meetings provided a forum for exchange of views between resource users and managers and helped to build consensus on key elements of the planning process and of the approach to ensure sustainable use of the natural resources. In every meeting the ODMP Outreach and Information Officer or a member of the Project Management Group outlined the progress of the ODMP during the inception phase. The Participatory Planner from HOORC presented a summary of the major issues and key areas of conflict in natural resources management that had resulted from an analysis of the first round of consultative meetings with communities. Representatives of the different ODMP partner institutions outlined the activities that had been designed to deal with these hot spots. The presentations were followed by an extensive question and answer session. Community representatives that will function as links among the ODMP Project Management Group, the partner institutions and the communities were elected in all villages (see Annex 1, List of contact persons).

10

1.3

Attendance of the institutions responsible for the different ODMP components at the kgotla meetings The consultation team was meant to be composed of one representative of each institution responsible for an ODMP component. Annex 2, Attendance of the components representatives at the second round of kgotla meetings, shows that this aim was not achieved. It needs to be borne in mind that the presence of the North West District Councils Physical Planners, whose activities are confined to Shakawe village, were not expected at any of the other kgotla meetings. Seven of the component institutions showed great commitment and were present at all or most of the meetings. The Department of Animal Health and Production attended only 42% of the meetings because it was simultaneously engaged in carrying out a district-wide cattle tagging (bola) campaign. The Environmental Health Department of the NWDC was present at only 33% of the meetings. The representatives of the vegetation component had chosen not to attend the kgotla meetings but held consultation workshops with representatives of CBOs and resource user groups instead. The low number of vegetation issues mentioned during the kgotla meetings reflects the absence of representatives of this component. It is hoped that the results of this independent consultation exercise will be documented and made available to the rest of the project team and that the vegetation component team will work jointly with other project partners in future. Some project partners like Tawana Land Board, the Department of Water Affairs and the NWDC Environmental Health Department also attached a sub-district representative of their institution to the consultation team. The presence of sub-district staff was welcomed and even requested by some communities as the local officers were often in a better position to clarify issues that were causing concern. 1.4 Selection of villages for kgotla meetings In an attempt to involve as much of the ODMP target population as possible in all stages of the planning process the number of kgotla meetings was increased from 33 in the first consultation round to 43. Time factors and limited human resources dictated the approach used in the consultation process. Selection of locations at which kgotla meetings were to be held was based on a combination of criteria. The village had to be located within the revised Ramsar site boundary. All gazetted villages with more than 500 inhabitants, all settlements that fall under the Remote Area Development (RAD) policy, and some of the small settlements located in the delta proper or in the floodplains close to the Buffalo Fence and along the ephemeral river outlets south of the delta system were chosen as kgotla meeting points. Furthermore, some settlements located far from a major village were consulted separately as people in theses remote areas would not have been able to attend a kgotla meeting held nearby. 1.5 Attendance at kgotla meeting A total of 3,343 people attended the second round of ODMP kgotla meetings (See Annex 3, Population Breakdown of Attendees at the Second Round of ODMP Kgotla Meetings). In the introductory consultation process, the project managed to reach only 1,841 people through traditional kgotla meetings. The main factors responsible for the substantial increase of the attendance were the increase of the total number of meetings by almost one third and improved promotion of the meetings. Prior to the kgotla meetings, a one week workshop was held for 160 community representatives (CBOs, traditional leaders, representatives of resource user groups and NGOs) from throughout the Ramsar site. This took place at Shakawe, and community representatives were 11

informed both about the progress of the ODMP and the intentions of the new Wetland Biodiversity Project. The aim of the workshop was to determine the extent to which communities can contribute to the development and implementation of the ODMP and the assessment and monitoring of changes in biodiversity in the delta and to determine the level of understanding of key resource management aspects. The schedule of the kgotla meetings was given to all participants and thus was much better circulated than when using only the Tribal Administration channels. Furthermore the ODMP Outreach and Information Officer announced the meeting often a day earlier but always a few hours before the meeting, using a portable loudspeaker system. 122,372 people, that is 98% of the entire population of Ngamiland District (district total 124,712 people, according to the 2001 population census), live within the Ramsar site boundary. 2.7% of the target population attended the feedback kgotla meetings and has been directly involved in the consultation process. However, one should not forget that the traditional kgotla system is built on its multiplication effect. Those attending kgotla meetings pass on the information to others who could not participate. As was pointed out in the report on the introductory round of kgotla meetings, the attendance at the kgotla meetings is directly related to the population size of the village. Table 1 shows that attendance at kgotla meetings decreases drastically with increased village size. The attendance rates suggest that in settlements up to 1000 inhabitants the kgotla still functions reasonably well as a traditional forum for the discussion and dissemination of information.
Table 1: People attending kgotla meetings (second round) in relation to village Size Number of Attendance Village size villages rate 15 19.8% 500 14 > 500 11.8% 1000 10 > 1000 6.2% 2000 2 > 2000 2.8% 5000 2 > 5000 0.3%

As pointed out in the analysis of the first round of kgotla meetings, the attendance of kgotla meetings in the district capital Maun (43,776 inhabitants) is very poor. Only 0.1% of the population was present at the kgotla meeting. As 36% of the population of the Ramsar site lives in Maun, additional means of communication might need to be used to propagate enhanced stakeholder participation in the ODMP. There are various reasons why people refrain from attending traditional gatherings like kgotla meetings. Many people have jobs and cannot leave work to attend traditional meetings on a regular basis. In Maun and in the sub-district capital Gumare, a relatively high percentage of the population are government employees who do not originate from Ngamiland and hence are not motivated to attend a kgotla meeting, where natural resource and land use issues are discussed, as they feel not directly affected by those matters. Despite the low attendance, it should not be overlooked that the kgotla meeting at Maun had also the function to involve the newly installed Paramount Chief, the highest traditional authority in Ngamiland, in this major management plan for her area of jurisdiction. To complement the feedback kgotla meetings and to reach people in the large preurbanised villages and in the numerous scattered lands area settlements and cattle posts 12

where 33% of the population of Ngamiland lives, the press (like Ngami Times) but in particular the radio, could be used as alternative complementary media. The high illiteracy rate in Ngamiland (36%) needs to be borne in mind when selecting the means of communication. 1.6 Gender representation The reason why gender representation was more evenly distributed during the feedback consultation process in comparison to the introductory kgotla meetings could not be established clearly. Female representation rose from 33% to 45% of all attendance while the rate of male participation dropped from 67% to 55%. The use of a loudspeaker contributed to the higher female attendance as according to the traditional task division women spend more time in the village. Men might not have been able to attend the kgotla meetings as they are often out of the village fishing, tending cattle or engaged in formal employment. Unfortunately only very few women spoke out during the kgotla meetings. Most of the concerns addressed by women were related to environmental health issues (littering), veld product harvesting, marketing of crafts and problems in the land allocation process.

13

Summary of the Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Resulting from the ODMP Feedback Community Consultation Meetings Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 2: Dialogue, Communication and Networking Institution responsible: National Conservation Strategy (Coordinating) Agency (DEA)

2.1

2.1.1 Ranking of communication issues The effort of the ODMP team to make stakeholder consultation an integral part of the planning process, is recognised by the communities. In comparison to the first round of kgotla meetings, where 11.4% of all concerns were related to poor communication and lack of feedback, the frequency with which communication was raised as an issue dropped to 4.5% during the second round of kgotla meetings. 2.1.2 Interest of communities in being informed about and participating in the ODMP Communities appreciated that they got feedback on the concerns they had raised during the introductory kgotla meetings. Already during the first consultation round, many statements reflected the eagerness of villagers to participate in the planning process. People stated that: Consultation is important in a democracy, that We are happy to have an active role in the plan and that We are thankful that government has changed its approach, is acknowledging our expertise and gives us a chance to have an input into the plan before decisions are made. Even though people felt that their concerns had been well captured and summarised by the Participatory Planner, they believed many problems are area-specific and should be addressed by the ODMP at village level. Recommendation: For the selection of pilot project areas to test different intervention options, the following criteria could be used: The fact that a particular land use problem has been raised as a key concern in a village and that people expressed interest in participating in a pilot project. 2.1.3 Stakeholder participation in the formulation of planning recommendations Local land users requested that in the ODMP planning process stakeholder views should be considered when proposals are still at a draft stage. It was suggested that especially where planning recommendations come from consultants, who might not be well familiar with local conditions, peoples views should be heard before any zoning decisions or new regulations are adopted. People have learned from past experiences that allocation restrictions, like the ones imposed by the Okavango Panhandle Management Plan, can have a negative impact on their traditional land use practices. Recommendation: Consultation should continue throughout the ODMP project and suggestions from the communities should be an integral part of the plan. 14

2.1.4 Feedback to concerns raised by local stakeholders When communities complained that government did not take their opinions and concerns seriously they were not specifically referring to the ODMP project. As an example, the workshop held in 2002 on the elephant management strategy was mentioned, where local leaders, representatives of community based organisations and NGOs were invited. People complained that they never got any feedback from this consultative meeting where many suggestions had been made on how to solve the conflict. The negative experiences with past consultation processes created a deep feeling of mistrust that genuine stakeholder participation would also not be employed in the ODMP planning process. It will be a challenge to the communication component to eliminate these fears and prove that the ODMP is taking stakeholder participation seriously. 2.1.5 Attendance of kgotla meetings In small and medium size settlements the kgotla meetings were well attended whereas in the larger communities the turn out was very low (see Table 1). It seems that the kgotla as traditional information dissemination and discussion forum gets less effective with increasing urbanisation level. One speaker attributed the low attendance to the loss of power of the traditional leaders. In the district capital Maun (43,776 inhabitants, 2001 census), only 0.1% of the population was present at the kgotla meeting. As 34% of the population of the Ramsar site lives in Maun, additional means of communication are need to be used to propagate enhanced stakeholder participation in the ODMP. There are various reasons why people refrain from attending traditional gatherings like kgotla meetings. Many people have jobs and cannot leave work to attend the meetings on a regular basis. In Maun and in the sub district capital Gumare, a relatively high percentage of the population are government employees who do not originate from Ngamiland and hence are not motivated to participate in kgotla meetings, where natural resource and land use issues are discussed, as they feel not directly affected by these matters. Despite the low attendance, the function of the kgotla meeting at Maun as a means of involving the Paramount Chief, the highest traditional authority in Ngamiland, in this major planning exercise affecting her area of jurisdiction should not be overlooked. In small localities with less than 500 inhabitants, where 33% of the population of Ngamiland live, attendance at the kgotla meetings was very good. 20% of the population was present at the kgotla. In settlements up to 1000 attendance is still good (12%) and even in the villages with up to 2000 people the kgotla is still functioning satisfactorily as an information dissemination body. Recommendation: To complement the information dissemination process and reach people in the large urbanised villages and in some of the scattered lands area settlements and cattle posts the press and the radio could be used as alternative complementary media. In the three large villages of the Ramsar site, Maun, Gumare and Shakawe, the individual ward kgotlas could be used to reach out to people more effectively. The high illiteracy rate in Ngamiland (36%) needs to be borne in mind when selecting the means of communication. The use of illustrative posters might be a good alternative to provide information on some of the standard questions frequently raised by stakeholders. 15

2.1.6 Integrated cross-sectoral consultation approach The communities had experienced a lack of communication and coordination among the different departments working in their area. Hence the integrated approach used by the ODMP was appreciated. Those component representatives that were not present during all the kgotla meetings (mainly the Vegetation, Waste Management and Livestock component staff) were requested to come back to make separate presentations. 2.1.7 Presentation format at kgotla meetings It is remarkable to see how much patience people had to wait for other community members to turn up for the meeting and how attentively participants listened to the elaborate presentations made by the ODMP team. In a few instances complaints were raised that the presentations were too complicated and complex for the education level of the general public. Some attendees admitted that they had not been able to follow the elaborate descriptions of the activities of all the ODMP components. Most of us are illiterate and understand only slowly was a comment made by a village elder. The amount of information confused some of the traditional land users. In two instances some members of the community confessed that they were not able to speak Setswana well enough to follow the deliberations. Recommendation: These experiences reflect the urgent need to for a communication specialist to translate the information into an easily understandable outreach and communication format that includes versions in all languages used in the study area. 2.1.8 Inclusion of the private sector stakeholders in the consultation exercise It has been suggested by the communities to have joint ODMP meetings with representatives of the private sector as We all use the river and have an impact on its resources. Most of the tour operators, who have their camps in remote areas, would not learn about a kgotla meeting announced only through the traditional channels. They need to be invited separately to be able to participate jointly with the community in the ODMP discussions. Only one tour operator, who learned about the meeting from the ODMP team, was present at the kgotla. Recommendation: Especially in workshops for representatives of the different stakeholder groups, like the one held in Shakawe, representatives of the tourism sector should be invited in order to discuss conflicting issues concerning the use of natural resources in a more objective manner. 2.1.9 Government development priorities Government was accused of being more interested in the protection of the delta than in the livelihoods and the well-being of the people who live from the natural resources of the Okavango Delta. For example, the lack of action to control the rapidly increasing elephant population and to solve the accelerated human-elephant conflict was most frequently mentioned. 2.1.10 Coordination of communication between components and other projects It will be an important task of the information component to streamline the information and outreach activities of the different ODMP components to avoid contradictions and 16

duplication in efforts. To address this issue a workshop for the district extension staff is planned. It might also be necessary to coordinate the activities of other projects with similar intentions that are working in the Ramsar site (like the Every River has its People project and the work of the newly established Building capacity for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Okavango Delta project financed by GEF. Some of these projects have started to carry out some of their outreach activities in cooperation with the ODMP. 2.1.11 The use of village based organisations Especially when the ODMP will start to carry out pilot projects in specific areas, it is suggested to mobilise the villages and form either working groups or use the existing village based organisations like the VDC, the VTC and other particular user group committees such as Fishermen Associations, Farmers Committees, etc. to discuss specific issues and monitor effectiveness and unwanted impacts of particular interventions. 2.1.12 Role of traditional leaders The important role that traditional leaders had in the past in natural resource management was highlighted. It was stated that some of the conservation regulations and laws introduced by government oppressed the traditional land users. Already during the first round of kgotla meetings people had requested that the environmental laws should be translated into Setswana to be more easily understood by the general public. 2.1.13 Use of local technical knowledge Local land users regarded their lifelong experience and profound knowledge of the natural resources of the delta as crucial in the planning process: We know better than the educated people what is happening in the delta as we lived here since many generations. They declared their willingness to share this traditional knowledge on the use and conservation of the natural resources with the ODMP team. It is important that the communication component makes active use of this wealth of knowledge, by selecting representatives of communities that hold expertise in specific fields to be members and advisors in the different task force groups and pilot projects. Community members expressed their willingness to assist in the identification of issues that need to be addressed in the ODMP. 2.1.14 Training needs People realised that they need more technical knowledge and education to become part of the planning process and requested for educational workshops at local level. Some people felt that such workshops would only benefit the community at large if they are held in the village. Another suggestion was to use the Nxaraga Rural Training Centre for outreach and training activities on natural resource management. 2.1.15 Information needs of communities An analysis of the comments made by community members revealed the numerous speculations about the reasons for changes in the hydrological regime and alterations in the flood distribution pattern of the Okavango Delta. These misconceptions and accusations need to be addressed by the communication component. Stakeholders need to be informed about the combination of natural and anthropogenic factors that have contributed to hydrological changes such as flow reductions and drying up of certain 17

parts of the wetland. Research findings need to be translated into an easily understandable format and made available to the general public. In response to all the questions that arose from the kgotla meeting, the HOORC hydrologist developed a fact sheet that provides answers to most of the questions. Even though the Director of the Department of Water Affairs approved the fact sheet, the hydrological component staff seemed not to be in the position to publicise the information. Recommendation: It is important for the information component to bring the fact sheet in a user friendly format and distribute it. 2.1.16 ODMP documentation All stakeholder groups stressed that they would only be able to contribute to the project in a meaningful way if they were provided with more detailed information on the anticipated activities (project document). During the last consultative meeting the tourism sector representatives stressed that a project of this magnitude needs to have a communication specialist who could up-date stakeholders on the progress of the project. The installation of a website was suggested as one possible communication medium.

18

2.2

Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 3: Research, Data Management and Participatory Planning Institution responsible: Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre, UB

Only very few comments (0.6%) referred to research and participatory planning. 2.2.1 Local involvement in research In the Samochima area, where a crocodile research project was being carried out under the supervision of the University of Stellenbosch, concern was raised that the team consisted only of foreign students. People requested that relevant government institutions should always be provided with the results of all research activities that are carried out in the district. It was stressed that more Batswana should be involved in research. The legality of the practice adopted by Stellenbosch University to charge research volunteers fees to participate in the research work was questioned. 2.2.2 Community participation in the ODMP planning process Local land users showed great interest in participating fully in the planning process. They requested that the draft findings of the different consultancy studies should be discussed at local level before final planning conclusions are drawn. People appreciated the fact that they had been consulted, but they were worried that most ODMP activities did not offer immediate solutions to the problems they had raised.

19

2.3

Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 4: Hydrology and Water Resources Institution responsible: Department of Water Affairs

Concerns related to the hydrology of the delta were a key issue raised by communities during the kgotla meetings (15.8 % of all the comments). After the human wildlife conflict, it was the issue group most frequently mentioned by traditional users (see Table: Issue Frequency According to Components). 2.3.1 Changes in the hydrological regime Many speakers had observed long term alterations in the hydrological regime of the Okavango Delta and expected an answer to their question as to why the water did not reach their area any longer. Local land users had experienced that with the reduced water flow, natural resources like fish, river reeds and other veld products that they need for subsistence, had become scarce. Speculations were made about the factors that might have contributed to the reduced water flow, the shifts in the flood distribution pattern and the drying up of some parts of the wetland and its outlets. The changes were attributed to vegetation blockages, to the spreading of the aquatic weed Salvinia molesta, to flow interventions Botswana Government had carried out in the past, to the construction of pole bridges by the Department of Tsetse Fly Control and by safari operators, to small earth bunds used in molapo cultivation, to the accelerated demand of up stream users and physical barriers built in neighbouring countries. Only very few members of the communities identified climatic change, resulting in the lack of rainfall in the Angolan highlands, as the key driver of diminishing water levels. The local communities regarded the development of a hydrological model as an activity that did not directly address the concerns they had raised during the introductory round of kgotla meetings. A question such as Will the computer model restore the flow in the delta? clearly indicates that people want pragmatic solutions to immediate problems and are less interested in long term monitoring of changes in the flow conditions, although as stated above, explanations of the reasons for changes are wanted. 2.3.2 Control of boat movements The increasing motor boat traffic was seen as a threat to people and to the ecology of the delta. Communities requested stricter regulations on boat movements and on the type of boats permitted in the Ramsar site. They pointed out that fast moving boats are dangerous to fishermen who use traditional dug out canoes as a means of transport. In this respect driving courses and the introduction of driving licences for motor boat operators were suggested. Furthermore, people expressed concern about the negative environmental impact of motor boats on endangered bird species like the African Skimmer. They had observed that the waves of big boats cause erosion of the river banks and destroy the nesting sites of birds and crocodiles on the sandbanks. Some speakers referred to the findings in the Panhandle Management Plan which indicated that the formation of waves was not simply related to the size, but more to the shape of the boat and to the weight carried. It was pointed out that despite the fact that boats have to be registered in a particular zone, movement regulations and spraying of boats prior to translocation are not strictly enforced. Hence the danger of infestation of the Okavango system with aquatic weeds (in particular Salvinia molesta) remains high. It was felt that outsiders would not know

20

and sometimes not be prepared to obey local regulations. Hence rigid control and even limitation of the increasing influx of foreign boats was recommended. 2.3.3 Channel Blockages Channel blockages were reported by the local land users from various parts of the delta. People were not satisfied with the explanation of the Department of Water Affairs that its responsibility is limited to the monitoring of the water flow. Currently the DWA only carries out channel clearing measures in order to get access to its water gauges. People felt that maintenance of the Okavango Delta as a wetland, which includes the restoration of the water flow, should also be one of the responsibilities of the DWA. Furthermore, the opening up of navigable channels to facilitate access for communal users to their fishing and gathering areas is regarded by some community members as a Government task. The communities stressed that they would like to be more involved in identifying channel blockages and finding employment in vegetation clearing activities. Other speakers warned that by clearing vegetation blockages the flow in the main channel would be increased while adjacent shallow melapo might dry up. Some people feared that human interventions might have no, or even negative impacts on the flow distribution. As examples, the Boro dredging and the Thaoge restoration scheme were mentioned as both having failed to increase water flow. The need for an environmental impact study prior to flow interventions was recommended. 2.3.4 Salvinia Most communities in the north western part of the delta had never seen Salvinia molesta and asked for more information about the impact of this alien species. Salvinia started to invade the east side of the delta in the 1980s. In the affected communities people questioned the effectiveness of the biological control measures presently used by the DWA. Concerns were also raised about the cost efficiency and possible ecological impact of the introduction of a weevil from Australia. It was felt that the employment of local labour, to physically remove the Salvinia mats, would be a more appropriate method. From the various questions asked it became apparent that communities would like to know more about how the rapid spread of the plant could be avoided and controlled. In this respect stricter control of boat movements was requested. 2.3.5 Water quality The threat of water pollution by inadequate management of fluid waste in the villages, from houseboats and possibly also in tourism camps were regarded as potential dangers. The application of fertilisers to vegetable gardens, but mainly by big irrigation schemes in neighbouring countries upstream, which might cause water pollution was identified as a potential threat to the water quality in the delta. The DWA was requested to bring up such issues at OKACOM level. A locally confined pollution problem caused by a water treatment plant was raised in Makalamabedi village. In small settlements which depend on open water sources for human consumption, elephants that use the same water source were held responsible for the deteriorating water quality. 2.3.6 Water supply Great concern about the lack of water supply for human consumption was raised in many of the small, non gazetted settlements where one third of the district population lives. Most of these settlements are located at the edges of the floodplains. People who get their drinking water from nearby rivers or melapo complained about poor water quality causing diseases, about the danger of crocodiles they are exposed to and about the long distances over which they carry water especially when the flood recedes. 21

Villages located near the lower Boro well-field, which had been developed for Maun water supply, asked to be allowed to use these boreholes. Remote dryland settlements, like Tsodilo, requested to be connected to the district water supply system. In larger villages like Etsha and Nokaneng the supply of water to individual homes was brought up. 2.3.7 Recommendations To avoid the Department of Water Affairs being put under political pressure to carry out interventions in the delta that are based on misconceptions, it is essential that communities and their representatives are provided with information based on facts from scientific investigations. In response to the questions raised by communities, the HOORC hydrologist, Dr. Wolski, has compiled a hydrological fact sheet, which could form the basis for information dissemination by the ODMP communication component.

22

2.4

Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 5: Wildlife Management Institution responsible: Department of Wildlife and National Parks

2.4.1 The human - elephant conflict, a key issue for communities The Department of Wildlife and National Parks is the institution to which most concerns (32.8% of all statements) of communities were directed. Issues related to problem animals were the most frequently mentioned land use conflicts raised by local stakeholders. People felt that the activities planned by the DWNP under the ODMP were not directly addressing their concerns as they will only culminate in studies and management plans. Local land users believed that there was enough evidence that the human-wildlife conflict was increasing rapidly and demanded a more action oriented approach to alleviate the problem. People had the impression that government was not taking their contribution seriously. During a workshop on the human-elephant conflict, community representatives had come up with proposals of how to deal with the problem. No feedback had been given to communities thereafter and none of these suggestions had been implemented so far. To emphasise their appeal, farmers suggested Moving a thousand elephants to the capital and to the major villages in the south to make decision makers more aware of the gravity of the conflict. 2.4.2 Increase of the elephant population and expansion of their range The rapidly increasing elephant population was considered to be the main factor for the augmented human-elephant interaction. Community members complained that elephants expanded their range far beyond the Wildlife Management Areas inside the buffalo fence into communal land. Concern was raised that the number of elephants had increased, from 80,000 in 1998 to 120,000 in 2004, causing more and more damage to the natural vegetation, to the buffalo fence and to farmers property. Local land users stated that They could not live with so many elephants in communal areas. People had experienced that the elephants had lost their fear of humans and intruded into communal areas as they were not afraid of being shot. People explained that humans and wildlife interact more frequently in the dry season when the water sources away from the delta have dwindled. 2.4.3 Crop damage by elephants Farmers in most villages at the edges of the delta complained vehemently about frequent crop damage caused by elephants (10.2% of all statements). They stressed the importance of crop production as one of their main sources of livelihood. In order to continue growing their own food and not become dependant on government hand outs, local farmers pressured government to take appropriate measures to solve the conflict. Communities like Ditshiping, Mababe and Sankuyo, located in the Wildlife Management Areas of the delta, are extremely exposed to elephant invasion and have almost given up ploughing. However, the fact that they get some income from tourism related activities under the Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM) Programme has raised their level of tolerance to co-exist with large, potentially dangerous animals. Those communities that have not been granted the right to administer a Controlled Hunting Area (CHA) and do not derive any direct benefit from wildlife but have to bear the costs of living with wild animals, insisted on the relocation and decimation of conflict animals and requested adequate compensation for the losses with which local land users are faced. It was even suggested that the income made by CBNRM community trusts could be used to settle compensation payments. 23

2.4.4 Destruction of the buffalo fence by elephants and strict veterinary measures Local land users reported that the veterinary cordon fence was constantly broken down and trespassed by the large elephant population. They complained that as the Department of Animal Health and Production was unable to maintain the fence, domestic stock that crossed into the FMD infection zone had to be killed and destroyed. Communities found the rationale behind the strict veterinary regulation difficult to understand and were unsatisfied with the low compensation rates paid in these instances. Livestock owners considered it unfair that their cattle had to be shot when found in the Wildlife Management Area, whereas buffalos that entered the communal land were merely driven back by helicopter into the delta. Farmers got the impression that government was more interested in the protection of the environment than in the well-being of the local residents. Recommendation: In this context it is suggested that a fact sheet be compiled and distributed to the communities that explains the rationale behind the enforcement of the veterinary measures. 2.4.5 Elephants threaten human lives Instances where elephants have threatened humans at their homes, at the lands and at the cattle posts or even killed people have become more frequent. Particularly women who collect veld products in the bush for food or house building mentioned that they felt unsafe or even reported unpleasant encounters with elephants. Communal land users appealed that the Problem Animal Control Unit should assist them to either trans-locate or shoot elephants that have become a menace to people. Furthermore the payment of compensation to the family of a person killed by elephants, hippos or crocodiles was requested. 2.4.6 Destruction of the natural vegetation caused by elephants People described that elephants are causing severe damage to the natural vegetation. The impact human land use has on the flora of the delta was regarded as minor in comparison to the alteration of the vegetation cover caused by elephants. In some instances even channel blockages were blamed on elephants that had pushed trees into the river, blocking the water flow. 2.4.7 Suggestions how to reconcile the human elephant conflict Most communal land users held the opinion that the number of elephants in general had surpassed the carrying capacity of the range and had to be reduced either by culling or increasing the hunting quota. Many local land users stated That they cannot live with so many elephants in the communal areas and demanded their relocation to wildlife management or protected areas and a clear division between communal land use and wildlife. Traditional land users had observed that the increasing number of fences (border fence and veterinary fences) hampered the free movement of these large mammals. The redistribution of elephants by providing watering points for them in dryland areas far away from human land use activities or by allowing them to move to neighbouring countries was suggested. Recommendation: The natural migration routes of elephants have to be taken into consideration using remote sensing materials complemented with local knowledge to 24

establish movement corridors for elephants. However it needs to be borne in mind that elephant movements are driven by the availability of food and water and the fluctuation of the natural conditions. 2.4.8 Access to the Conservation and Community Trust Fund Many questions were raised relating to the different funds derived from the sale of the stockpile of ivory and earmarked for development and conservation projects in communities faced with the human-elephant conflict. As the application procedures seem to be quite complex, it appears that interested communities will need, apart from detailed written guidelines, assistance from the DWNP staff or from consultants to successfully access these funds. Recommendation: A fact sheet should be produced, explaining the application procedures and listing institutions or consultancy companies that can provide help to communities to access these funds. 2.4.9 Rhinos in communal areas In the area around Lake Ngami (Tsao, Sehithwa, Bothatogo) people felt threatened by a rhino that that had moved into the communal area and requested the Department of Wildlife and National Parks to move it back into the game reserve or the wildlife management area. 2.4.10 Predation of domestic stock Other burning problems raised by communities was predation of domestic stock (11.3% of all statements), mainly by lions but also by smaller predators. Communities called for an increase of the compensation rates for losses of domestic animals to market value. Local livestock owners did not agree with the selection of predators that had been included in the compensation list, which implies that farmers can claim compensation if these animals cause damage to their livestock. Even though communities appreciated that the cheetah was added to the compensation list, they felt that this species was not considered a main threat in the district. On the other hand, farmers are faced regularly with stock losses by hyenas, which are not eligible for compensation. People urged the DWNP to consider the inclusion of small predators such as hyena and jackal, which cause a lot of damage, in the compensation list. 2.4.11 Compensation rates and payment procedures The inadequate compensation rates for crop losses by elephants and hippos and for livestock killed by predators was a main concern to local land users, raised in 5.9% of all statements. Farmers felt that the losses they faced were way above the compensation payments and requested government to consider increasing the rates to the full market value of their crops or their livestock. The communities were not pleased to hear from the DWNP staff said that due to shortage of funds government does not intend to raise the damage payments. It was explained that the payments are only meant to alleviate the impacts of damage by wildlife but do not intend to replace what has been lost and that the word compensation (which means: replacement of the value) will be replaced by the term ex gratia (which means: out of kindness). Community members gave many examples describing the complicated, slow damage assessment and payment procedures and appealed for a revision of the present practices. Many suggestions were made how the process could be improved. Generally farmers

25

would like to have clear guidelines on the different compensation rates used by the DWNP and the DAH. Especially in remote areas, where the wildlife conflict is most pronounced, people faced problems in reporting the damage incidence in time (within a week) as there is frequently no wildlife office in the vicinity and no public transport available. Often, when the officers are not able to assess the damage promptly, farmers have difficulties in proving the evidence as the tracks of the intruding wildlife became faint. To overcome this problem it was advocated to let the Agricultural Demonstrator or the Tribal Police Officer handle the damage assessment. Some affected farmers described that they had waited a year or more to receive the compensation. Others had given up altogether in claiming their losses as the travelling costs involved in the procedures outweighed the expected payments. In some cases the DWNP officers were criticised for not taking their job and the problems of farmers seriously. The community members were relieved to hear that to speed up the process, the ex gratia payments will now be directly made by DWNP and not by the NWDC as in the past. This will be done at the kgotla in all villages following announcements. People urged the DWNP to inform the community well in advance of their arrival and give them enough time to come to the kgotla to receive their payments and bring their cases forward. Recommendation: A fact sheet with all the compensation rates for crops, livestock and other assets and the procedural steps to follow when claiming should be distributed to every kgotla to inform the affected farmers about their rights. 2.4.12 Land use restrictions due to the extension of the Moremi Game Reserve Problems brought up by communities at the south eastern edge of the Delta were the unclear boundary between the communal areas and the extended Moremi Game Reserve and mistreatment of community members by government officials, e.g. when suspected poaching or trespassing the boundary. From the motions raised in several communities bordering the reserve it appeared that the extension of the protected area conflicted with their traditional fishing and gathering rights. Recommendation: It might be interesting to consider the latest management planning proposal for Moremi, worked out by the Durudec Wildlife Conservation project, which recognises some traditional user rights at the reserve boundaries. 2.4.13 Monitoring of Tourism Hunting Activities Communities around the Lake Ngami, which used to be a bird hunting concession but has recently been declared a bird sanctuary, had observed a decline in certain bird species (guinea fowls). People stressed that the tourism hunting activities need to be closely monitored to avoid negative environmental impacts.

26

2.5

Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 6: Sustainable Tourism and CBNRM Institutions responsible: Department of Tourism, North West District Council Tourism Office

Issues related to the tourism component have been rated as number four on the frequency list of all the problems mentioned by communities. 7.5% of all the concerns were related to tourism or Community Based Natural Resource Management (CBNRM). 2.5.1 Local communities request increased benefits from and more direct involvement in the tourism sector Communities realised that the tourism sector offers new alternative income opportunities. However, they stressed that at present they are not benefiting adequately from tourism. It was observed that like most businesses in Botswana the tourism industry was also dominated by foreigners. Communities would like to see more jobs created for Ngamiland residents in this sector and showed interest in starting their own tourism ventures. People demanded that safari companies (like Okavango Houseboats) should not be allowed to employ foreigners for jobs that could be filled by qualified local staff. 2.5.2 Delays in the land allocation process Land Board was blamed for holding up all local initiatives to enter the tourism sector. The difficult, long, bureaucratic procedures to obtain land rights for a community projects, the insufficient transparency in the land allocation process and the lack of Government support for local business incentive were considered severe impediments for communities to enter the tourism sector. People reported that in some cases the approval process to start a tourism project was pending since several years as advice of many different Government departments, DLUPU and the TAC was required. It was feared that an allocation ban might be enforced by the ODMP like during the Okavango Panhandle Management Plan process that would bring all developments to a halt and were relieved to learn that this was not going to happen. 2.5.3 Lack of skills to start community tourism projects Many critical voices came from communities already involved in tourism activities. They identified the lack of basic education and specialised skills as main obstacles in running community tourism enterprise successfully. People realised that They need training in tourism before they can venture into this business successfully and that they have to send their children to school to have a brighter future as they could find formal employment in the tourism sector. It was raised that some tour operators did not provide adequate training to local staff to fill management positions. It was pointed out that at present the government tourism programs were only accessible to well educated citizens and not to the high percentage of illiterate people in Ngamiland. Communities requested government assistance in the formation of trusts, in drawing up management plans, in starting, running and marketing community tourism projects and asked for training in areas related to the tourism industry.

27

2.5.4 Financial assistance for community or citizen tourism projects People stressed that most of the funding programs to start economic enterprises like tourism projects were very bureaucratic and too difficult to access without government assistance. 2.5.5 Problems in existing CBNRM projects Some communities (Etsha, Ikoga, Jao) asked for assistance and advice from the Department of Tourism and from the NWDC tourism office to solve issues that paralysed the functioning of their trust like lack of accountability, land right conflicts between different communities and failure to come to an agreement with a joint venture partner. 2.5.6 Inadequate distribution of benefits generated by the tourism sector Some communities, particularly those that have not been given the right to administer the natural resource use of one of the wildlife management areas under the CBNRM strategy, felt that they did not get an adequate share from the enormous revenue this sector generates. A few speakers were critical about the lack of accountability of community trusts und suggested that CBNRM funds should rather be handled by Government institutions, while communities could identify projects and apply for funds to implement them. Most communities expressed interest in having a tourism project implemented in their area. This statement reflects the somewhat passive attitude of the communities in this process. Particularly in the dryland areas around like Lake Ngami, concern was raised that the introduction of tourism was only acceptable to local land users as long as it would be compatible with livestock rearing, the main land use activity in this area. 2.5.7 Possible negative impacts of tourism on the Delta ecosystem The increase of tourism facilities in the Okavango Delta and the lack of appropriate control and monitoring mechanisms raised the fears of stakeholders that natural resources might get overexploited. Examples were given of over (Xakanaxa) und underutilised areas (CHA NG 12) in the Delta. In this respect the intention of the tourism component to draw up a tourism management plan that would set carrying capacity guidelines was welcomed by local stakeholders. It was recommended that tourism generates incomes but government has to monitor how it is conducted. Communities requested that the number of speedboats that are operating in the Delta should be controlled and that boats from outside should not be allowed into the Delta to avoid the spreading of aquatic weeds. Questions were raised if fluid and solid waste was handled adequately in the tourism camps in the Delta to avoid pollution. 2.5.8 Location of tourism activities and allocation of CHAs to communities In the Nokaneng Habu area it was suggested that tourism camps and lodges should be located in communal areas at the fringes of the Delta to create direct employment and stimulate other small business activities. The Shorobe community requested that it be allocated Santawane Lodge as they had traditionally used parts of NG 32.

28

2.6

Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 7: Sustainable Fisheries Utilisation and Management Institution responsible: DWNP, Fisheries Division

From all the concerns raised by communities 6.9% were related to fishing. 2.6.1 Significance of fish in the household economy Many traditional land users stressed the importance of fish as one of their sources of livelihood. However, it is essential to understand that fishing is only one of the many economic activities traditional land users are involved in. Arable farming, livestock rearing, the production of crafts, the use and sale of veld products and formal employment in the tourism sector are other economic activities simultaneously carried out by subsistence fishermen as a means of reducing risks in the unstable hydrological conditions of the delta. In areas with permanent open water sources, such as the Okavango Panhandle, fishing plays a more prominent role in the household economy than in temporarily inundated floodplains at the southern edge of the delta. Hence comments related to fishing were raised more frequently in the permanent swamps. 2.6.2 Sustainability of fishing practices In general fishermen agreed on the need to use the fish resource of the Ramsar site in a sustainable way. However they stressed that by applying their traditional fishing methods, the Okavango waters had never been over-fished. Several speakers suggested that if indeed, fish stocks are declining; it would be mainly due to the reduced water levels in the delta. Fishermen were optimistic that, in years of good flood, fish might be available to them in quantities such as in the past. The practice of taking all the fish out of drying lagoons was not seen as detrimental to the fish population. Local fishermen pointed out that the fish population would build up again when the next flood came. People felt that it would be wasteful not to make use of this resource, as fish would merely die naturally or be eaten by birds instead. It was recommended that the impact of modern fishing techniques on fish stock status be investigated and that sport fishing activities in the delta be monitored more closely. 2.6.3 Training While some fishermen welcomed the proposal of the Fisheries Division to provide them with training in sustainable fishing methods, others could not envisage that they could benefit from such an extension offer, since they already perceived their own methods to be sustainable. 2.6.4 New fishing regulations When representatives of the fishery component talked about the introduction of new fishing regulations, the idea was met with scepticism, fear and a certain degree of resentment by the communities. People only saw a need for more control in the commercial fishing sector. Apart from restricting the mesh size of fishing nets, subsistence fishermen felt that their traditional fishing practices should not be constrained. 2.6.5 Access to fishing grounds Restricted access to fishing grounds in concession areas was only mentioned in one instance. However the loss of traditional fishing grounds by the expansion of the Moremi Game Reserve was raised by a number of subsistence fishermen in the south east of the delta as a serious erosion of their traditional land use rights. 29

2.6.6 Fish stock assessment When the representative of the Fisheries Division mentioned the fish stock assessment as one of the activities planned by the fishery component in the ODMP, most people could not imagine how such an assessment could be carried out.

30

2.7

Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 8: Vegetation Resources Management Institution responsible: Forestry, ARB, Range Ecology

2.7.1 Impact of low attendance of representatives of the vegetation component in the consultation process Representatives of the vegetation component only attended two out of 43 kgotla meetings during the second round of consultations. In contrast the introductory consultation round was well attended by staff of the component, matters associated with vegetation and veld fires were the third largest issue group brought up by local land users (13% of all the concerns raised). The frequency of comments related to this component dropped drastically during the feedback consultations (ninth issue group out of twelve and out of 1035 comments only 3% related to vegetation and veld fire issues). The results of the feedback kgotla meetings reflect the poor attendance of representatives of the vegetation component in this consultation process rather than the actual decrease in importance of problems related to vegetation. Even though all activities planned for the component were outlined in the presentation made by the project secretariat, communities did not feel encouraged to raise concerns and questions as the department in charge of managing this sector was not present to give them immediate response. In general women showed greater interest and participated more actively in questions related to vegetation resources. 2.7.2 Significance of vegetation for the livelihoods of rural households Traditional land users stressed the importance of veld products to sustain their livelihoods. People pointed out that the rural poor in particular with no cash income, depend on the use of natural vegetation for food, fuel, material for house building and fencing and as medicine. Women pointed out how important for them was the small income they derive from the production of crafts (mainly baskets made out of the leaves of the Hypaene petersiana palm) and collection and sale of reeds and thatching grass. In this context, the need to improve the marketing outlets for these products was raised. 2.7.3 Substance use of vegetation resources The opinion that the traditional use of veld products for subsistence purposes was sustainable was shared by most speakers. In general, the impact of elephants on the deterioration of the vegetation was seen as far more severe than the increasing demand on this resource by humans. 2.7.4 Commercialisation of vegetation resources People were mainly concerned about the overexploitation of veld products for commercial purposes, often initiated or carried out by outsiders. 2.7.5 Control of veld product utilisation It was observed that since the authority to regulate the use of the vegetation resources has been taken away from traditional leaders, it has become difficult to enforce regulations on vegetation harvesting methods and periods when harvesting may occur. People, who had formed conservation committees and tried to intervene when they believed that unsustainable harvesting techniques were used, where told that they had no right to tell others how to use wild plants which they had not cultivated. The capacity of government institutions as regulatory organs to set and enforce restrictions and rules for veld product utilisation was questioned. Some people lamented this lack of control and identified the need for a regulatory mechanism. At the same time traditional 31

users feared that the introduction of new rigid regulations might have negative impacts on their household economy and restrict their traditional ways of using veld products. More responsibility for community based organisations and traditional leaders in this respect were repeatedly suggested as one of the possible solutions. 2.7.6 Sustainable harvesting techniques The issues of the importance of creating awareness of sustainable harvesting techniques of veld products and the revitalisation of traditional harvesting regulations were raised repeatedly. 2.7.7 Fire as a traditional management tool The important role of fire as a traditional management tool, especially in floodplain areas, was mentioned by many speakers, however the negative impacts of veld fires (both in timing and extent) on the vegetation was also recognised by the communities, who were concerned about uncontrolled fires. It is usually seen as an unwanted impact if fires spread from the floodplains into the dryland. Several examples for the effectiveness of fire in controlling vegetation growth in watercourses and fishing grounds, managing of grazing land and clearing vegetation in fields prior to ploughing were given. Summarizing the statements, it appears that the traditional land users are of the opinion that fires should be restricted to the floodplains and only applied in a controlled manner. 2.7.8 Marketing of veld products The need for improved market outlets for veld products and local crafts (baskets) was raised by a woman.

32

2.8

Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 9: Physical Planning Institution responsible: North West District Council

As the activities of the Physical Planning Component are confined to the Shakawe area, the activity plan of this ODMP component was not outlined in all community consultation meetings. The Physical Planners of the NWDC attended only the kgotla meetings at Shakawe and Mohembo East, where no comments were made that need to be followed up. 2.8.1 Service provision to non-gazetted settlements However, during the kgotla meetings in several non-gazetted villages in the delta, like Khwai, Xaxaba, Jao and Ditshiping, the need for basic services such as health and education facilities, the supply of safe drinking water and waste removal were raised. It is important to be aware of the fact that the District Settlement Strategy does not recommend the provision of services to all small settlements (the population threshold for recognition as a village is 500 people). Furthermore, the allocation of land in nongazetted settlements is not controlled by Land Board, but still in the hands of the traditional local authorities. The ODMP needs to reflect on the future development of all these settlements where on third of the district population (2001 census) is living.

33

2.9

Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 10: Land Use Planning and Land Management Institution responsible: Tawana Land Board

2.9.1 Allocation procedures Traditional land users expressed their dissatisfaction about the land allocation procedures presently in place. In all parts of the district complaints were raised about the lack of transparency in the allocation process. The reasons why land rights were granted or denied were often not clear to applicants. The complaint raised most often was the long time Land Board took to allocate land. The causes of the delays stated by Land Board officials were mainly staff and transport shortages. Community representatives felt that Land Board should at least keep the applicant constantly informed in writing about the progress of each allocation. Many examples were given where applicants had never received a response to their applications. Hence it was difficult for people to follow up their cases. It was felt that the community at large should be informed about the steps and requirements in the allocation procedures. People proposed to give more powers to the Sub-Land Boards as their offices are more easily accessible to applicants in remote areas. Organisational shortcomings at the Land Board offices were mentioned repeatedly by the communities. As people often have to travel far to get to the Land Board office, they considered it unacceptable that the office had run out of receipt books and that they were requested to come back a second time to pay the fees for common law leases. 2.9.2 Allocation Regulations It was suggested that Land Board should communicate new regulations, like the size restriction for residential or commercial plots, or the limitation in the number of plots to be granted to an individual, to the communities, so that applicants could comply with this regulation. The obvious need to explain both existing and new allocation regulations and guidelines to the community at large is reflected in the large number of questions on this topic. It might be worth while considering producing a simple fact sheet with standard allocation procedures, old and new allocation regulations that would be available to the general public at the Sub Land Board offices. 2.9.3 Unclear responsibility Some cases were brought forward where applications were pending for very long periods as the responsibility to take a decision was shared among different institutions (Land Board, Department of Tourism, Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Department of Water Affairs). In such circumstances a clearly structured allocation procedure is needed. The required technical advice should be forwarded to Land Board within a given time frame and the applicant should be kept informed on the progress of his/her application. 2.9.4 Repossession of undeveloped land Many speakers urged Land Board to repossess and reallocate undeveloped plots that were held by people for future use and allocate them to other members of the community who actually need them at present. In the urban village of Maun, where a phased development approach related to the expansion of infrastructure facilities has 34

been applied, this approach was recommended. But also in rural areas the reallocation of abandoned arable areas was recommended. In growing villages, where arable areas are being repossessed to be reallocated for residential purposes, it was proposed that the previous owner should be given the option to maintain the plot and change the use to a residential lease. 2.9.5 Cadastral record keeping system The record keeping system of Land Board was regarded as inefficient. Many examples of overlapping or double allocations were mentioned that were causing conflicts in the communities. Several examples were given where cadastral records of title deeds and certificates could not be traced in the Land Board office. To avoid such conflicts the permanent pegging of allocated plots was suggested. It was further recommended that Land Board should inform neighbours of the outcome of allocation processes to make them aware of newly established land rights. 2.9.6 Involvement of local institutions It was felt that by involving the local institutions in the allocation process a lot of land use conflict could be avoided. The importance of land overseers who are always available to assist the community, even though they are not paid for their service, was stressed. 2.9.7 Allocation of land in non-gazetted settlements Land Board was asked to consider allocating land in non-gazetted settlements so as to gain more control over the developments there. 2.9.8 Transfer of land from citizens to foreigners While some people felt that the transfer of land from citizens to foreigners should be restricted, others saw such transactions as a source of income. 2.9.9 Monitoring of lease specifications It was brought up by some speakers that Land Board does not monitor whether the leaseholders comply with the specifications laid down in the customary and common law lease agreements (size of the plot, specific use). 2.9.10 Size of residential plots in rural settlements It was suggested that the standard plot size for residential plots used in urban villages (25mx30m) should not be applied in rural settlements. Most people in these settlements are traditional farmers and need more spacious plots to accommodate farming implements, chickens and even small-stock. In informal discussions people pointed out the advantages living in extended families which accommodate several generations on one plot. The increasingly important role of the extended family in looking after a growing number of HIV/AIDS orphans and terminally sick people was mentioned. 2.9.11 New restrictive allocation regulation in the Okavango Panhandle (500 m rule) One new allocation guideline that resulted from the Panhandle Management Plan was met with resentment by many traditional land users. This regulation states that no allocations for arable use should be made within a 500 m strip from the floodplains. Traditional farmers pointed out that prior to the enforcement of the Panhandle Management Plan they had been advised by Land Board to take their livestock away from the river front and use this fertile area for cultivation instead. Farmers who grow

35

vegetables that need to be irrigated or watered by hand are particularly dependent on having their small gardens near open water sources. People observed that in some cases entire villages are located within the allocation freeze corridor. They felt that they should have been consulted before such an incisive measure became binding. It was questioned why such a restrictive regulation was only applied in the Okavango Panhandle but not in other river front areas in Kasane and Maun. People complained bitterly that all developments have come to a halt in the Panhandle. When the Management Plan was in progress, an allocation freeze had been imposed on the entire planning area and now intolerable restrictions have been put in place. The Okavango River Panhandle Management Plan imposes extremely rigorous restrictions on arable land use. The expansion of the area used for arable farming (dryland, molapo and irrigation farming) is generally not recommended. The allocation guidelines of the Panhandle Management Plan state that no arable plots should be granted between the river and the road on both sides of the Panhandle (Volume 3, page 31) nor within the riparian woodland zone or within 500 m of the river (Volume 1, page 12) and also that no pristine areas should be cleared for cultivation at all (Volume 1, page 12). Instead, the plan suggests the consolidation of existing arable lands (Vol.1, page 11-12). At the same time, the plan recognises that all the fertile areas located either in the inter-dune valleys or near the river are already occupied (Vol.3, page 31). With all these restrictions and the existing distribution of occupied plots, most new allocations would have to be through enforcement of the existing regulation to repossess undeveloped plots and reallocate fields that have not been used for more than five years. The reasons for these strict allocation restrictions need to be analysed in more detail during the ODMP planning process. Whether the backlog of applications for arable land could be dealt with merely the by reallocation of old lands has to be established. Conclusion and Recommendation Some of the arguments put forward in the Panhandle Management Plan seem are not very convincing to local farmers. Molapo farming in the Panhandle is advised against on the grounds that some soil maps indicate that the floodplains are sandy and not as fertile as other molapo areas such as Tubu, Nokaneng or the Shorobe area. This is a very valid reason but the scale of the soil surveys needs to be borne in mind when coming to the conclusion that molapo farming in the Panhandle is not feasible. Subsistence farmers are able to find small depressions with favourable soil and moisture conditions that do not even feature on a soil map. Most of the Bahambukushu farmers, who live in the Panhandle villages, are dryland cultivators anyway (see land use map, HOORC). They have established a few small fields on islands in the floodplains to grow fruit trees and vegetables. However many local farmers have their lands on the dryland bordering the floodplains or in the inter-dune valleys. Perhaps one of the strongest arguments against the establishment of arable fields near the river in the Panhandle is the danger of soil erosion. Some of the river banks along the fault lines in the Panhandle are very steep and would be exposed to erosion as soon as the natural riparian vegetation cover is removed. At the same time, these woodlands on the banks, as well as the tree vegetation of the islands in the Panhandle, are an important habitat for many bird and wildlife species and have a high aesthetic value for the growing tourism industry. As the soils along the river are some of the best for arable agriculture in some areas most of the riparian woodlands have been cleared and only 36

some fragments of this vegetation type are left (Volume 2, page 13). If the main aim of the new 500 m regulation is to conserve the remnants of riparian woodlands and avoid soil erosion, it might be advisable to consider every application separately, noting in particular topography and type of vegetation cover so as to ensure that no allocation conflicts with these conservation aims. A general 500 m freeze for the whole Panhandle River frontage does not take the subsistence needs of traditional farmers into account. Types of land use that would conserve the riparian vegetation like the development of tourism enterprises, could be tolerated along the river banks on condition that the necessary waste water treatment facilities are in place. The limited potential for commercial irrigation enterprises and the danger of nitrification and pollution of the water by pesticides and fertilisers is a very legitimate threat and implies that the impact of the existing irrigation farms needs to be monitored closely. It needs to be established which institution would take up this task. Hardly any of the subsistence formers are using chemicals for crop production or plant protection. 2.9.12 Land certificates for traditional flood recession farming Many subsistence farmers in the Gumare (Sepopa, Habu), Shorobe (Matlapaneng) and Seronga areas emphasised that for many generations their livelihoods have been dependent mainly on flood recession (molapo) farming. The high productivity of this traditional farming practice, due to the outstanding soil fertility and the residual soil moisture in the floodplains, were mentioned as the main advantages, especially considering the frequent droughts and the unreliable rainfall pattern in the district. Communities asked the Land Board to recognise their traditional land rights and land use practices and issue certificates for molapo fields. At present arable farming and the development of well-points in the floodplains is tolerated but not controlled by Land Board. In molapo areas the traditional land allocation system by ward heads or land overseers is still practised. It is interesting to recall the history of the Land Board decision not to allocate land in the floodplains. In 1981 Land Board commissioned a land tenure study which recommended that Land Board should not continue to register molapo fields in order to avoid conflicts since molapo farmers recognised overlapping rights to plots. The study pointed out that floodplain cultivators might need to be able to shift their fields in response to changing flood levels. According to the study molapo farmers were not seeking the security of exclusive rights to a clearly demarcated plot during the 1980s (Sutherland, Report on Land Tenure in Western Ngamiland First Communal Development Area, Annex page 3). The survey recommended that Sub Land Board should start registration and survey of plots in the growing villages and in the dryland cultivation areas where fields were more permanent. Obviously the situation has changed now as farmers are requesting that their molapo land be registered. The various reasons given by Land Board to explain why the use of molapo land was not legalised, were not convincing to the local farming communities. The danger of flooding in melapo has to be regarded as a risk similar to the possible occurrence of droughts in the dryland. In actual fact, over the last twenty five years, government declared Ngamiland a drought area in two out of every three years and assisted farmers with drought relief programs, whereas flooding that destroyed standing crops in molapo cultivation areas occurred only three times. According to the Agricultural Statistics (30 years records) on average only half of the area cultivated can 37

be harvested per year. Thus farmers in Ngamiland are used to losing a substantial amount of their crops due to unfavourable natural conditions. Leases could be formulated in such a way that government does not take responsibility for compensation for natural disasters in arable areas in general. Molapo farmers expressed their fear that without land certificates they would no longer be eligible for government assistance in the arable sector. Farmers are aware of the risk of flooding and crop damage by hippos in molapo farmland, but they have experienced that the advantages outweigh the risks by far. Farmers stressed that the recognition of their traditional land rights is a prerequisite to increase crop production, enable them to grow their own food and not become dependent on government hand outs. Yields in the fertile molapo areas are generally higher than in the dryland. According to agricultural statistics the long-term average yields of rainfed dryland fields in Ngamiland are 142 kg/ha of maize or sorghum, whereas in the floodplains between 500 kg/ha (under rainfed conditions) and 2900 kg/ha sorghum (under optimal flooding conditions) have been recorded (Rosenow, 1990). Due to the natural fertility of the soils in the floodplains and because of cost implications, subsistence farmers are generally not using fertilisers that might pollute the water.

38

2.10 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 11: Waste Management Institution responsible: North West District Council, Department of Environmental Health 2.10.1 Litter 4.3% of all the observations made by communities addressed sanitation and waste management issues. Most concerns were related to littering and the difficulty of changing attitudes of people to refrain from this bad habit. In the district capital Maun and along the riverfronts of the Thamalakane and the Boteti, litter was recognised as an eyesore, diminishing the attractiveness of the area both as a local recreation area and as a tourism destination. Apart from the negative visual effect, plastic waste was seen as a health hazard for domestic stock. People had experienced small-stock and even cattle dying from feeding on plastic refuse. 2.10.2 Solid waste collection The poor waste management service provided by the North West District Council to major villages was repeatedly raised by the communities. The lack of waste removal in all the small settlements, where one third of the district population lives, was observed with concern. To improve service provision, the privatisation of waste removal was proposed as an alternative. The employment of litter pickers by NWDC was regarded as one possible measure to deal with the litter problem. According to the experience of the Environmental Health Department, the provision of more litter pickers had led to a even more lax attitude of the public towards littering. 2.10.3 Waste Management Strategy The sole activity planned by the North West District Environmental Health Department under the ODMP, to draw up a district waste management strategy, was generally supported by the communities. However most stakeholders would have preferred a more practical, action oriented approach that physically tackled the waste management issue. Would it not be better to buy a garbage vehicle or hire local transport for refuse removal than engage consultants to draw up a waste management strategy? 2.10.4 Monitoring of waste management in tourism camps in the delta The capacity of the relevant government institutions to monitor and control the disposal of waste in tourism camps in the delta was questioned by the communities. People were particularly worried about sewage and grey water disposal from houseboats.

39

2.11 Observations, Concerns and Recommendations Related to Component 12: Sustainable Livestock Management Institution responsible: Department of Animal Health and Production 6.7% of all the comments made by traditional land users were livestock related. The majority of all the remarks that were addressed to the Department of Animal Health and Production were related to the buffalo fence (5.2%). 2.11.1 Maintenance and enforcement of the buffalo fence Communities complained that elephants would constantly break down the buffalo fence. The DAHP was requested to maintain the veterinary fence in functional condition, so that it fulfils its purpose in separating wildlife and human land use effectively. Strengthening of the buffalo fence or electrification was mentioned frequently as possible solution. 2.11.2 Strict enforcement of veterinary regulations (killing of cattle in the WMA) Communities had difficulties to understand the rationale behind the veterinary regulation to kill and destroy livestock which had entered through gaps in the fence into the stock free zone, while buffalo that crossed into communal areas were merely driven back into the Wildlife Management Areas. It was suggested to keep cattle that entered the infection area in quarantine and kill them only when it has been established that they had been infected with food and mouth disease. Several livestock farmers recommended that they should at least be allowed to use the meat of those cattle that had trespassed into the infection zone. 2.11.3 Compensation rates for livestock killed for trespassing into the WMA Furthermore the affected livestock owners were unsatisfied with the low compensation rates paid in these instances. 2.11.4 Lack of veterinary services and livestock marketing facilities In some panhandle villages, farmers complained about poor veterinary assistance and services. They associated the diseases their livestock was suffering from to the floodplain environment. The improvement of livestock marketing facilities by reopening some of the quarantine camps and the Maun abattoir were requested. 2.11.5 Location and impact of the veterinary fence In the Godigwa area traditional land users were concerned that that the buffalo fence had a negative impact on wildlife migration. Apart from that people stated that the fence had reduced the size of the communal area considerably. As it could not be built as planned it does not follow the CHA boundary. Also in Samochima, Jao, Boro and Sankuyo a realignment of the veterinary cordon fence was suggested. 2.11.6 Border fence Communities located near the Namibian border, had observed that the border fence was destroyed by migrating elephants. Stock loss through theft was raised as an issue in these areas.

40

Annex 1: List of contact persons, second round of kgotla meetings

Location Beetsha Bodibeng Boro Bothatogo Chanoga Ditshiping Eretsha Etsha 13 Etsha 6 Gudigwa Gumare Gunotsoga Habu Ikoga Jao Kareng Name Galebuse Maboga Ofedile Moitlho Bolitile Sethapelo Tuelo Lenaolame Mmeleri Tsogo Maiphetho Charles Manga Monnaphuthego Oja Sekongo Katsotso Address P.O. Box 91, Seronga P.O. Box 20630, Maun P.O. Box 1480, Maun P.O. Box 199, Sehithwa P/ Bag 21518, Maun P.O. Box 20026, Maun P.O.Box 61, Seronga P.O. Box 112, Etsha 6 P.O. Box 217, Etsha 5 P.O. Box 42, Seronga P.O. Box 360, Gumare P/ Bag 110, Gunotsoga P.O. Box 20868, Maun Private Bag 103, Gumare P.O. Box 262, Gumare Tel. 6876851 (OCT) 6800018 Cell 72876387 71886801 72798869 6864806 (Trust) 6876851 ( OCT) 6861523 (African Horseback Safaris) 6874208 (w) 6876851 (OCT) 6874234 (Kgotla) 6876851 ( OCT) 6863401

Mathews Pasis Mosepele Ditsibo Tshima Khumalo Ovuya Sefo Sezimba Madisa Bolekeng Boganne John John Xhokhwe elected by VDC, name will be forwarded to ODMP office Kauxwi Lekowa Dinyando Khwai Emanuel Amos Komana Gaolethoo Letswai Mababe Maxwell Kebuelemang Makalamabedi Gaotlhoboqwe Fanabi Matlapaneng Aron Mokgosi Setilo Maun M. Lengwase Mogotho Pelaelo Joel Mosheti Mohembo West Namombi Mapolanka Ngarange Bartile Joel Nokaneng Sisco Ikopua Ngaruka Nxamasere Mrs. Khosi Marama Samochima Sankuyo Sehithwa Sekondomboro Semboyo / Makakung Sepopa Seronga Shakawe Shorobe Toteng Tsao Tsodilo Tubu Xakao Xaxaba Matshwenyogo Sam Mrs. Letsweletse Ntongwana Ruben Ndjarakana Mbothira Matombo Patrinah Kehepo - Semboyo Uhohomina Kazehuika Makakung Charles John Mr Batshabi Monnaapula A.A. Masalila Ditsea Ngande Galereneope Motsamai O. Seepetswe Phorake Katonda Etsogile Mphoyamodimo Kapango Cathrine Kayunde Galebuse Maboga

71413770

71787316 71336747

P.O. Box 57, Shakawe P.O. Box 657, Maun P.O. Box 20406, Maun P.O. Box 21637, Maun P.O. Box 192, Maun P.O. Box 695, Maun P.O. Box 25, Maun P.O. Box 415, Shakawe P.O. Box 200, Shakawe P.O. Box 317, Shakawe P.O. Box 49, Nokaneng P/ Bag 0104, Nxamasere P.O. Box 458, Shakawe P.O. Box 21797, Maun P.O. Box 6, Sehithwa P.O. Box 343, Shakawe P.O. Box 151, Sehithwa P.O. Box 93, Sehithwa P.O. Box 79, Sepopa P.O. Box 64 P.O. Box 69, Shakawe P.O. Box 415, Maun P.O. Box 700, Maun P.O. Box 149, Sehithwa P/ Bag 007, Shakawe P.O. Box 121, Gumare P.O. Box 47, Shakawe P.O. Box 91, Seronga

6860112 6872203 (Court) 6800010 (Trust) 6868007 6800058 6860207 (Office)

71624894 71472295 72959939 71420503

Nokaneng (Kgotla) 6878013 (Tribal. Admin.) 6800664 (STMT) 6872072

72544174 72864140 (mother) 71987398 71439726 71225407 71237577

6877027 6876837 6875230 (also Fax) 6861889 6872059 (Kgotla) 6871006 6875025

71668183

71827866 71299717 71479623 72876387

6876851 (OCT)

41

Annex 2: Attendance of the ODMP Component's Representatives at the Second Round of Kgotla Meetings
ODMP Component Project Secretariat Policy, Planning and Strategy Communication and Networking Research, Data Management and Participatory Planning HOORC Hydrology and Water Resources Wildlife Management Sustainable Tourism and CBNRM Fisheries Management Vegetation Resources Management Physical Planning Land Use Planning and Land Management Waste Management Sustainable Livestock Management

Institution

NCSA

NCSA

DWA

DWNP

DoT and NWDC

DWNPs, Division of Fisheries

DCP, DWNPs DTRP through TLB, District Land Division of NWDCs PPU Use Planning Unit Forestry and (DLUPU) the ARB Kemoreile, Maswabi Kemoreile Kibakaya, Morapedi Mongati, Mogapi

NWDCs EHD

DAHP

Focal Points

Aniku

Monna

Bendsen

Kalaote, Kurugundla Bombo, Tshekiso, Badirwang, Balapi, Ramosalagadi

Pitlagano

Chilume, Rabolo, Malesu

Nengu

Regonamanye

Kgori, Gaebope

Representatives attending the kgotla meetings

Segomelo

Motsumi

Bendsen, Motsholapeku

Pitlagano, Rabolo, Nzehengwa, Malesu Sapula, Modiko,

Manyamane

Morapedi, Mongati, Phadime, Gabosenkelwe Mhapa, Diletsa, Moremi, Atsowe, Diletsa, Mongadi, Ndaba, Lekwete, Keareng, Mosiamiemang,

RegonaNkaelang, manye, Modibu Mmusi, Ramooki Rutherford, Mase, Balapi,

Total Number of Meetings Attended Meetings Attended in %

13 30,2%

0 0,0%

43 100,0%

41 95,3%

42 97,7%

43 100,0%

34 79,1%

43 100,0%

2 4,7%

2 4,7%

43 100,0%

14 32,6%

19 45,2%

42

Annex 3: Population Break Down of Attendees at the Second Round of ODMP Kgotla Meetings
Place Date Meeting Held
31/01/2005 10/03/2005 13/01/2005 10/03/2005 04/03/2005 12/05/2005 01/02/2005 21/02/2005 21/02/2005 31/01/2005 22/02/2005 01/02/2005 23/02/2005 18/02/2005 02/02/2005 25/02/2005 14/02/2005 08/03/2005 01/03/2005 07/03/2005 04/03/2005 02/03/2005 01/03/2005 03/02/2005 15/02/2005 04/02/2005 23/02/2005 17/02/2005 16/02/2005 07/03/2005 28/02/2005 04/02/2005 24/02/2005 17/02/2005 03/02/2005 15/02/2005 03/03/2005 11/03/2005 24/02/2005 18/02/2005 22/02/2005 14/02/2005 09/03/2005

Attendance Total
65 54 79 56 34 48 87 92 87 99 126 48 86 53 66 59 132 76 31 28 29 63 46 122 40 103 132 137 143 138 74 87 106 56 99 112 55 62 96 39 65 94 39

Population Male
42 22 45 31 24 25 43 68 70 52 70 27 50 33 31 24 84 41 21 21 13 27 37 65 26 37 68 70 57 79 52 38 58 29 63 65 28 22 54 26 36 47 20

Femal e
23 32 34 25 10 23 44 24 17 47 56 21 36 20 35 35 48 35 10 7 16 36 9 57 14 66 64 67 86 59 22 49 48 27 36 47 27 40 42 13 29 47 19

Village only
760 472 842 467 381 238 616 1,975 2,629 732 6,067 506 304 699 234 599 859 395 186 157 344 1,169 43,776 557 1,299 948 1,590 1,328 847 372 1,478 655 330 1,519 1,641 4,389 955 509 1,290 172 392 1,049 78

Village + Associated Localities

1,484 472 842 467 381 238 616 1,975 5,613 732 7,478 509 304 1,414 234 1,655 1,631 395 186 157 1,354 1,169 48,980 685 1,726 1,332 3,075 1,466 847 372 5,290 655 330 2,308 3,043 7027 3,333 3,391 2,767 172 754 1,777 78

% Attendance of Population Village + Village Associated Population Localities

8.6% 11.4% 9.4% 12.0% 8.9% 20.2% 14.1% 4.7% 3.3% 13.5% 2.1% 9.5% 28.3% 7.6% 28.2% 9.8% 15.4% 19.2% 16.7% 17.8% 8.4% 5.4% 0.1% 21.9% 3.1% 10.9% 8.3% 10.3% 16.9% 37.1% 5.0% 13.3% 32.1% 3.7% 6.0% 2.6% 5.8% 12.2% 7.4% 22.7% 16.6% 9.0% 50.0% 4.4% 11.4% 9.4% 12.0% 8.9% 20.2% 14.1% 4.7% 1.5% 13.5% 1.7% 9.4% 28.3% 3.7% 28.2% 3.6% 8.1% 19.2% 16.7% 17.8% 2.1% 5.4% 0.1% 17.8% 2.3% 7.7% 4.3% 9.3% 16.9% 37.1% 1.4% 13.3% 32.1% 2.4% 3.3% 1.6% 1.7% 1.8% 3.5% 22.7% 8.6% 5.3% 50.0%

Beetsha Bodibeng Boro Bothatoga Chanoga Dishiping Eretsha Etsha 13 Etsha 6 Gudigwa Gumare Gunotsoga Habu Ikoga Jao Kareng Kaukwi Khwai Komana Mababe Makalamabedi Matlapaneng Maun Mogotho* Mohembo-West Ngarange Nokaneng Nxamasere Samochima Sankuyo Sehithwa Sekondomboro Semboyo / Makakung Sepopa Seronga Shakawe Shorobe Toteng Tsao Tsodilo Tubu Xakao Xaxaba

Total Distribution Female / Male

3343 100%

1,502 45%

1,841 55%

85,805

118,714

3.9%

2.8%

* in Census 2001 village called: Shaowe

43