OKAVANGO DELTA MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECT

INCEPTION REPORT

VOLUME ONE – MAIN REPORT

February 2005 Okavango Delta Management Plan Project Secretariat PO Box 35 Maun Tel: 267 6801237 Fax: +267 6862503 Email: eliot.taylor@iucn.org / psegomelo@gov.bw

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS.................................................................................................... 7 - 8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................... 9 - 14

1 BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................................................................15 1.1 THE RAMSAR CONVENTION ......................................................................................................................15 1.2 THE OKAVANGO DELTA RAMSAR SITE .....................................................................................................16

1.2.1 The Ramsar boundary and Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS) ..............................................................16 1.2.2 Physical location and characteristics of the site .................................................................................17 1.2.3 Ecological characteristics of the site...................................................................................................19

1.2.3.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................19 1.2.3.2 Flora ...........................................................................................................................................................20 1.2.3.3 Fauna..........................................................................................................................................................20

1.2.3.3.1 Mammals ..............................................................................................................................................20 1.2.3.3.2 Birds......................................................................................................................................................21 1.2.3.3.3 Reptiles and amphibians .......................................................................................................................22 1.2.3.3.4 Fish .......................................................................................................................................................22 1.2.3.3.5 Insects ...................................................................................................................................................22 1.2.3.3.6 Other organisms....................................................................................................................................23

1.2.3.4 Important ecological functions...................................................................................................................23 1.2.4 Socio-economic characteristics of the site...........................................................................................23

2 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION.................................................................25 2.1 THE CONCEPT OF STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION ......................................................................................25

2.1.1 Who is a stakeholder?..........................................................................................................................25 2.1.2 Stakeholder analysis ............................................................................................................................25

2.1.2.1 The Project Secretariat ...............................................................................................................................27 2.1.2.2 Policy, planning and strategy and dialogue, communication and networking components........................27 2.1.2.3 Research, data and participatory planning..................................................................................................28 2.1.2.4 Hydrology and water resources..................................................................................................................28 2.1.2.5 Wildlife resources ......................................................................................................................................28 2.1.2.6 Sustainable tourism and CBNRM ..............................................................................................................28 2.1.2.7 Sustainable fisheries utilisation and management ......................................................................................28 2.1.2.8 Vegetation Resources management............................................................................................................29 2.1.2.9 Physical Planning component ....................................................................................................................29 2.1.2.10 Land use planning and management component........................................................................................30 2.1.2.11 Waste management component..................................................................................................................30 2.1.2.12 Sustainable livestock management.............................................................................................................30

2.1.3 Stakeholder involvement – a fundamental Ramsar and ODMP principle ...........................................30 2.1.4 Conditions under which stakeholder participation is required ...........................................................31

2.2 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE ODMP ..........................................................................................31 2.2.1 Design phase consultation...................................................................................................................31 2.2.2 Inception phase consultation and stakeholder engagement exercise...................................................32

2.2.2.1 Introduction................................................................................................................................................32 2.2.2.2 Institutional involvement............................................................................................................................33 2.2.2.3 Community involvement............................................................................................................................33 2.2.2.4 Private sector involvement .........................................................................................................................34 2.2.2.5 Current and future consultative and participatory exercises.......................................................................35

2.2.2.5.1 Institutional involvement ......................................................................................................................35 2.2.2.5.2 Community involvement.......................................................................................................................35 2.2.2.5.3 Private sector involvement....................................................................................................................35

3 A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE OKAVANGO DELTA ...............................................................36 3.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................36

3.1.1 Land and natural resource use ............................................................................................................36 3.1.2 A shared river basin ............................................................................................................................37 3.1.3 International conventions, national policies and local priorities ........................................................37

3.2 ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS – CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES .......................................................................38 3.2.1 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................38

3.2.1.1 Water abstraction .......................................................................................................................................38 3.2.1.1.1 Angola ..................................................................................................................................................38 3.2.1.1.2 Botswana...............................................................................................................................................38 3.2.1.1.3 Namibia.................................................................................................................................................39

3.2.1.2 Water quality..............................................................................................................................................41 3.2.1.3 Water obstruction .......................................................................................................................................41

2

3.2.1.4 Reliable hydrological information..............................................................................................................41 3.2.2 Flora....................................................................................................................................................42

3.2.2.1 Issues related to human induced factors .....................................................................................................42 3.2.2.2 Issues related to natural factors ..................................................................................................................43 3.2.2.3 Issues related to lack of, or poor, information and consultation .................................................................43 3.2.2.4 Issues related to land use factors ................................................................................................................43 3.2.2.5 Issues related to management of resources.................................................................................................44

3.2.3 Fauna...................................................................................................................................................44 3.2.3.1 Mammals and birds ....................................................................................................................................44

3.2.3.1.1 Elephants...............................................................................................................................................44 3.2.3.1.2 The impact of veterinary disease control and border cordon fences on wildlife migration and local

movement ............................................................................................................................................44 3.2.3.1.3 Buffalo ..................................................................................................................................................44 3.2.3.1.4 Slaty Egret ............................................................................................................................................45 3.2.3.1.5 Rare and endangered species ................................................................................................................45

3.2.3.2 Fish.............................................................................................................................................................45 3.2.3.2.1 Inadequate knowledge of the fish stocks...............................................................................................45 3.2.3.2.2 Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................46 3.2.3.2.3 Poor management .................................................................................................................................46

3.3 ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS – PROPOSED OR ACTUAL INTERVENTIONS..............................................................46 3.3.1 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................................46 3.3.2 Flora....................................................................................................................................................47 3.3.3 Fauna...................................................................................................................................................48

3.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS – CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES ...............................................................48 3.4.1 Economic value of the Delta................................................................................................................48 3.4.2 Tourism................................................................................................................................................48 3.4.3 Human – elephant conflict...................................................................................................................50 3.4.4 Livestock predation..............................................................................................................................51 3.4.5 Fisheries management.........................................................................................................................51

3.4.5.1 Lack of fisheries regulatory instruments ....................................................................................................51 3.4.5.2 Conflicts between different sectors of the fishery industry ........................................................................52

3.4.5.2.1 User rights and access...........................................................................................................................52 3.4.5.2.2 Same target species ...............................................................................................................................52 3.4.5.2.3 Timing of activities ...............................................................................................................................52

3.4.5.3 Lack of a fisheries stakeholder consultative forum ....................................................................................52 3.4.6 Settlement structure and physical planning.........................................................................................52 3.4.7 Land use, land use planning and management....................................................................................53 3.4.8 Waste management ..............................................................................................................................54 3.4.9 Livestock management.........................................................................................................................54

3.4.9.1 Recurrent droughts .....................................................................................................................................54 3.4.9.2 Environmental degradation ........................................................................................................................55 3.4.9.3 Recurrence of major epidemics ..................................................................................................................55 3.4.9.4 Tsetse fly ....................................................................................................................................................56

3.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS – PROPOSED AND ACTUAL INTERVENTIONS ....................................................57 3.5.1 Economic value of the Delta................................................................................................................57 3.5.2 Tourism................................................................................................................................................57 3.5.3 Human – elephant conflict...................................................................................................................58 3.5.4 Livestock predation..............................................................................................................................58 3.5.5 Fisheries management.........................................................................................................................58 3.5.6 Settlement structure and physical planning.........................................................................................58 3.5.7 Land use, land use planning and management....................................................................................59 3.5.8 Waste management ..............................................................................................................................59 3.5.9 Livestock management.........................................................................................................................59

3.6 OTHER ASPECTS – CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES .................................................................................60 3.6.1 Policy and planning.............................................................................................................................60

3.6.1.1 Lack of coherent policies affecting the Delta .............................................................................................60 3.6.1.2 No common vision for the Delta ................................................................................................................60 3.6.1.3 Need for revision of the Ramsar Information Sheet and boundary line......................................................60 3.6.1.4 A need for planning....................................................................................................................................61

3.6.2 Communication....................................................................................................................................61 3.6.3 Research and data ...............................................................................................................................63

3.7 OTHER ASPECTS – PROPOSED OR ACTUAL INTERVENTIONS .......................................................................63 3.7.1 Policy and planning.............................................................................................................................63 3.7.2 Communication....................................................................................................................................64 3.7.3 Research and data – proposed or actual interventions .......................................................................64

3.8 OTHER PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES RUNNING IN THE ORB...................................................................64 3.8.1 Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the ORB ............................................64

3

3.8.2 Okavango integrated river basin management project...................................................................64 3.8.3 Water and Ecosystem in Regional Development (WERRD) ...........................................................65 3.8.4 Twinning European and third countries river basins for development of integrated water

resources management methods (TwinBas)....................................................................................65 3.8.5 Leseding Project .............................................................................................................................65 3.8.6 TIGER Partnership .........................................................................................................................65 3.8.7 Proposed hydropower scheme at Popa Falls..................................................................................65 3.8.8 The Every River has its People Project (ERP)................................................................................66 3.8.9 OKACOM .......................................................................................................................................66 3.8.10 Other national initiatives in Botswana ...........................................................................................66

3.9 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS – CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES....................................................................67 3.9.1 Training ...............................................................................................................................................67

3.9.1.1 Training needs of project partner staff .......................................................................................................67 3.9.1.1.1 NCSA....................................................................................................................................................67 3.9.1.1.2 HOORC ................................................................................................................................................67 3.9.1.1.3 DWA.....................................................................................................................................................67 3.9.1.1.4 DWNP ..................................................................................................................................................68 3.9.1.1.5 DoT/NWDC..........................................................................................................................................68 3.9.1.1.6 Division of Fisheries .............................................................................................................................68 3.9.1.1.7 ARB, Division of Forestry and Range Ecology ....................................................................................68 3.9.1.1.8 TLB.......................................................................................................................................................68 3.9.1.1.9 NWDC EHD.........................................................................................................................................68 3.9.1.1.10 DAHP ...................................................................................................................................................68

3.9.1.2 Stakeholder training needs .........................................................................................................................68 3.9.1.3 Joint training for project partners and stakeholders....................................................................................69

3.9.2 Capacity...............................................................................................................................................69 3.9.2.1 Staff resources............................................................................................................................................69 3.9.2.2 Workload....................................................................................................................................................70 3.9.2.3 Staff transfers .............................................................................................................................................71 3.9.2.4 Institutional budgets ...................................................................................................................................71 3.9.2.5 Transport ....................................................................................................................................................72 3.9.2.6 Information technology (IT) and other equipment .....................................................................................72 3.9.2.7 Facilities.....................................................................................................................................................73 3.9.2.8 Inter and intra – departmental/ministerial relations and collaboration .......................................................74 3.9.2.9 Procedure and protocol...............................................................................................................................74 3.9.2.10 Capacity issues specific to individual project institutions ..........................................................................75

3.9.2.10.1 NCSA....................................................................................................................................................75 3.9.2.10.2 DWNP ..................................................................................................................................................75 3.9.2.10.3 Vegetation resources component ..........................................................................................................75 3.9.2.10.4 Fisheries and NWDC EHD ...................................................................................................................75

3.9.2.11 Capacity issues specific to project stakeholders .........................................................................................75 3.10 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS – PROPOSED OR ACTUAL INTERVENTIONS ..........................................................76

3.10.1 Training ..........................................................................................................................................76 3.10.1.1 Training needs of project partner staff .......................................................................................................76 3.10.1.2 Stakeholder training needs .........................................................................................................................76 3.10.1.3 Joint training for project partners and stakeholders....................................................................................76

3.10.2 Capacity..........................................................................................................................................76 3.10.2.1 Staff resources............................................................................................................................................76 3.10.2.2 Workload....................................................................................................................................................77 3.10.2.3 Staff transfers .............................................................................................................................................77 3.10.2.4 Institutional budgets ...................................................................................................................................77 3.10.2.5 Transport ....................................................................................................................................................78 3.10.2.6 IT and other equipment ..............................................................................................................................79 3.10.2.7 Facilities.....................................................................................................................................................79 3.10.2.8 Inter and intra – departmental/ministerial relations and collaboration .......................................................79 3.10.2.9 Procedure and protocol...............................................................................................................................80 3.10.2.10 Capacity issues specific to individual project institutions ..........................................................................80

3.10.2.10.1 NCSA....................................................................................................................................................80 3.10.2.10.2 DWNP ..................................................................................................................................................81 3.10.2.10.3 Vegetation resources component ..........................................................................................................81 3.10.2.10.4 Fisheries and NWDC EHD ...................................................................................................................81

3.10.2.11 Capacity issues specific to project stakeholders .........................................................................................81 3.11 RISKS TO DELIVERY OF THE PROJECT ........................................................................................................81

3.11.1 Loss of staff .....................................................................................................................................81 3.11.2 Building consensus by taking a participatory approach.................................................................82 3.11.3 Sharing data and information.........................................................................................................82 3.11.4 Increase in existing conflicts during planning ................................................................................82 3.11.5 Ongoing direct financial and political support for the ODMP project...........................................83 3.11.6 Natural or anthropogenic events ....................................................................................................83

4

3.11.7 Other political changes and decisions ............................................................................................83 3.11.8 Inability to secure appropriate expertise ........................................................................................84 3.11.9 The “consultancy approach”..........................................................................................................84

3.12 DEALING WITH IDENTIFIED RISKS AND CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS...............................................................84 4 PROJECT APPROACH .................................................................................................................................85

4.1 INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................................................85 4.2 NEW GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR RAMSAR SITES AND OTHER WETLANDS – A COMPARISON WITH THE ODMP PROJECT.................................................................................................................86

4.2.1 General guidelines...............................................................................................................................86 4.2.2 The functions of wetland management planning .................................................................................87 4.2.3 Stakeholders, particularly local communities and indigenous people.................................................91 4.2.4 The precautionary approach as applied to environmental management.............................................91 4.2.5 Management planning is a process .....................................................................................................91 4.2.6 Adaptable management .......................................................................................................................92 4.2.7 Use of management units, zonation and buffer zones..........................................................................93 4.2.8 Actual format of the management plan................................................................................................93

4.2.8.1 Preamble ....................................................................................................................................................94 4.2.8.2 Site description...........................................................................................................................................94 4.2.8.3 Evaluation ..................................................................................................................................................95 4.2.8.4 Objectives ..................................................................................................................................................95

4.2.8.4.1 Preparing measurable objectives...........................................................................................................95 4.2.8.5 Action plan.................................................................................................................................................96

4.2.8.5.1 Management actions .............................................................................................................................96 4.2.8.5.2 Compliance with existing legal and other obligations...........................................................................96 4.2.8.5.3 Management of site infrastructure and major operational and logistical support services ....................96 4.2.8.5.4 Reviews and audits ...............................................................................................................................97

4.3 THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH – A COMPARISON WITH ODMP........................................................................97 4.4 ODMP PROJECT PRINCIPLES ...................................................................................................................100

4.4.1 Vision based..................................................................................................................................100 4.4.2 Responsibility and accountability .................................................................................................100 4.4.3 Active stakeholder participation ...................................................................................................100 4.4.4 Association of international stakeholders.....................................................................................101 4.4.5 Partnership building .....................................................................................................................101 4.4.6 An integrated planning process ....................................................................................................101 4.4.7 A dynamic and phased approach..................................................................................................101 4.4.8 An action orientated plan that primarily addresses areas of conflict ...........................................102 4.4.9 Undertaking training ....................................................................................................................102 4.4.10 Building capacity ..........................................................................................................................102 4.4.11 Gender aware ...............................................................................................................................102 4.4.12 Addressing HIV/AIDS ...................................................................................................................102 4.4.13 Use of the precautionary approach ..............................................................................................103

5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT & GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES ..........................................................104 5.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................104 5.2 THE PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (PSC)..........................................................................................104

5.2.1 Terms of reference for the PSC .........................................................................................................104 5.2.2 Objective of the PSC..........................................................................................................................105 5.2.3 Responsibilities of the PSC................................................................................................................105

5.3 THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP (PMG)..........................................................................................107 5.3.1 Project Manager................................................................................................................................107 5.3.2 Project Facilitator .............................................................................................................................107 5.3.3 Project Coordinator ..........................................................................................................................108 5.3.4 Chief Technical Advisor ....................................................................................................................109

5.4 THE ODMP PROJECT SECRETARIAT .......................................................................................................110 5.5 THE OWMC ...........................................................................................................................................110

5.5.1 Terms of Reference for the OWMC ...................................................................................................111 5.5.2 Objective of the OWMC.....................................................................................................................111 5.5.3 Responsibilities of the OWMC...........................................................................................................112

5.6 COMPONENT TASK FORCES AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEES ..................................................................114 5.7 CORE PROJECT PARTNERS ........................................................................................................................114

6 INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION ASPECTS...............................................................................116 6.1 INTEGRATING THINKING..........................................................................................................................116 6.2 INTEGRATING AND COORDINATING PROJECT ACTIVITIES.........................................................................116

5

6.3 INTEGRATING OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES.................................................................................................117 6.4 INTEGRATING AND COORDINATING WIDER DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES .............................................117 6.5 SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF PROJECT INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION .........................................................118

6.5.1 Policy, planning and strategy and dialogue, communication and networking .............................118 6.5.2 Research, data management and participatory planning .............................................................118 6.5.3 Hydrology and water resources....................................................................................................119 6.5.4 Wildlife management ....................................................................................................................119 6.5.5 Sustainable tourism and CBNRM .................................................................................................119 6.5.6 Sustainable fisheries utilisation and management........................................................................120 6.5.7 Vegetation resources management ...............................................................................................120 6.5.8 Physical planning .........................................................................................................................120 6.5.9 Land use and land management ...................................................................................................120 6.5.10 Waste management .......................................................................................................................121 6.5.11 Sustainable livestock management................................................................................................121

7 PROJECT BUDGET.....................................................................................................................................122 7.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................122 7.2 POLICY, PLANNING AND STRATEGY COMPONENT ....................................................................................122 7.3 DIALOGUE, COMMUNICATION & NETWORKING COMPONENT .................................................................123 7.4 RESEARCH, DATA MANAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATORY PLANNING COMPONENT ...............................123 7.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES.....................................................................................................124 7.6 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT COMPONENT ....................................................................................................124 7.7 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AND CBNRM COMPONENT ..................................................................................124 7.8 SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES UTILISATION AND MANAGEMENT .....................................................................125 7.9 VEGETATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT.................................................................................................125 7.10 PHYSICAL PLANNING COMPONENT...........................................................................................................125 7.11 LAND USE PLANNING COMPONENT...........................................................................................................126 7.12 WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPONENT.........................................................................................................126 7.13 SUSTAINABLE LIVESTOCK COMPONENT ...................................................................................................126 7.14 OVERALL PROJECT BUDGET .....................................................................................................................127

8 PROJECT TIMELINE – IMPLICATIONS FOR PROJECT DELIVERY.............................................129 8.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................129 8.2 CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES............................................................................................................129 8.3 PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS .....................................................................................................................133

8.3.1 Remove the need for task forces ........................................................................................................133 8.3.2 Limit task force composition..............................................................................................................133 8.3.3 Allow task forces to run concurrently................................................................................................133 8.3.4 Extend project timeframe...................................................................................................................134

8.4 FINAL RECOMMENDATION.....................................................................................................................134

6

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AG Attorney General AIDS Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome ALDEP Arable Land Development Programme ARB Agricultural Resources Board ARD Associates in Rural Development BDP Botswana Democratic Party BTDP Botswana Tourism Development Programme BWF Basin Wide Forum BWMA Botswana Wildlife Management Association BWP Botswana Pula CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management CBPP Contagious Bovine Pluero Pneumonia CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CBO Community Based Organisation CC Conservation Committee CCD Convention to Combat Desertification CEDA Citizen Entrepreneurial Development Agency CEO Chief Executive Officer CEPA Communication, Education and Public Awareness CFP Component Focal Point CHA Controlled Hunting Area CI Conservation International CITES Commission for the International Trade in Endangered Species CKGR Central Kalahari Game Reserve CoP Convention of the Parties CoS Communication Specialist CPC Country Programme Coordinator CS Council Secretary CSO Central Statistics Office CT Community Trust CTA Chief Technical Advisor CTO Central Transport Organisation DAHP Department of Animal Health and Production DANIDA Danish International Development Agency DC District Commissioner DCP Department of Crop Production DDC District Development Committee DDP District Development Plan DED Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst or the German Development Service DGS Department of Geological Surveys DLUPU District Land Use Planning Unit DMP Draft Management Plan DMS Department of Meteorological Services DOD District Officer Development DOL District Officer Lands DoL Department of Lands DoT Department of Tourism DPS Deputy Permanent Secretary DSA Daily Service Allowance DSM Department of Surveys and Mapping DTRP Department of Town and Regional Planning DWA Department of Water Affairs DWNP Department of Wildlife and National Parks EA Ecosystem Approach EHD Environmental Health Department EIA Environmental Impact Assessment ERP Every River Has Its People Project ESA European Space Agency ETZ Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich EU European Union FAO Food and Agricultural Organisation FAP Financial Assistance Policy FC Farmers Committee FIMP Final Management Plan FMD Foot and Mouth Disease FRAMP Framework Management Plan GDP Gross Domestic Product GEF Global Environmental Facility GIS Geographical Information System GoB Government of Botswana GPS Global Positioning System HATAB Hotel and Tourism Association of Botswana HEC Human – Elephant Conflict HIV Human Immuno Virus HoD Head of Division HOORC Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre IAS Invasive Alien Species IPE Information and Public Education

7

IR Inception Report IRBM Integrated River Basin Management IT Information Technology IUCN The World Conservation Union IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management KCS Kalahari Conservation Society LAC Limits of Acceptable Change M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEA Multilateral Environmental Agreements MEWT Ministry of Environment, Wildlife & Tourism MCM Million Cubic Metres MFDP Ministry of Finance and Development Planning MGDP Maun Groundwater Development Programme MM Man Months MMEWA Ministry of Minerals, Energy and Water Affairs MoA Ministry of Agriculture MoT Ministry of Transport MWSSRUP Maun Water Supply and Sanitation Rehabilitation and Upgrade Project NACT National Council on Tourism NCSA National Conservation Strategy (Co-ordinating) Agency NDP National Development Plan NDSS Ngamiland District Settlement Strategy NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NWDC North West District Council ODMA Okavango Delta Management Authority ODMP Okavango Delta Management Plan ODIS Okavango Delta Information System OFMC Okavango Fishery Management Committee OKACOM Permanent Okavango River Basin Commission ORB Okavango River Basin OWMC Okavango Wetland Management Committee PAN Trust People and Nature Trust PF Project Facilitator PLA Participatory Learning and Action PMG Project Management Group PP Participatory Planner PPADB Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Board PPU Physical Planning Unit PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal PSC Project Steering Committee RAD Remote Area Development RIS Ramsar Information Sheet SADC Southern African Development Community SAP Strategic Action Plan SDP Settlement Development Plan SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SIDA Swedish International Development Agency TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis TF Task Force TLB Tawana Land Board ToR Terms of Reference TWINBAS Twinning European and third countries river basins for development of integrated water

resources management methods UN United Nations UNCED United Nations Conference on Environment and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environmental Programme UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change USAID United States Agency for International Development USD United States Dollars VDC Village Development Committee VTC Village Trust Committee WERRD Water and Ecosystem in Regional Development WANI Water and Nature Initiative (IUCN) WMA Wildlife Management Area

8

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT TITLE Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP) LOCALITY North West District, Ngamiland sub-district, Okavango Delta Ramsar Site, Botswana RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT INSTITUTION Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism (MEWT) through the National Conservation Strategy Agency (NCSA). NCSA is the Government of Botswana (GoB) institution responsible for the implementation of the Ramsar Convention in Botswana and thus is the authority to facilitate, coordinate and supervise the management planning process for the Okavango Delta. NCSA will therefore be responsible for overall project implementation. The Executive Secretary of the NCSA is the Project Manager (PM). PROJECT RATIONALE The GoB ratified the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as waterfowl habitat, or more commonly referred to as the Ramsar Convention, in April 1997. It listed the Okavango Delta and the surrounding areas as a Ramsar site and in doing so made it the world’s largest area protected under the convention. Concerns over increasing threats to, as well as actual impacts on, the well-being and changes in the ecological functioning of the Okavango Delta have been raised and observed over the years. Among other factors, such changes have been attributed to a growing population, its accompanying socio-economic developments, changes in the catchment upstream, climate change and the impact of all of these. Specific concerns raised include:

Conflicting and contradictory policies Insufficient and inappropriate stakeholder communication and consultative

mechanisms Inaccessible existing information Research gaps, specifically in relation to management needs Water abstraction and obstruction Deterioration in water quality Lack of understanding of the areas hydrology The large and increasing elephant population Human – wildlife conflicts Unsustainable or inappropriate tourism practices and numbers Ineffective community based natural resource management (CBNRM)

programmes Possible over fishing

9

Unsustainable harvesting of veld products Veld fires Inappropriate or unsustainable settlement development Inappropriate or unsustainable land use practices Inappropriate or insufficient waste management practices Veterinary fences Proximity of livestock to wildlife

Such concerns, both in the Okavango Delta and in Botswana’s other wetland areas led the GoB not only to accede to the Ramsar Convention but also to develop its own draft National Wetlands Policy and Strategy (2001). The provisions of both the Wetlands Policy, and the Ramsar Convention, require that Botswana develop an integrated management plan of the Okavango Delta. PROJECT APPROACH The management planning approach is based on the Ramsar Bureau’s “New Guidelines for management planning for Ramsar sites and other wetlands” and on the Ecosystem Approach which is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. The ODMP Project was designed under the main principle of strengthening ownership through accountability and the active participation of all stakeholders both during development and implementation of the plan. There are also 13 supporting principles: i) Vision based ii) Responsibility and accountability iii) Active stakeholder participation iv) Association of international stakeholders v) Partnership building vi) An integrated planning process vii) A dynamic and phased approach viii) An action orientated plan that primarily addresses areas of conflict ix) Undertaking training x) Building capacity xi) Gender aware xii) Addressing HIV/AIDS xiii) Use of the precautionary approach START DATE Work started in May 2003 and the project was officially launched in October 2003

10

DURATION 39 months AVAILABLE RESOURCES

Donor Amount (USD)

GoB 3 522 000 The World Conservation Union – IUCN (through the Water and Nature Initiative (WANI)) 1 000 000 The Danish International Development Agency – DANIDA 1 509 000 The Swedish International Development Agency – SIDA 720 000 Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst or the German Development Service – DED 190 000

TOTAL 6 941 000

OVERALL OBJECTIVE To integrate resource management for the Okavango Delta that will ensure its long-term conservation and that will provide benefits for the present and future well being of the people, through sustainable use of its natural resources. PROJECT PURPOSE To develop a comprehensive, integrated management plan for the conservation and sustainable use of the Okavango Delta and surrounding areas. OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES For each individual component, the specific outcomes and outputs are described in detail in the individual chapters of Volume 2. Summarising all components, however, the project encompasses:

Provision of a long-term vision for the Okavango Delta that includes development options and management scenarios

An integrated, dynamic management plan, providing the overarching framework and contextual guidelines for all other district strategies, plans (e.g. specific settlement development plans), individual area and sector plans

A plan that is adopted by all major stakeholders Determination and setting levels of use in order to ensure sustainability and

protection of the natural resources of the Ramsar site Determination and implementation of research needs, determination of monitoring

requirements and setting standards Provision of data and filling of information gaps Proposition of development options to the Permanent Okavango River Basin

Commission (OKACOM) for its entire Okavango River basin management planning exercise

Establishment of an institutional framework to implement the management plan Development of procedures for implementation, as well as regular and transparent

review of the plan

11

Creation of capacity in the different implementing agencies, not only for the planning process itself but also to ensure the plan’s eventual and ongoing implementation. This includes, but is not limited to, improving:

• Data handling, collection and storage ability

• Comprehensive monitoring and evaluation

• Education about ecosystem functioning and use

• Training in specific and relevant areas as determined by component focal points (CFPs) in association with the ODMP Project Secretariat

ACTIVITIES Specific activities for each component are described in detail in Volume 2. Plan development will follow a phased approach of which this Inception Report (IR) is the first step. This will be then followed by a Framework Management Plan (FRAMP) approximately 12 months later. Once in place, identified shortcomings in the FRAMP will then be addressed, so that 6 months later a Draft Management Plan (DMP) will be available. Approximately 3 months after the DMP, the Final Management Plan (FIMP) will be produced. During plan development, one or two key issues will be selected for immediate attention by undertaking practical pilot projects. These will be implemented in specifically selected areas with the intention to

Ensure that stakeholders are fully on board with the planning process Address any potential inertia or lack of confidence during such a long planning

process Ensure integration of stakeholders in decision making and planning

Pilot project will be implemented during development of the FRAMP and results drawn from them integrated to update the next version of the plan. STAKEHOLDERS There are many stakeholders associated with the planning process. Primary stakeholders such as the local communities and community based organisations (CBOs). These will be accessed utilising forums such as the Kgotla system and other participatory consultation mechanisms (meetings, specific workshops etc). Secondary stakeholders include tourism and safari operators, private individuals, companies and associations, e.g. the Hotel and Tourism Association of Botswana (HATAB), non-governmental organisations (NGOs) etc. Tertiary stakeholders include other government departments in Botswana, OKACOM, other governments and communities in the Okavango River basin upstream of the Delta, international stakeholders and donors, such as IUCN and Ramsar Bureau PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND GOVERNANCE Project management will be achieved through the following support structures:

12

i) The Project Steering Committee (PSC); this operates at national level and comprised of directors and or heads of all ODMP component institutions, project donors/partners, NGOs and the private sector.

ii) The Project Management Group (PMG); charged with the day-to-day running and management of the project and comprised of the 4(5) key personnel in the Project Secretariat.

iii) The Okavango Wetland Management Committee (OWMC); this operates at district level and is comprised of a similar group to the PSC but with representatives taken from district level.

iv) Task forces (TFs) and technical committees established for each component and comprised of CFPs, i.e. the specific, named officer/s in each institution charged with ODMP project work, and other technical experts.

Project implementation will be governed by the rules and regulations of the GoB and to some extent the other donor agencies involved, e.g. their specific conditions and guidelines will apply to certain project staff, some fund disbursement and administration, project staff conditions, tendering out of certain project activities etc. The project is composed of a number of mainly sectoral components. The main responsibility for formulation and implementation of each project component within the framework of the ODMP lies with these agencies, their staff as well as other relevant institutions. The ODMP Secretariat will provide support, advice and input as and when needed and seek to assist in the resolution of any issues or problems as and when they might arise. The overall process will be managed, facilitated, technically assisted, integrated and co-ordinated by the Project Secretariat. The following twelve (12) components and lead agencies have been identified: i) Policy, planning and strategy – including project management, co-ordination,

integration and technical assistance: NCSA and IUCN. ii) Communication: NCSA and IUCN. iii) Research, data management and participatory planning: Harry Oppenheimer

Okavango Research Centre (HOORC). iv) Hydrology and water resources: Department of Water Affairs (DWA). v) Wildlife management: Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP). vi) Sustainable tourism and CBNRM: Department of Tourism (DoT) and North West

District Council (NWDC). vii) Fisheries management: DWNP, Division of Fisheries. viii) Vegetation resources management: Department of Crop Production (DCP),

Division of Forestry and the Agricultural Resources Board (ARB). ix) Physical planning: NWDC, Physical Planning Unit (PPU). x) Land use planning and land management: Tawana Land Board (TLB) in

association with DLUPU. xi) Waste management: NWDC, Environmental Health Department (EHD). xii) Sustainable livestock management: Department of Animal Health and Production

(DAHP). In order to achieve the immediate objectives of each component, these leading agencies will have to ensure that effective interaction takes place with other Government agencies as well as with civil society.

13

MAIN ASSUMPTIONS AND RISK ASSESSMENT This is an extremely large and ambitious project. For it to be successful, it will require the full intellectual and logistical commitment from all project CFPs and their respective institutions and at every level, from district to the head office. It will also require the support and “buy-in” of many other, often external, parties. Building such an ambitiously large, comprehensive and integrated management plan is proving to be an extremely complex and slow process. It has taken time to clearly identify specific focal points for each component and even though this has been successfully achieved there are still issues about the capacity of these officers to deliver the requirements of ODMP amongst their other daily duties and work plans. For this to be resolved, focal points and their Head of Division (HoD), Directors and Chief Executive Officers (CEOs) need to accept ODMP as an integral and fundamental part of their officers’ routine work and for the ODMP requirements to be built into their annual work plans. Staff transfer, promotion, movement and the potential impacts of the human immuno virus and the acquired immuno deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) may affect certain components ability to maintain a consistent and effective input to the project; transfer of some people initially identified as focal points has already occurred. It is essential that all components progress at a similar speed and are at a similar stage within the plan development process. If any fall behind, this could threaten the coherence of the entire planning process and may result in the breakdown of the whole planning exercise. It is important to remember that this process is as much about integration as any other aspect. Sound and consistent management, co-ordination, facilitation and technical advice will be required at every stage. Certain pending policy decisions with the potential to impact on the Delta’s ecosystem functioning will need to be made in order for component activities to be implemented as designed, e.g. a decision on recommendations for the alignment of veterinary fences around the Delta. Some existing policies are also not in consonance with the principles of sustainable use and development and may need to be reviewed and modified. Regional collaboration must also be sought and secured to ensure that the upstream countries (Namibia and Angola) share the fundamental philosophy behind the ODMP and will respect its provisions.

14

1 BACKGROUND

1.1 THE RAMSAR CONVENTION

The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as waterfowl habitat was drawn up in the Iranian town of Ramsar in 1971 and is therefore more commonly known as “the Ramsar Convention”. The main aims of the convention are to prevent the worldwide loss and degradation of wetlands and to ensure that they are used wisely and in a sustainable manner whilst also maintaining their biodiversity value and their ecosystem services. The Ramsar Convention defines wetlands as: “Any area of marsh, fen, peatland or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static (lentic) or flowing (lotic), fresh, brackish or salt…” The Ramsar Convention places inland wetland features into broad categories intended to provide a very broad framework to aid rapid identification of main wetland habitats represented at any site. These categories are: L Permanent inland deltas M Permanent rivers/streams/creeks; includes waterfalls N Seasonal/intermittent/irregular rivers/streams/creeks O Permanent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes large oxbow lakes P Seasonal/intermittent freshwater lakes (over 8 ha); includes floodplain lakes Q Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes R Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline lakes and flats Sp Permanent saline/brackish/alkaline marshes/pools Ss Seasonal/intermittent saline/brackish/alkaline marshes/pools Tp Permanent freshwater marshes/pools; ponds (below 8 ha), marshes and

swamps on inorganic soils; with emergent vegetation water-logged for at least most of the growing season

Ts Seasonal/intermittent freshwater marshes/pools on inorganic soils; includes sloughs, potholes, seasonally flooded meadows, sedge marshes

U Non-forested peat lands; includes shrub or open bogs, swamps, fens Va Alpine wetlands; includes alpine meadows, temporary waters from snowmelt Vt Tundra wetlands; includes tundra pools, temporary waters from snowmelt W Shrub-dominated wetlands; shrub swamps, shrub-dominated freshwater

marshes, shrub carr, alder thicket on inorganic soils Xf Freshwater, tree-dominated wetlands; includes freshwater swamp forests,

seasonally flooded forests, wooded swamps on inorganic soils Xp Forested peat lands; peat swamp forests Y Freshwater springs; oases Zg Geothermal wetlands

15

Zk(b) Karst and other subterranean hydrological systems The Okavango Delta Ramsar site is composed of a number of these (L, M, N, O P, Tp and Ts) as well as areas which are not classified as wetlands at all, i.e. the dry sand veld areas around the edges of the Delta itself. Although the area is known as the Okavango Delta and is classified under the convention under category L – Inland Delta, it is in fact more accurate to describe the Delta as an “alluvial fan”. It is the multiplicity of habitats between the extremes of perennial swamp and semi-arid scrubland that allow a substantial biodiversity among all life forms and that compensates for the vagaries of an otherwise mainly dry, low-rainfall, drought-prone and very variable climate. It is the juxtaposition of these contrasting land and waterscapes, with their attendant biota in a wilderness setting, which provides the rationale for the sites inclusion in the Ramsar convention and, concomitantly, the areas appeal to tourism. The GoB ratified the Ramsar Convention and became a contracting party as of the 4th April 1997 when it listed the Okavango Delta system as a Wetland of International Importance as per Article 2 of the convention. Figure 1 Location and boundary of the Okavango Delta Ramsar site as originally proposed

to the Ramsar Bureau in 1997

Chobe

Kwando

Okavango

Ngamiland

Ramsar SiteOkavango River Basin (active)WetlandsRivers and DrainagesNgamiland

Wetlands of the OkavangoRiver Basin

100 0 100 200 KilometersN

1.2 THE OKAVANGO DELTA RAMSAR SITE

1.2.1 The Ramsar boundary and Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS)

The site originally proposed to the Ramsar Bureau by GoB’s Ramsar coordinator, the NCSA, is shown in Figure 1. The original area submitted to the Ramsar Bureau was a simple rectangular area around the Delta itself and lay between coordinates 021° 45' & 23° 53' east and 18° 15' & 20°45' south making it the largest declared Ramsar site in the world.

16

During the inception phase, the ODMP project secretariat went through a process of consultation with a number of stakeholders, including communities, fishermen, the tourism business and most especially its project partners, to rationalise the existing Ramsar boundary in relation to ecological, geological, geographical, hydrological and socio-economic factors. In response to the comments received and discussions held, a revised boundary has been developed and agreed and is being used by the project. This is shown in Figure 2. In addition to the boundary revision, details on the physical location, nature of the site as well as its ecological and environmental status and importance, are also being updated. This information is presented in a standard format in what is known as the Ramsar Information Sheet (RIS) and this must accompany the information on the boundary of any site proposed to the Ramsar Bureau. The RIS submitted in 1996 is therefore also in the process of being updated, partly through this IR and the new RIS, as well as the new boundary proposal, will be resubmitted by NCSA to the Ramsar Bureau for approval in February 2005.

1.2.2 Physical location and characteristics of the site

The area of the area enclosed by the new boundary is 55 374km2, some 6 380km2 smaller than the original site which was 61 683km2. Despite this reduction in size, the site remains the worlds largest Ramsar site. The area of permanent swamp covers approximately 6000 km2, while the seasonal swamp varies between about 4000 and 10,000 km2 in size, depending on the size of the flood each year. Approximately 9% of the new area designated as a Ramsar site falls either within the Moremi Game Reserve or the Chobe National Park and is thereby protected under the 1992 National Parks Act. Moremi Game Reserve is wholly utilized for non-consumptive, i.e. photographic tourism and is currently zoned into a medium density, low density and wilderness zones, in which there is a progressively decreasing amount of human activity. Although the management plan for the park is currently being revised, it appears that these broad land use zones will remain. A further 40% is protected under the same act as wildlife management areas (WMAs), activities undertaken within which are controlled through the WMA Regulations (2000). WMAs are classified into areas for commercial or community management and are either zoned for non-consumptive utilisation (areas immediately bordering the Moremi) or as multi-purpose areas in which both non-consumptive and consumptive utilisation (trophy hunting, citizen hunting, subsistence hunting, capture, culling and cropping) are allowed. In the community managed areas limited subsistence cropping takes place, while some small stock and donkeys are kept as well that allow for both consumptive and non-consumptive use of wildlife. Nine Controlled Hunting Areas (CHAs) are zoned for community management while a further twelve are zoned for commercial management. The remaining area (51%) is zoned for agricultural and residential development. The whole area is designated as Tribal Land and is thus under the control of the TLB. It is the TLB that leases concession areas to safari operators for hunting, photographic or combined purposes. Although this project is developing a management plan for the Delta only, the rest of the Okavango River Basin (ORB) also forms part of the project locality in that the management plan will partly be developed through consultation with stakeholders throughout the basin.

17

Figure 2 Map showing the proposed boundary for the Okavango Delta Ramsar site.

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

##

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#

#######

#

Shakawe

Sehithwa

Gumare

Maun

Seronga

Ramsar Site Boundary (Proposed)

Village#

RoadsTarredGravel

Main Track

River

Lake

Delta (wet)

Park/Reserve

Ngamiland District Boundary

LEGENDNA M IB IA

NA

MIB

IA

AN GO L A

ZA M BIA

ZIM

B ABW

E

SOU T

H A FR IC

A

BO TS WAN A

Central

Ghanzi

Kgalagadi

Kweneng

Chobe

Southern

Kgatleng

North East

South East

NGAMILAND

N

40 0 40 80 Kilometers

The newly proposed designated area covers the north-eastern part of the Northwest District of Botswana known as the Ngamiland sub-district. It borders Namibia along the entire northern boundary where the Okavango River enters Botswana from Namibia, although originating in Angola. The Kwando-Linyanti River system also forms part of both the Ramsar boundary and the Botswana-Namibia border in the north-eastern section. Maun, with a population of circa 35 000, is the major village of the area and it is considered by some to vie with Kasane on the Chobe River for the title of “the tourist capital of Botswana”. Gaborone, the capital city of Botswana, is some 1000 kilometres south east of the Delta. The site includes the Botswana section of the Okavango River itself, more commonly referred to as “the panhandle”, the entire seasonal and permanent wetland parts of the Okavango Delta proper, including Lake Ngami, as well as parts of the separate, but

18

occasionally hydraulically linked via a now dry channel known as the Selinda spillway, Kwando-Linyanti River systems. Where the river enters Botswana at Mohembo it has an altitude of 1020m above sea level and this falls to 940m at the bottom end around Maun. The lowest points are two depressions, one in the south west at 925m and forming Lake Ngami and one in the east at 920m forming the Mababe Depression. The highest point is the north-west at Tsodilo Hills where the peak of the biggest, or male, hill reaches to a maximum height of 1435m, with the hill itself raising 410m above the surrounding sand veld. Three main features characterise the designated area, namely the Okavango River, the Kwando-Linyanti river system and the intervening and surrounding dryland areas. These features are all located within the Okavango rift, a geological active feature and still subject to tectonic influence. The area is covered in Kalahari Group sediments, principally sand, that form a mantle of up to 300 metres thick in places. The Delta itself is arguably the most important of the above named features as an inland delta wetland system in what is otherwise a semi-arid region. Inflow to the Delta has fluctuated between 7,000 - 15,000MCM (7-15km2) since records began. Inflow also varies considerably on an annual basis, peaking in May-June at anywhere between 400 & 800m3/sec and reaching a minimum in Oct-Nov at circa 120m3/sec. These annual and longer term fluctuations in inflow, as well as the semi-arid and highly variable climate of the area in which the Delta is found, all combine to ensure that the area is comprised of a broad range of habitats ranging from permanent swamp through annual swamp, occasional and very intermittently flooded areas to permanent dry land sand veld. As outlined above, the total drop in altitude between the inflow at Mohembo and the main outflow at Maun, a distance of 440 km, is only 62 metres, giving a gradient of approximately 1:7,000 only. Maximum local relief, between island peaks and the central part of channels (thalweg) is around 6 metres. The overall very gentle slope from inflow to outflow contributes to the complex and frequent meandering, anastomising and braiding of channels as well as to a wide and remarkably even distribution of the bedload sand carried by the river. This sand slowly accumulates in channels and eventually leads to them becoming more and more shallow and the flow slower and slower thereby allowing vegetation to take hold, eventually blocking the channel. When this happens, water moves elsewhere, forming a new channel, often promoted by the movement of hippos or elephants who are important “ecological engineers” in this respect. Channel death (blockage) and birth (formation) are thus relatively frequent and natural features of the Delta’s hydrological dynamics. During the dry season, most water is restricted to the channels, especially in the seasonal swamps, while during the flood, a good deal of water leaves the channels and moves through floodplains. Similar flooding and habitat patterns are also found in the Kwando-Linyanti river system, although this system is much less variable hydraulically.

1.2.3 Ecological characteristics of the site

1.2.3.1 Introduction As mentioned above, it is the juxtaposition of contrasting land and waterscapes, with their attendant biota in what would otherwise be a semi-arid wilderness setting, which provides the rationale for the sites inclusion in the Ramsar convention. In addition to this, changing seasons combined with the annual variation in inflow from flood to low flow also leads to large seasonal concentrations of bird and wildlife, further adding to the area’s very high biological value. The primary ecological determinant is flooding duration and depth. This maintains open floodplain grassland by preventing woody encroachment. Most vegetation in flooded areas consists of sedges, grasses and

19

aquatic plants. Woody species are restricted to the dryland areas and the islands, with the exception of water fig. Permanent and seasonal floodplains form critical habitat for many species of wildlife and birdlife that are at their southern limits of distribution in the region. The maximum flooding occurs in the winter (dry) months and thus provides important dry season forage and water for wildlife. Conversely, the dryland areas form important grazing areas in the rainy season. Fluctuations in flooded area are very important for productivity, both primary and secondary

1.2.3.2 Flora Some 1061 different plant species have been recorded in the Delta. While the area as a whole has a high plant species/area ratio, particularly when compared with other parts of the subcontinent, this situation arises more from the wide spectrum of habitats found rather than to any greater, inherent within-habitat diversity. The Okavango River system is highly oligotrophic (low nutrient) and thus generally has a low productivity, although the Delta is probably one of the most productive parts due to its location at the terminal end of the system and thus as a “sink” for everything entering the system upstream. Almost half the number of plant species recorded grow in the wetlands themselves with the other half in the dryland areas. There are 208 aquatics or semi-aquatics, 675 herbs (including grasses, sedges and forbs) and 195 woody plants (trees, shrubs, etc.). The most important families are the grasses, sedge, legumes and composites with 460 species (some 43% of the total) of which the most important are probably reeds (Phragmites spp.), papyrus (Cyperus papyrus) and grasses such as Cynodon dactylon. The woodland and savannah communities are dominated by trees (Colophospermum mopane, Acacia spp., Albizia spp., Lonchocarpus spp., Dichrostachus cinerea, Combretum spp., Terminalia spp.) or shrubs of the legume family such as Grewia spp., Maytenus spp., Rhus tenuinervis and Ximenia spp. One orchid (Habenaria pasmithii) is so far the only plant known to be endemic to the Okavango region although several other rare and endangered species of orchids also occur.

1.2.3.3 Fauna 1.2.3.3.1 Mammals The Okavango Delta and the Kwando-Linyanti River systems sustain a wide variety of mammalian fauna (perhaps with the exception of small mammals in the Delta proper largely due to the shortage of certain niches occurring as a result of seasonal flooding). There are some 32 large mammal species in this area, most notably strongholds of sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei), red lechwe (Kobus leche), elephant (Loxodonta africana) and wild dog (Lycaon pictus) and it is these populations that are of paramount importance with regards to the areas designation. Some 72 other mammal species occur in the area with the majority represented by three groups, namely carnivores (23 spp.), rodents (24 spp.) and bats (12 spp.). It is the broad spectrum of interlocking habitat types within all the wetland systems of northern Botswana (Okavango, Chobe, Magkadigkadi etc.) that contribute to this diversity of mammalian species, which range from those that are almost or completely aquatic to those that are by and large independent of surface water. Several species, including elephant, zebra and wildebeest, migrate on a seasonal basis between temporal and permanent wetlands and the seasonal grazing areas scattered throughout northern Botswana. Aquatic or semi-aquatic large mammals, namely hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius), sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei) and red lechwe (Kobus leche) are only found in permanent swamps or areas of perennial water.

20

Terrestrial herbivores, such as buffalo (Syncerus caffer), zebra (Equus burchellii), elephant (Loxodonta africana), blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), tsessebe (Damaliscus lunatus), reedbuck (Redunca arundinum), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus), puku (Kobus vardonii), impala (Aepyceros melampus) and waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), that require regular access to surface water are common in seasonally inundated areas. Their distribution is largely determined by the magnitude of the annual flood. Higher dryland masses, such as islands, found within the Okavango Delta itself and along the riverfronts of the Linyanti and Kwando are important refuge areas for such species, particularly when flooding renders other areas inaccessible. Less water dependent species, such as common duiker (Sylvicapra grimmia), steenbok (Raphicerus campestris), eland (Taurotragus oryx), gemsbok (Oryx gazella), giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis), kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros), sable (Hippotragus niger), roan (Hippotragus equinus), ostrich (Struthio camelus), warthog (Phacochoerus aethiopicus) utilise and rely on the presence of surface water to a much lesser degree. The high concentration of herbivores in the area, especially near permanent water bodies, also attracts numerous predators such as: Lion (Panthera leo), spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta), wild dog (Lycaon pictus), cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus) and leopard (Panthera pardus). Chacma baboons (Papio ursinus) are conspicuous residents of the ecotonal areas (areas where one habitat changes to another, e.g. the edges of islands) of these wetland systems and vervet monkeys (Cercopithecus aethiops) are also common. 1.2.3.3.2 Birds According to Tyler and Bishop (1998), there are four important bird areas within the declared Okavango Delta Ramsar site, namely the Kwando-Linyanti (and Chobe) river and swamp system to the north-east, the main Okavango Delta itself, Lake Ngami (when it has water) and the terrestrial areas between these wetlands. Most of the species found in Kwando-Linyanti area also occur in the Okavango Delta and as the records for this site are combined with those for the Chobe River it isn’t possible from the existing information to give a description of the birds just from the Kwando-Linyanti end of the system. The Okavango Delta is undoubtedly the most important wetland in southern Africa. As the Delta is poor in nutrients, in general, bird densities are not high but it’s large size and the diversity it contains make it highly significant internationally. About 450 bird species have been recorded in the Okavango, Kwando and Linyanti areas and of particular note are the breeding and visiting wattled crane Bugeranus carunculatus (100-500 pairs, 1,000-2,000 birds) and breeding slaty egret Egretta vinaceigula (100-1,000 pairs, 2,000 birds) as the Delta is their main breeding area. Both of these species are globally threatened. There is a wide variety of other wetland birds that occur in the Delta such as white- Pelecanus onocrotalus (2,000-2,500 birds) and pink-backed Pelecanus rufescens (50 pairs, 250 birds) pelicans as well as 18 species of herons and a breeding population of African Skimmer Rhynchops flavirostris. The Delta also holds large mixed roosts of herons, egrets, storks and ibis and many species, such as great egret Casmerodius albus and rufous-bellied heron Butorides rufiventris occur in good numbers. There are good numbers, but not particularly high densities, of many species of ducks, including red-billed teal Anas erythrorhyncha, white-faced duck Dendrocygna viduata, spur-winged goose Plectropterus gambensis and white-backed duck Thalassornis leuconotus. The pygmy goose Nettapus auritus has a major stronghold in the Delta (6,200-15,000 pairs, 30,000-40,000 birds).

21

There are also other important populations of water-linked birds. such as the lesser jacana Microparra capensis (500 birds), long-toed lapwing Vanellus crassirostris (500-600 birds), swamp nightjar Caprimulgus natalensis (100-200 birds) and rosy-throated longclaw Macronyx ameliae ( 250 birds). There is also a large population of Pel`s fishing qwl Scotopelia peli (200 birds). Within the Ramsar site, there is also a good deal of terrestrial bird species. Large numbers of whitebacked vulture Gyps africanus (400-800 pairs, 2000 birds), hooded vulture Necrosyrtes monachus (20-40 pairs, 100-200 birds), lappetfaced vulture Torgos tracheliotus (20-30 pairs, 100 birds), whiteheaded vulture Trigonoceps occipitalis (200 pairs, 500 birds), martial eagle Polemaetus bellicosus (20 pairs, 50-100 birds), bateleur Terathopius ecaudatus (50-100 pairs, 2000 birds), western banded snake eagle Circaetus cinerascens (10 pairs, 150 birds), tawny eagle Aquila rapax (50 pairs, 350 birds) and bat hawk Macheiramphus alcinus (100 birds). Terrestrial areas are also strongholds for large ground dwelling species such as the secretary bird Sagittarius serpentarius (200 pairs, 500 birds), kori bustard Ardeotis kori (50 pairs, 200 birds) and ground hornbill Bucorvus leadbeateri (40 groups, 250 birds). The rednecked falcon Falco chicquera also has an important resident population and western and eastern redfooted falcons F. vespertinus and F. amurensis occur as visitors as does the European swallow Hirundo rustica. Copperytailed coucal Centropus cupreicaudus, swamp boubou Laniarius bicolour, Hartlaub’s babbler Turdoides hartlaubii and the brownthroated weaver Ploceus xanthopterus are also important resident species. The greater swamp warbler Acrocephalus rufescens occurs at its southernmost limit in Africa. When flooded, Lake Ngami is a feeding area for flamingo and large numbers of other waterfowl, such as redbilled teal Anas erythrorhyncha and also as a breeding site, e.g. the white pelican P. onocrotalus has bred here. Several species of sub-regional conservation concern have also been recorded at the site, such as bittern Botaurus stellaris, Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia and lesser jacana Microparra capensis. Several species have occurred above the 1% of global population level, a characteristic required by the Ramsar Bureau in designating sites under the convention. Such species have included redbilled teal Anas erythrorhyncha, hottentot teal A. hottentota, blackwinged pratincole Glareola nordmanni, redwinged pratincole G. pratincola and whiskered tern Chlidonias hybridus. Other species recorded as breeding at the site include reed cormorant Phalacrocorax africanus, darter Anhinga melanogaster, rufousbellied heron Ardeola rufiventris, greenbacked heron Butorides striatus, goliath heron Ardea goliath, grey heron A. cinerea, scared ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus, fulvous duck Dendrocygna bicolour, whitebacked duck Thalassornis leuconotus and the redknobbed coot Fulica cristata. 1.2.3.3.3 Reptiles and amphibians Very little information appears to exist on these groups although some 95 species of reptiles and amphibians occur in the area, of which some are endemic. 1.2.3.3.4 Fish The Okavango Delta fishery is comprised of 71 known species with species richness decreasing in a downstream direction. Cichlid species (bream), clariids (catfish), Hydrocynus vittatus (tigerfish), the sharp tooth catfish (Clarias gariepinus) and Schilbe (silver catfish or butter barbel) are important commercially. 1.2.3.3.5 Insects The total number of insect species in the Delta is unknown but at least 84 belong to the Dragonfly (Odonata) family, while another 117 belong to the Butterfly and Moth (Lepidoptera) family. Of particular note among the insects is the Tsetse fly which, until

22

very recently, was found throughout the area, especially in the central Delta. This fly has had considerable influence on the social and consequently environmental history of the Okavango by preventing the spread of domestic livestock and arable agriculture from the periphery into the interior. 1.2.3.3.6 Other organisms A large and serious gap in knowledge still exists with regard to very small organisms, such as algae, plankton, bacteria etc. which play a vital role in the ecosystem processes and functioning that strongly influence the ecological character of the Okavango Delta.

1.2.3.4 Important ecological functions The interactions between plants, birds and insects operate to keep the Delta a freshwater system. Even though the Okavango River is a very low salt and nutrient system, very large amounts of salts have been brought into the area over thousands of years and with evaporation a major factor in “outflow” one might logically expect the area to be a salt, rather than a freshwater, marsh system. It is generally considered to be the actions of termites, birds and trees combined that help maintain the freshwater nature of the area. Termites throw up termite mounds, rich in nutrients, in the floodplains and then birds and the wind bring seeds to these mounds thereby colonising them with trees and other vegetation. As they transpire, trees draw water into these islands, concentrating the salts in the island themselves and keeping the water in the channels and floodplains fresh. This process is clearly demonstrated by the white salty patches, devoid of vegetation, visible in the middle of most islands; signs that salts have indeed concentrated to high levels in the islands, so high that no vegetation can survive them. Termites, birds and trees are thus also important “ecological engineers” in the Delta’s structure and function.

1.2.4 Socio-economic characteristics of the site

In an arid country like Botswana water is a very precious commodity and thus the Delta, with its attendant vegetation and wildlife resources has always attracted people. Signs of human habitation of the Delta and its periphery dating back to around 100.000 years have been found. Natural factors like the changes in rainfall and flow pattern, outbreaks of epidemic diseases and the spreading of tsetse fly have, however, affected the settlement and land use pattern of the Okavango swamps. The area also has a number of ethnic groups like the BaYei, the BaTawana, the Hambukushu, the OvaHerero and the BaSawra or San people of which there are three main groups; the //ani Khwe (or River Bushmen), the Buga Khwe and the Ju/’hoansi. Many of these groups traditionally based their lifestyles on rivers and wetlands and are ethnically distinct from other groups in Botswana, having different languages and social structures. The Bayei, for example, are responsible for bringing the “mokoro” (dug-out canoe) to the Delta, although it has now become symbolic of (travel in) the Delta itself. The Hambukushu are the original makers of the baskets that have made Botswana so famous for the craft. Whether originally from wetland areas or not, all these people now rely on the Delta in one way or another for much of their livelihood although all have different perceptions of land and natural resource utilisation. They are, however, united in that they are presently restricted to making their living mainly around the fringes of the Okavango Delta proper and only marginally involved in the burgeoning tourism industry. Large parts of Ngamiland’s population still depend directly on the utilisation of natural resources of the Okavango for subsistence living. Fishing, hunting, livestock grazing, floodplain cultivation and collection of raw materials for building, fuel and the production of handicrafts are important factors of the local economy. Reeds and thatching grass

23

are used for housing needs, palm fronds for making baskets and fish and plant products as food; the latter including not only fruit of trees but also several aquatic plants, such as bulrushes and water lilies. The people of the area have considerable traditional knowledge of the flora and fauna in the Delta, including, for example, plants used for medicinal purposes. Although arable agriculture is also practised in Ngamiland it is mainly at a subsistence level at the fringes of the Okavango Delta through small-scale flood recession, or more commonly referred to as molapo, farming; the soils and prevailing climate are generally not well suited for large-scale, commercial crop production. Grazing resources are generally good in the dryland areas, however, the availability of water and until very recently the occurrence of tsetse fly (the vector for trypanosomiasis or nagana) within and close to the Delta (now controlled in all but the Kwando/Linyanti area through the 2001/2 spraying campaign) have restricted further development of the livestock sector. Many people living in the area also depend on the tourism industry for cash income, either through direct employment or through remittances paid by tour operators to concession holders. Because the tourist season fits neatly between the harvest and ploughing seasons, it has not disrupted subsistence farming but instead allows households to remain economically active throughout the year.

24

2 STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND PARTICIPATION

2.1 THE CONCEPT OF STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION

2.1.1 Who is a stakeholder?

A stakeholder can be defined as “any interested or affected individual or group”.

2.1.2 Stakeholder analysis

If a stakeholder can be defined as “any interested or affected individual or group” it is obvious that stakeholders for the ODMP incorporate a very broad range and a very large number of people. In order to determine how to prioritise which of these many stakeholders to concentrate on and on the best methods by which to undertake consultation, and especially engender participation, it is helpful to categorise stakeholders into groups. Categorisation of stakeholders in management planning traditionally means dividing them into groups based on their degree of association with the object of management, in this case the Okavango Delta. Stakeholders can thus be divided into primary, secondary and tertiary, with primary stakeholders more closely and intimately involved with the Delta and its resources than tertiary stakeholders. Additional divisions and other different kinds of stakeholder groups may become apparent and can be addressed as the project progresses if need be. For the purpose of the ODMP project as a whole, we have initially divided stakeholders into 5 broad categories, although each of these categories will be comprised of smaller groups or individuals. The main categories are:

Project partners – These are the individuals, and the institutions by which they are employed, that are directly involved in the development of the ODMP and who are responsible for the discharge of activities being conducted as part of the project. This group also includes the international donor agencies involved in the project and GoB’s Ministry of Finance and Development Planning (MFDP). The institutions directly involved in the project at district level (core partners) are:

1) Policy, planning and strategy – including project management, co-ordination, integration and technical assistance: NCSA and IUCN.

2) Dialogue, communication and networking: NCSA and the IUCN. 3) Research, data management and participatory planning: HOORC). 4) Hydrology and water resources: DWA. 5) Wildlife management: DWNP. 6) Sustainable tourism and CBNRM: DoT and NWDC. 7) Fisheries management: DWNP’s, Division of Fisheries. 8) Vegetation resources management: DCP, DWNP’s Division of Forestry and the

ARB. 9) Physical planning: Department of Town and Regional Planning (DTRP) through

NWDC’s PPU.

25

10) Land use planning and land management: TLB in association with District Land Use Planning Unit (DLUPU).

11) Waste management: NWDC’s EHD. 12) Sustainable livestock management: DAHP.

Primary stakeholders – groups or individuals directly dependent on, and who derive immediate benefit from, the natural or other (e.g. cultural) resources of the Delta, whether at a subsistence or small-scale commercial level. Primary stakeholders are not very robust and their well-being would be severely or permanently affected should such resources be damaged or destroyed; they would usually be without obvious or immediate other recourse of action in such an event. Primary stakeholders of the Okavango Delta are thus the 120,000 residents of the Okavango Delta and their various groupings such as CBOs, Village Development Committees (VDCs), Conservation Committees (CCs), Farmers Committees (FCs), Community Trusts (CTs) and Village Trust Committees (VTCs).

Secondary stakeholders – groups or individuals indirectly dependent on, and who derive benefit from, the natural or other (e.g. cultural) resources of the Delta at an, often large-scale, commercial level. Secondary stakeholders are more robust and although their well-being would undoubtedly be affected, sometimes severely, should such resources be damaged or destroyed, they would often have recourse of action or the resources to develop alternative strategies in such an event. In a shared river basin like the Okavango, upstream communities who are not directly dependent on the resources of the Delta but are part of the wider ecosystem and whose actions can affect such resources would also be classified as secondary stakeholders, as would river basin organisations such as OKACOM and other projects (and their associated organisations) running either in the Delta or in the ORB – see Chapter 3 – A situational analysis of the Okavango Delta. The major group of secondary stakeholders for the Okavango Delta is thus the private sector tour operators (both fixed and mobile) operating in the Delta. Secondary stakeholders also include organisations that work to represent primary stakeholders, e.g. NGOs such as Tocadi, People and Nature (PAN) Trust, Conservation International (CI) and Kalahari Conservation Society (KCS), particularly through the ERP as well as the organisations that represent secondary stakeholders themselves, e.g. HATAB and the Botswana Wildlife Management Association (BWMA).

Tertiary stakeholders – groups and individuals with an interest in or influence over the Okavango Delta but not directly or indirectly dependent on it for their well-being and with other interests and responsibilities not related to the Delta itself. Tertiary stakeholders for the Okavango Delta thus include other GoB institutions not directly involved in the ODMP, international and national donor agencies, government departments in Namibia and Angola (other than those directly involved in OKACOM), certain other NGOs, international interests (such as the Ramsar Bureau and the United Nations (UN)) and interested individuals, such as tourists.

Key stakeholders – groups or individuals from the above categories deemed to have significant actual or potential influence on the Delta and the ODMP and to be of greatest significance in the development and future implementation the management plan. Examples of key stakeholders here might be OKACOM, the Ramsar Bureau and the residents of the Delta.

26

Although these are the main groups of stakeholders and an assessment of their level of importance to the project as whole, this might change for individual components. It is for such reasons that each of the components has also identified its own target group/s from this overall analysis and classification. In doing this, all components identified the ODMP project partners as target groups. The other target groups they identified are outlined in the following sections.

2.1.2.1 The Project Secretariat The project secretariat must ensure that the project as a whole is communicating and interacting with all 5 broad stakeholder groups. The secretariat also has to be aware of and interact with the project’s key stakeholders. So far, these key groups and individuals have been identified as:

OKACOM and its commissioners Representatives (e.g. CBOs) and advocates (e.g. NGOs such as Tocadi, the KCS

etc.) of Delta communities Representatives of the private sector (tourism) businesses The Ramsar Bureau The Directors of all project partner institutions The Deputy Permanent Secretary (DPS), the Permanent Secretary (PS) and the

Minister in the MEWT. The DC The CS The Paramount Chief The District Officer Lands (DOL) The District Officer Development (DOD)

The importance of these key stakeholders is reflected by the fact that it is this group of interests that largely comprises the ODMP PSC. All key stakeholders are also generally represented at the district level in the OWMC. For more information on the roles of the PSC and the OWMC, see Chapter 9 on Project Governance Structures.

2.1.2.2 Policy, planning and strategy and dialogue, communication and networking components

For NCSA’s activities of policy review, economic valuation and review of the Ramsar site boundary and Ramsar Information Sheet there will be a need to involve primary stakeholders such as representatives of communities and secondary stakeholders such as the private sector. NCSA is also charged with the preparation and implementation of a communication plan for the project and an agreed and shared vision for the Delta. This will require the detailed involvement of all stakeholder categories and numerous representatives from each. This is an enormous undertaking and will require the development of a detailed communication strategy and a strategy for the development of vision for the Delta. Both such strategies are currently under development.

27

2.1.2.3 Research, data and participatory planning The HOORC target stakeholders for the development of its Okavango Delta Information System (ODIS) and the research strategy are tertiary stakeholders such as other government departments, certain NGOs etc. Examples here include:

The Central Statistics Office (CSO) The Department of Surveys and Mapping (DSM) Department of Meteorological Services (DMS) The Department of Geological Surveys (DGS) Botswana National Museum Birdlife Botswana

The target stakeholders for the PP are groups and individuals in the primary and secondary stakeholder categories.

2.1.2.4 Hydrology and water resources Target groups include secondary and tertiary stakeholders, such as other GoB departments, regional government departments and institutions and international institutions with relevant hydrological data on the Delta, such as:

The DGS The DMS The International Waters Unit (IWU) in the Ministry of Mining, Energy and Water

Affairs (MMEWA) Departments of Water Affairs (DWA), or equivalent, in Namibia and Angola OKACOM NGOs

Target groups also include secondary stakeholders, such as the private sector; this group should be involved as much as possible in general hydrological monitoring and monitoring and management of aquatic weeds.

2.1.2.5 Wildlife resources The DWNP’s target groups are primary stakeholders comprised of certain communities (and their representative groups and NGOs) affected by elephants and predators, secondary stakeholders such as photographic and hunting safari operators and a specific ODMP project partner, i.e. the DAHP.

2.1.2.6 Sustainable tourism and CBNRM The DoT and NWDC’s tourism unit’s target groups for this component are the primary stakeholders of communities and especially their CBOs, secondary stakeholders from the private sector tour operators including their associations and other ODMP project partners.

2.1.2.7 Sustainable fisheries utilisation and management The Division of Fisheries target groups include primary stakeholders from communities, especially subsistence and commercial fishermen. Secondary stakeholders, such as tour operators (especially those offering sport fishing activities) and tertiary stakeholders such as sport fishermen themselves are also important here.

28

2.1.2.8 Vegetation Resources management This component’s target groups are many and varied. Among primary stakeholders, their targets comprise individuals such as:

Reed gatherers Wood carvers Grass harvesters Herbalists and traditional doctors Weavers (baskets etc) Timber (for building, mokoros etc) harvesters Firewood gatherers Arable farmers Livestock farmers Hunters Fishermen.

They also include organisations, such as: CCs VDCs FCs CTs VTCs

Representatives of certain groups, usually NGOs, are also important. These include: PAN Trust. Kuru Development Trust. KCS. CI

Among the secondary stakeholders, this component’s target groups include: Tour operators. Individuals from communities outside the Delta but deriving a benefit from it Certain other commercial operators, such as borehole drillers, contractors

constructing firebreaks, lawyers involved in CBO constitutions, financial investors etc.

Among tertiary stakeholders, target groups include: National, regional and international tourists. Other Government Institutions not directly involved in ODMP

2.1.2.9 Physical Planning component NWDC’s PPU’s target groups are primary stakeholders comprised of the community of Shakawe and their representatives groups, such as the Village Development Committee and user groups, such as fishermen etc. as well as NGOs, such as Tocadi. These groups and individuals will need to be involved in all stages throughout the preparation

29

of the settlement development plan. Traditional land use preferences, customary settlement patterns and specifications will need to be considered and incorporated wherever possible in order to achieve the full cooperation and acceptance of the plan by the Shakawe community. Secondary stakeholders, such as certain business people and organisations, are also target groups. Among tertiary stakeholder, the DTRP is also seen as a key organisation in overseeing the preparation and implementation of the plan.

2.1.2.10 Land use planning and management component The TLB and their consultants’ target groups include primary stakeholders, such as certain communities, NGOs and CBOs, secondary stakeholders such as the DLUPU, the District and Tribal Administration and tertiary stakeholders such as central government ministries and departments, e.g. Department of Lands (DoL) and DTRP.

2.1.2.11 Waste management component The target groups of the NWDC’s EHD are primarily include secondary stakeholders such as tour operators and other businesses and may extend to primary stakeholders such as communities, particularly that of Maun.

2.1.2.12 Sustainable livestock management DAHP’s target groups include primary stakeholders such as farmers, CBOs etc and secondary stakeholders such as other government institutions, certain NGOs etc.

2.1.3 Stakeholder involvement – a fundamental Ramsar and ODMP principle

In order to be able to create and implement a management for a wetland, such as the Okavango Delta, it is vital to have a detailed understanding of the area. This will obviously involve the development of a profound knowledge of the hydrological and ecological conditions and processes at work but it is equally important to develop an in-depth understanding of the socio-economic conditions of the area. The latter should include developing an understanding about resource use practices and patterns, user needs and wants, existing and potential resource use conflicts and constraints and the perceptions of and about these issues by the area’s stakeholders. This is because the actual use of and views about the use of any wetland area by stakeholders, both local and even those from further away (such as tourists in the case of the Okavango Delta), can seriously affect the way a wetland actually functions, or may function, and thus the “goods and services” it produces or may produce. It is for these reasons that guidance on management planning produced by the Ramsar Bureau (New Guidelines for Management Planning for Ramsar Sites and other Wetlands), positively encourages stakeholder involvement in the development and delivery of management and decision making for protected wetlands. Stakeholder engagement has become a fundamental principle of management planning for all Ramsar sites and as a result, stakeholder involvement is also one of the 13 main ODMP project principles. In order to promote such involvement, the Ramsar Bureau also produced specific guidelines for assisting in the establishment and strengthening of participation by local communities and other stakeholders (Guidelines for establishing and strengthening local communities’ and indigenous people’s participation in management of wetlands).

30

The active participation of and consultation with stakeholders on and in both management and decision-making is a proven method of ensuring and promoting adoption of management practices and has been captured by a number of case studies.

2.1.4 Conditions under which stakeholder participation is required

In the Ramsar Bureau guidelines described above, the bureau identified a number of conditions under which the active involvement of stakeholders, especially traditional land users, is an absolute requirement in order for the management planning and implementation processes to be successful. These conditions are listed below and it is important to note that all of the stated conditions hold true for the Okavango Delta:

The wetland is inhabited. Access to the wetland is essential for local livelihood and cultural heritage. Local people have historically enjoyed customary rights over the wetland. Interests on the use of natural resources are controversial and need to be

harmonised. Local interests are strongly affected by the way in which the wetland is managed. Existing management regimes are failing to ensure wise use. Local stakeholders express a strong interest in being involved in management and

are ready to collaborate.

2.2 STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION IN THE ODMP

2.2.1 Design phase consultation

The active participation of and consultation and engagement with local communities and other stakeholders began at the very beginning of the process to develop a management plan project for the Okavango Delta. Throughout the entire design and planning stages for the ODMP project, the GoB made an effort to seek the views and opinions of stakeholders about what they felt to be the most important management issues in the Delta. They then also sought to ensure that these views and opinions were as the basis of the ODMP project and thus what it would be designed to address. Consultative and participatory processes were also established not only to ensue that the plan would incorporate and be built around issues brought up by stakeholders but also to decide how these issues would be addressed and to determine the best methods of doing this. This approach was also taken to promote institutionalisation of such participatory and consultative mechanisms by the project partner institutions. As well as the specific processes implemented by those involved with ODMP design mission phase, numerous other, directly unrelated, stakeholder group meetings took place. These were organised for a number of other purposes and by a number of other projects, programmes and organisations, such as:

A series of consultative meetings held during development of Botswana’s draft wetlands policy and strategy

An expert workshop that resulted in the compilation of the major environmental threats to the Okavango Delta

31

Kgotla meetings carried out by Okavango Community Consultants in their development of a management plan for the CHAs allocated to communities in Ngamiland WMAs

The Ngamiland district CBNRM forum meetings OKACOM’s communication and stakeholder consultation processes in Namibia

and Botswana The socio-ecological survey of the Okavango River Basin carried out in 2001 by

Applied Development Research Consultants for the Every River has its People Project

etc Such meetings also produced a great deal of information on stakeholders’ views and opinions. Much of this was also collected and collated as part of the ODMP design phase and development of the ODMP project proposal utilised these results to determine what’s its own institutional set up and project aims, objectives, proposed activities and outputs should be. This was done by taking the problems raised both through these other processes and ODMP’s own consultative exercises in the design phase, compiling them into a problem tree and using this to shape project design.

2.2.2 Inception phase consultation and stakeholder engagement exercise

2.2.2.1 Introduction Despite the high level of direct stakeholder consultation and use of stakeholder feedback from other processes in the development of the ODMP project proposal, it was recognised that further stakeholder participation and consultation would be required as the project was being implemented and the management plan itself developed. This had to be done in order to ensure that it enjoyed the support of all and would therefore be implementable. It was also recognised that consultation and participation of stakeholders during the project design phase, although extremely valuable, was not sufficient in order to be able to truly capture the thoughts, views and suggestions of all stakeholders, particularly those of communities and especially as the processes the project used during the design phase were conducted a number of years ago. The project acknowledged the need to confirm that the issues raised, through various means during the design phase, are indeed still relevant now as well as to capture and address any new issues that might have arisen, e.g. the proposed hydro-electric scheme at Popa Falls on the Okavango River in Namibia, the implications of a lasting peace in Angola etc. The project secretariat therefore undertook specific actions to engender active consultation with and participation of stakeholders, as well as to ensure the incorporation of their feedback. The process implemented by the secretariat was, however, recognised to be limited in both depth and design due to the limitations within the project at that time, e.g. lack of appropriate numbers and types of project secretariat staff, especially on the communication side. The process undertaken was therefore a “first attempt” at fully engaging stakeholders and although far from perfect, it was as comprehensive an exercise as possible at the time. The project’s participatory planner (PP) has produced detailed reports and analyses of the consultative processes in ODMP, which are available on request. The results of the exercise will be used by the project to modify and ensure the best design for all future project consultations.

32

2.2.2.2 Institutional involvement Face-to-face consultation was undertaken by the project secretariat with local NGOs, government officials and staff in many other institutions in the district, including those both directly involved in implementing ODMP components and those not so. Regular briefings have also been provided to various district bodies and officers including the District Commissioner (DC), the Council Secretary (CS), the Paramount Chief, the District Development Committee (DDC), the district CBNRM forum, the full district council and the board members of the TLB.

2.2.2.3 Community involvement In November and December 2003 and February and March 2004, 33 kgotla meetings were held in most of the major villages in and around the Delta. At these meetings, a member of the project secretariat outlined the concept of the ODMP, explaining how the area has been designated as protected by the government, what this means for the area and its communities and how the proposed management plan project has been designed. The speaker was then followed by representatives of each of the different ODMP partner institutions who made presentations outlining the specific areas that they and their particular department are responsible for and would be addressing in ODMP. There was then an extended session that allowed community members to make comments upon what they had heard, to outline what they believed to be the management issues and areas of conflict within the Delta, as well as to ask any questions they had and, where possible, hear answers to these. This process was supposed to provide an opportunity for communities not only to learn about the ODMP project and its proposed actions but also allow them to identify what they felt to be the major issues and potential areas of conflict in natural resources management. It was explained that these would then be incorporated into the project by the secretariat and project partners through their proposed activities. Despite the importance of involving stakeholders, and even if unlimited resources were made available, it would have been impossible to visit all villages within the Ramsar site and speak with all residents, especially in the first instance when the project was still short-staffed. It was for this reason that the implemented process, agreed by all ODMP partner institutions and guided by the project’s PP, was established. The decision about which villages to visit was based on an agreed set of criteria as outlined below:

The village had to be located within the modified Ramsar site boundary. The village had to have more than 500 inhabitants. In unrecognised settlements containing more than 500 inhabitants and located

close (less than 15km) to another major village, people were asked to attend the nearby kgotla. This applied to Etsha 1 and Etsha 8 where residents were asked to attend meetings in Etsha 6 or Etsha 13 and to Roye and Mohembo East where they were asked to attend meetings held either in Shakawe, Mohembo West or Kauxwi.

Remote area settlements with less than 500 inhabitants (that fall under the Remote Area Development (RAD) policy) but located in the Delta proper or in the floodplains close to the Buffalo Fence were chosen as additional kgotla meeting points. This was because it wasn’t easily possible for such villagers to attend meetings held elsewhere.

121 661 people or 97% of the entire population of the Ngamiland District (total 124 712 according to the 2001 population census) live within the revised Ramsar site boundary. Only 1.5% of this total population attended the kgotla meetings (1841 people) although this figure rises to 1.7% if considering only the combined population in the visited

33

villages and their associated areas and 2.4% in the visited villages alone. Considering the effort made and the time spent on this exercise, the project secretariat was disappointed by the low attendance rates at the project meetings. Some traditional leaders also expressed their dissatisfaction and particularly in relation to “the educated youth” who they felt “should be taking a much more active interest in such important development issues”. Low as the attendance figures were, some additional people will also have heard about the project as the traditional kgotla system is built on its multiplication effect, i.e. those that attend pass on the information to those who don’t. Many of the speakers made comments to the effect that “I will carry your message back to my village and those not in the kgotla today”. On the down side, however, although some of those not at the meetings may have subsequently been informed about the project, the fact that they were not there in person meant that they were unable to present their personal views, issues, concerns to, as well as ask questions of, the project. In an analysis of the attendance at kgotla meetings, it was also apparent that the attendance rate was directly related to the population size of the village. Table 1 shows how the percentage attendance at kgotla meetings decreased drastically as the size of the village increased. Such analysis suggests that in settlements of up to 2000 inhabitants, the kgotla system is still functioning reasonably well as the traditional discussion and information dissemination forum. The kgotla should thus probably continue to be used, in one way or another, as a forum for consultation, information exchange and stakeholder participation in this project. In larger villages, however, other methods of consultation, information exchange and participation will need to be developed. This process is already underway with detailed thought and discussion being given to deciding on what might be the best possible mechanisms by which to meaningfully engage stakeholders and community representatives. Such discussions have been and are being held between project and community representatives. Table 1 Percentage of people attending village Kgotla meetings in relation to the number of

inhabitants

Number of inhabitants Percentage Attendance

≤ 1000 10.3 % > 1000 ≤ 2000 4.5 % > 2000 ≤ 5000 1.1 % > 5000 0.3 %

Of those that attended kgotla meetings organised by and for the ODMP project, 67% were male and only 33% female. Of these, the percentage of females that actually spoke at the meetings, although not accurately recorded, was very low; probably less than 1%. Gender issues and imbalances such as these will also need to be addressed in the design and implementation of any future ODMP consultation exercises. Mechanisms to address just such issues are also being developed and suggestions currently include putting together and working with “women only” groups or working with existing groups of people involved with activities that are traditionally already dominated by females, e.g. basket weavers.

2.2.2.4 Private sector involvement In January 2004, a special meeting dedicated to representatives of the private tourism sector was organised and held in Maun. From the 120 invitations sent out, approximately 60 different companies comprised of 81 representatives attended, possibly reflecting the high level of interest from the tourism sector in the project and/or

34

management of the Delta. The meeting was structured in a similar way to the kgotla meetings, although in this instance members of the project secretariat made presentations not only on the project as a whole but also on each individual component. There was again an extensive question and answer session and representatives were given an opportunity to raise issues and concerns and make suggestions.

2.2.2.5 Current and future consultative and participatory exercises 2.2.2.5.1 Institutional involvement The ODMP secretariat will continue with the periodical briefing of the key stakeholders outlined above, at district (local), national and regional level. 2.2.2.5.2 Community involvement As stated earlier, analysis of the previous community consultation activities pointed to a need to step up the consultation approach to ensure that it facilitates meaningful participation of resource users. It is for this reason that the next phase of consultation begins with a workshop of community leaders and resource user representatives. These people will be expected to provide the project with the way forward towards ensuring the meaningful participation of user communities. The main objective of the workshop will be to inculcate ODMP concepts to the local communities. Specific objectives are:

To strengthen ownership and participation of communities in the formulation of the plan

To establish specific ODMP representatives at community level, who will form a continuous link between the ODMP and communities at local level

Provide an opportunity for CFPs to explain and justify their proposed activities and associated field work needs, to the target stakeholder groups and to devise strategies of building strong relationships with resource users

To take ODMP consultation and engagement of stakeholders to a level beyond just the Kgotla system

The workshop will, however, be followed by traditional and customary Kgotla meetings. At these, CFPs will report on their part of the project and on progress made so far; they will have the opportunity to both inform, and get comments from, community members on their schedule of activities and issues to be addressed. To further step up community participation in the project, communities will be also asked to elect community representatives for the ODMP project. These individuals will act as the intermediary between the project secretariat and project partners and the communities. Normal channels of communication (letters, telephone calls) will be used to communicate with these representatives and, when necessary, they will be called for meetings with the secretariat or component institutions. 2.2.2.5.3 Private sector involvement A similar process to that outlined for communities will be devised with the private sector once the current round of community consultation is over. The aim of the process will be to establish representatives in the tourism sector, e.g. mobile operators, lodge operators etc, who will liaise and provide input on development of the management plan.

35

3 A SITUATIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE OKAVANGO DELTA

3.1 INTRODUCTION

There are currently a large number of factors actually affecting or threatening important features of the Okavango Delta Ramsar site. Factors come from a number of different locations and sources and can be classified as follows:

Internal natural factors, e.g. channel sedimentation and channel movement Internal human-induced factors, e.g. the effects of fire External natural factors, e.g. the variation of rainfall in, and outflow from, the upper

catchment External human-induced factors, e.g. changes in water quality due to agricultural

practices Factors arising from legislation and tradition e.g. erection of veterinary fences

around the Delta and harvesting of certain veld products from within it Factors arising as a result of conflicts/communality of interest, e.g. conflicts

between sport and commercial fishing interests and desires from communities and the private sector to benefit from tourism

Physical considerations and constraints, e.g. the size of the Delta and its inaccessibility for much of the year

Institutional factors, e.g. the absence of any specific authority or management agreement by which to manage area

The presence of these factors also creates a number of management issues and challenges that need to be addressed. Some of the major, overarching factors include overall land and natural resources use, the shared nature of the river basin in which the Delta is located at the terminal end and national, regional and international policies and conventions affecting the area.

3.1.1 Land and natural resource use

In an arid country like Botswana, water is very precious and thus the Delta and its abundant water, vegetation and wildlife resources have always attracted people. Signs of human habitation of the Delta and its periphery have been found that date back to around 100.000 years. Natural factors like the changes in rainfall and flow pattern, outbreaks of epidemic diseases and the spreading of tsetse fly have, however, affected the settlement and land use pattern of the Okavango swamps. The area also has a number of ethnic groups like the BaYei, the BaTawana, the HaMbukushu, the OvaHerero and the BaSawra or San people of which there are three main groups; the //ani Khwe (or River Bushmen), the Buga Khwe and the Ju/’hoansi. All of these groups have different perceptions of land and natural resource utilisation, but are united in that they are presently restricted to making their living mainly along the fringes of the Okavango Delta proper. Large parts of Ngamiland’s population still depend directly on the utilisation of natural resources of the Okavango for a subsistence living. Fishing, hunting, livestock grazing, floodplain cultivation and collection of raw materials for building, fuel and the production

36

of handicrafts are important factors of the local economy. Although arable agriculture is also practised in Ngamiland, it is mainly at a subsistence level at the fringes of the Okavango Delta through small-scale flood recession, or more commonly referred to as molapo, farming; the soils and prevailing climate are generally not well suited for large-scale, commercial crop production. Grazing resources are generally good in the dry land areas, however, the availability of water and until very recently the occurrence of tsetse fly, the vector for trypanosomiasis (known locally as nagana), within and close to the Delta (now controlled in all but the Kwando/Linyanti area through the 2001/2 spraying campaign) have restricted further development of the livestock sector. The livestock sector is also hampered by other diseases, especially foot and mouth disease (FMD), primarily spread by wild animals (especially buffalo) and contagious bovine pluero pneumonia (CBPP) or cattle lung disease.

3.1.2 A shared river basin

The Okavango Delta although entirely located within Botswana is at the terminal end of a river basin shared by three countries: Angola, Namibia and Botswana. Proposed and planned water management interventions, such as construction of hydroelectric dams and large-scale water abstractions in the river basin, the movement of wildlife populations, e.g. elephants, between Botswana and her neighbours, the existence of OKACOM and shared problems like the distribution of Tsetse Fly from Angola through to the Okavango Delta, make it paramount to include surrounding countries in the planning process.

3.1.3 International conventions, national policies and local priorities

There are a large number of existing and draft national policies on issues such as tourism, agriculture, forestry and many other areas that relate either directly or indirectly to natural resources, programmes or businesses already operating in the Okavango Delta Ramsar site. Of particular interest among these are the draft Wetlands Policy and Strategy which provides a contextual and institutional framework for the formulation of appropriate and effective management plans for all the country’s key wetlands, National Development Plan (NDP) No.9 and recent policies from key-sectors (for the Delta), such as the CBNRM policy. In NDP 8, the GoB added ‘sustainable economic diversification’ to the existing four planning objectives (rapid economic growth, social justice, economic independence and sustainable development) which form the basis of all the NDPs. The natural beauty and abundant availability of wildlife resources make the Okavango Delta an ideal area to diversify the traditional land use system and gain additional incomes from the tourism industry. In addition to the Ramsar Convention, the GoB is signatory to many other international environmental conventions, treaties and agreements such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). This chapter seeks to describe some of the important and specific factors affecting the Delta as raised by stakeholders during consultation and to outline the associated management issues and challenges these present for the ODMP project. This will be done by looking at the broad thematic areas outlined in the Ramsar planning guidelines, i.e. ecological aspects (this will include hydrology as this is inextricably interlinked with the ecology of the Delta), socio-economic aspects and other issues. The later category will cover issues such as policy, research and data, communication and institutional

37

issues. Institutional issues relate to training and capacity needs and constraints, IT requirements and constraints, financing and staffing needs and constraints, problems related to government structures and protocols and what these all mean in terms of risks to delivery of the project components and project as a whole. Finally, this chapter will also take a brief look at other initiatives also operating in the ORB of which the ODMP at least needs to be aware and ideally to actively cooperate with.

3.2 ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS – CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES

3.2.1 Hydrology

The annual rhythm of water flows in and along the ORB is the key factor determining the ecosystem functioning and “quality of life” in the Delta. This is reflected by the fact that issues related to hydrology were ranked second in frequency of issues raised by stakeholders. This is hardly surprising as in an area like the North West of Botswana, situated at the edge of the Kalahari desert where water is scarce, demands on water resources from many different stakeholders, is already high, potentially increasing and often of a conflicting nature. Water may be used only once, or be fed back into the system in a polluted state. Crucial to management then is the need to develop a sound understanding of the Delta’s hydrology, both for surface and groundwater flow. This understanding will be of vital importance in order to be able to predict any changes in the Delta and on its “goods and services” caused by man-made or natural changes and developments, relating primarily to reductions in water quantity, both in the Delta itself and the wider river basin. Without understanding hydrology, its importance for, and fundamental links to, the different interests at stake, the making of a management plan would be an academic exercise of very limited use.

3.2.1.1 Water abstraction The mean annual flow of the Okavango River at the point where it enters Botswana is approximately 10 000 million cubic metres (MCM) per year and has ranged between 7 000 and 15 000MCM in the past. There are already a number of developments throughout the river basin with actual or potential effects on water quantity and thus potentially on the hydrological and thus ecological functioning of the Delta. 3.2.1.1.1 Angola Quantities of water being abstracted in Angola are not well recorded but are thought to be very small. Now at peace and with strong development needs and ambitions, there are currently still no plans to build dams or major abstraction infrastructure on the river; there are also currently no existing structures. This situation is, however, bound to change as Angola develops and its population resettles in the Cubango/Quito river basins. Angola’s demand for abstracted water is going to rise and the possibility of other developments, such as hydroelectric schemes etc., is also bound to increase. 3.2.1.1.2 Botswana Botswana currently abstracts water at several points throughout the Okavango Delta system and is preparing infrastructure to abstract more.

38

The current locations and volumes of existing and proposed abstractions for the district capital Maun are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Table 2 Water abstraction figures for Maun village (current)

Location Number of boreholes Amount abstracted (MCM per annum)

Thamalakane 4 0.22Lower Shashe 4 0.32Upper Shashe 9 1.13Chuchubega 5 1.02

TOTAL 22 2.69

Under the proposed Maun Groundwater Development Project (MGDP) and Maun Water Supply and Sanitation Rehabilitation and Upgrade Project (MWSSRUP) the amount of water supplied to the village will be increased. The figures are shown in Table 3. The existing abstraction site would be decommissioned. One of the main issues surrounding the MGDP is a perceived incompatibility of the scheme with community based and other tourism activities and a perception that the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the project was inadequate to enable environmentally sound decisions to be made regarding where and how much water to abstract and when. Table 3 Water abstraction figures for Maun village (proposed by 2020-25)

Location Number of boreholes Amount abstracted (MCM per annum)

Kunyere 12 4.43Gomoti 10 4.34Matsibe 8 1.06

TOTAL 30 9.83

DWA also currently abstracts circa 0.62MCM per annum for the villages of Gumare, Etsha, Nokaneng, Habu, Tsau and their localities (Gumare Water Supply and Sanitation Project), 0.12MCM per annum for Sepopa, Mowana and Ikoga (Sepopa/Ikoga Integrated Rural Village Water Supply), 0.17MCM per annum for Kauxwi, Xakao, Mohembo-east, Goa, Jejedoa, Sekondomboro and Sechenje (Kauxwi/Xakao Integrated Rural Village Water Supply Project) and circa 0.24MCM per annum at Shakawe. The total quantity of water currently abstracted by DWA Botswana in the Delta is therefore circa 3.84MCM per annum (0.0038% mean annual flow) although this is predicted to rise to circa 11.04MCM per annum (0.011% mean annual inflow) by 2020-25. 3.2.1.1.3 Namibia Namibia has a number of existing and proposed water abstraction points for new irrigated agricultural schemes along the river between Nkurenkuru and Mohembo (see Table 4). Another Namibian proposal to abstract 17MCM per annum from the river at Rundu and to connect this to the country’s Eastern National Water Carrier at

39

Grootfontein has been mothballed for the present but remains a possibility. The total of the current and proposed abstracted amount is equivalent to 0.134% of mean annual flow and this would rise to 0.154% if the Rundu – Grootfontein pipeline were constructed. Table 4 Namibia’s actual and proposed water consumption along the Okavango River u/s

of the Okavango Delta

Scheme name Irrigable hectares

Irrigated hectares

Present water use (MCM per

year)

New planned

irrigation (hectares)

New water use (MCM per year)

Total annual water use

(MCM)

Mashare hospital 100 0 0.000 80 1.20 1.200Kangongo 3 000 0 0.000 2 000 30.00 30.000

Dikuyu 1 600 0 0.000 0 0.00 0.000From Omatako mouth

eastwards 30 km

100

0 0.000 0 0.00 0.000Ndonga linena 50 0 0.000 800 12.00 12.000

Bunya hospital to Kunsukwa

Omaramba

100

0 0.000 0 0.00 0.000

Tondoro hospital to Mpuku Omaramba

100

0 0.000 0 0.00 0.000

Nkurenkuru 40 10 0.150 0.00 0.150Shankara 30 12 0.180 0 0.00 0.180Shankara 20 12 0.180 0 0.00 0.180

Bagani gardens 30 35 0.525 0 0.00 0.525Salem 50 37 0.555 0 0.00 0.555

Vungu-Vungu 300 45 0.675 250 3.75 4.425Rundu private farm 60 0.900 0 0.00 0.900

Bagani prisons 90 90 1.350 0 0.00 1.350Musese 400 180 2.700 120 1.80 4.500

Shadikongoro 800 266 3.990 180 2.70 6.690Shitemo 500 350 5.250 120 1.80 7.050Mukwe 4 000 60.00 60.000

Irrigation total 1 097 16 455.000 7 550 11 325.00 129.705Rundu town 4.140 4.140

Livestock and domestic 3.500 3.500

GRAND TOTAL 24 095.000 137.345

From these figures it is apparent that the total combined quantity of water currently being abstracted by all three countries from the river system, and indeed proposed increases in these amounts, is still very small in relation to the mean annual flow of the river. Despite this, existing long-term changes in the flood regime, drying up of parts of the wetland and shifts in the flood distribution pattern were areas of concern for many stakeholders. From the information available above, such issues are more clearly related to changes in rainfall than any other factor.

40

3.2.1.2 Water quality The proposed abstractions listed in Table 4 are primarily for irrigated agricultural schemes along the banks of the Okavango River in the Kavango Region. The soil in this area is very poor, mainly sand, and thus a great deal of fertilizer will be needed in order to grow crops. Due to the poor and porous nature of the soil, the majority of any fertilizer added to the land will wash straight out and into the river. These developments therefore bring the threat of eutrophication to the system and as the Okavango is naturally very low in nutrients, this is likely to have significant negative impacts, e.g. rapid growth of certain plant species, development of suspended algae in the water column (phytoplankton), deoxygenation etc. Pollution of the water by organic pollutants, such as sewage, is also likely to increase, not only as the populations and associated conurbations of the three riparian countries increase, but also as the catchment areas of the Cubango and Cuito upstream of the Okavango are slowly repopulated. Concerns have also been raised about the actual or potential impact of the growing number of tourists, camps, lodges and now houseboats in the Delta. A perceived increase in general motorboat traffic, with its related use of fuel and oil was also seen as a potential threat to the ecology of the Delta. There is currently very little, if any, information on water quality, either in the Delta or upstream of it. Detailed assessment of the current situation and on going monitoring in the future to assess trends is vital if a robust management plan is to be developed.

3.2.1.3 Water obstruction The issue of obstruction of water within the Delta has been raised on several occasions by a number of different stakeholders. Currently, obstructions within the Delta can be attributed to natural factors such as the blocking of channels by native vegetation such as the hippo grass (Vossia cuspidata) and Papyrus (Cyperus papyrus), introduced species such as the floating water fern (Salvinia molesta) and also through natural siltation of the channels by accumulation of sand. Sometimes such blockages can be quite significant and large channels that were regularly used as thoroughfares have become blocked. There is much debate about whether such blockages should be removed, especially considering the finance and logistics involved, or left and the channel and its water also left to divert elsewhere. There are currently no man-made blockages to the natural flow of the river or channels in the Delta either in Botswana or upstream of it, although Namibia is currently investigating the possibility of constructing a hydroelectric dam in the Popa Falls area. It has completed a desk-top pre-environmental assessment of this proposal. This has been discussed by OKACOM and they have given approval for a full EIA to commence but not for the construction of the dam etc. as has been reported in certain quarters. Although there are no hydroelectric or water supply reservoirs or dams along any of the Okavango tributaries in Angola, many sites had been identified for the development of such infrastructure prior to the commencement of hostilities in the 1970s. With the end of the civil war and the slow but steady resettlement of the catchment, Angola’s desire to revisit such plans is likely to grow. Despite the current lack of dams, many communities in the Delta blame the reduction in flows that they have witnessed over the years to the construction of such infrastructure and to increased abstraction by Botswana’s neighbours

3.2.1.4 Reliable hydrological information Part of the problem for Botswana, and indeed her neighbours, in water resources planning is that there is currently a paucity of rigorous climatic and/or hydrological data and information on which to predict the potential or actual impacts of either

41

anthropogenic changes induced within Botswana or upstream of it or of natural, climatic changes; especially the knock-on effects of hydrological changes on ecological and socio-economic functioning. It is within this context that the following issues have been identified:

Existing hydrological models were mostly designed for one-off projects or very specific purposes and, therefore, do not meet the requirements for integrated management planning.

Existing models were limited by a lack of the kind of spatially distributed data (e.g. information on evapotranspiration, ground and surface water flow and detailed meteorological data such as rainfall etc.) needed to accurately predict wetland regimes.

There is insufficient understanding of the links between hydrology, biodiversity, community structure and ecosystem productivity resulting in the failure to adequately predict potential and actual impacts of natural and man-made hydrological changes and interventions.

Existing models don’t take full account of the hydraulic gradient between the channels and floodplains.

An inadequate EIA to guide DWA in the selection of sites for the abstraction of water for the MGDP

There is limited water quality monitoring which constrains ability to assess impacts and implement mitigations.

There are specific data deficiencies in terms of:

• During the flood, some of the flow bypasses gauging stations at Mohembo and certain other locations thereby leading to inaccurate figures.

• There is limited spatial coverage for most required parameters

• Currently, much of the data collected is of poor quality.

• There is a lack of data gathering and processing capacity.

• There is insufficient instrumentation to undertake the required work.

• There has been a lack of detailed topographic information.

3.2.2 Flora

Many stakeholders expressed the importance of veld products and the general vegetation resources of the Delta for the livelihoods of traditional land users and yet there is currently little direct management of such in the Delta. The whole resource is subject to a variety of problems, of which the main ones are outlined below:

3.2.2.1 Issues related to human induced factors The existing presence, e.g. floating water fern (Salvinia molesta) and water lettuce (Pistia stratiotes), as well as possible introduction of new invasive alien species (IAS) has already had, and yet still, have a serious impact on other native vegetation and indeed animals, e.g. fish, in the Delta. There are also a number of potential other serious IAS threats to the Delta, e.g. water hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes). It was in relation to this issue that a number of stakeholders called for more rigid control on a perceived increase in number of foreign owned boats coming into the Delta unchecked,

42

possibly bringing with them, the danger of infestation with other IAS (both flora and fauna). The potential and actual benefits of, and consequent desire to use, fire as a management tool, compared to the negative impacts of frequent, uncontrolled veld fires, i.e. changes in vegetation composition and biodiversity, is a management issue. The introduction of donkeys for draft power under the Arable Land Development Programme (ALDEP) and their subsequent breeding is resulting in overstocking of rangelands and changes in herbivore patterns in certain areas. Since the apparent eradication of Tsetse fly, there has been encroachment of livestock farming into the newly Tsetse fly free areas. This is placing grazing pressure on areas previously not affected by grazing. Since the destruction of 360,000 cattle in 1996, there has been a rapid build up of the livestock population in the Ramsar site. This is also affecting the vegetation resources, especially grazing resources, and the impact is concentrated in areas where open water sources are available. The ability and desire of communities to utilise and sustainably harvest veld products has been raised as an issue. It is suggested that there is increasing use, possibly over utilisation of vegetation resources, especially veld products, due to over harvesting combined with uncontrolled browsing and over grazing. Communities state that overharvesting or harvesting before resources are actually ready, e.g. thatching grass, is often caused directly or driven by the frequency of fires and/or the impact of “outsiders” collecting products for commercial purposes. There have been changes in the vegetation composition, density and cover in floodplains due to the way they are being used.

3.2.2.2 Issues related to natural factors Changing climatic and hydrological conditions have lead to changing vegetation composition, density and cover.

3.2.2.3 Issues related to lack of, or poor, information and consultation There is a lack of data and the type of information on the Delta’s vegetation productivity and carrying capacity that is needed for planning, economic development, monitoring and assessment. There is also a lack of adequate information exchange between different institutions. There appears to have been an apparent absence of social learning from previously implemented vegetation management initiatives and this is combined with a complete lack, or underutilisation, of traditional knowledge and local institutions in the control of both veld product harvesting and use of fire as a management tool. In addition to this, there is limited appreciation by various users, especially at planning level, of the various goods and services provided by vegetation resources and certain proposed or implemented vegetation management projects have not meet the aspirations of local communities, e.g. the introduction of community woodlots in Ngamiland.

3.2.2.4 Issues related to land use factors The continual creation of new and uncontrolled mushrooming of existing settlements, coupled with rapid population growth/influx, has had a negative impact on the area’s vegetation resources and created resource use conflicts. The latter appear to be expanding due to expanding land use demands. It is also possible that there is a

43

reduced vegetation carrying capacity due to “laissez faire” land allocations, e.g. certain tourism enterprises, cattle posts etc.

3.2.2.5 Issues related to management of resources The ineffectiveness of Government institutions to set and enforce rules and regulations to control utilisation of veld products effectively is a serious issue in management of the Delta’s vegetation resources. Their inability to prevent or manage veld fires and to introduce or inculcate other sustainable management techniques has also been a factor. The lack of coordination between vegetation initiatives, or initiatives that impact on vegetation, by different bodies, e.g. investors, tour operators, donors, NGOs and others has also been responsible for poor management.

3.2.3 Fauna

3.2.3.1 Mammals and birds Some of the key issues that confront the wildlife resource and DWNP as those responsible for overseeing its management are: 3.2.3.1.1 Elephants Based on the DWNP aerial surveys from the year 2000, Botswana’s elephant population is estimated at 120,000. The majority of this population is concentrated in and around perennial drainage systems, including the Okavango Delta, where densities as high as 1.5 elephants per square kilometre have been observed. Concern has been expressed that the increasing number of elephants is having a negative impact on vegetation, particularly the woodland community, in the elephant range, causing damage to farmer’s crops and regularly destroying or damaging the veterinary cordon fences. 3.2.3.1.2 The impact of veterinary disease control and border cordon fences on

wildlife migration and local movement Veterinary disease control and border cordon fences impact on the movements of certain wildlife species; both long distance migration as well as shorter, local movements. The impact of fences on wildlife in Ngamiland has been the cause of much concern and the subject of much discussion within and between various government and NGOs. In order to mitigate the negative impacts of fences, joint studies have been conducted by DWNP and the DAHP on how best fences can be utilised, aligned and accommodated with the least impact on wildlife and the maximum benefit to cattle. These studies were aimed at resolving issues and making recommendations for appropriate fencing solutions acceptable to both wildlife and livestock interests. The studies proposed a range of options, each with its different potential costs and benefits for government to consider. As yet, however, no decision has been taken. Government has, instead, now commissioned a review of the entire livestock sector to assist it in its decision making process but the current uncertainty over any future fence alignment makes planning for both wildlife and livestock management very difficult. 3.2.3.1.3 Buffalo Buffalo, leopard, lion, elephant and rhino are commonly referred to as the “big five” in the tourism photographic and safari hunting industries. It is acknowledged that, for the sustainability of the safari industry, especially hunting, buffalo are a particularly

44

important component because of the substantial returns they bring. DWNP has been tracking populations of many animals, including the “big five” in the Delta using aerial surveys since the early 1980’s. The size and whereabouts of buffalo herds are also important to the livestock sector, because they act as vectors of FMD which is endemic in the buffalo population. Expert opinion and examination of the trend data collected by DWNP over the past few years, however, reveals that the aerial surveys, as currently instituted, are not ideal for monitoring social and gregarious species such as buffalo. Due to their importance, both the number and location of buffalo are of significance and have management implications, both for tourism and the livestock sector. There is need to determine accurate baseline information in order to establish an effective monitoring program. Once an accurate baseline has been established it will then be possible to monitor the impact of hunting and other activities on the buffalo in Ngamiland. 3.2.3.1.4 Slaty Egret The Okavango Delta is home to hundreds of species of birds, amongst which is the threatened and endangered Slaty Egret. In Botswana, the distribution range of this species is restricted to the Okavango Delta and the Chobe and Kwando river systems. Observations made over thirty years ago suggested that the centre of the Okavango Delta, (the seasonally inundated floodplain and swamps), is the core habitat for this species in Botswana. Due to its status in general and its listing as an important species helping to designate the Delta as a Ramsar site, it is pertinent for DWNP to undertake a survey of the population and primary habitats of this species in the Delta. 3.2.3.1.5 Rare and endangered species Three of particularly rare and endangered animals in the Delta are the bird species African skimmer (Rhynchops flavirostris) and wattled crane (Bugeranus carunculatus) and the mammal species sitatunga (Tragelaphus spekei). A good deal of information has now been collected on the wattled crane due to the endeavours of both DWNP and the NGO Birdlife Botswana’s Wattled Crane Working Group. Little information, however, exists about the skimmer, other than that it nests on sand bars, primarily in the panhandle area and its nests and eggs are subject to disturbance by boat wash or about the very shy sitatunga, other than that its stronghold is also the permanent swamps of the panhandle. As these species are some of those that help to designate the Okavango Delta as a Ramsar site, more information on their numbers, distribution and general ecology is also required.

3.2.3.2 Fish Limited scientific information on the fish standing stocks in the Delta has resulted in a lot of controversial statements being promulgated by various interest groups, especially accusations made by tour operators and commercial fishers against each other, regarding the decline or non-decline of fish stocks in the Okavango Delta. It is very difficult, if not impossible, without adequate baseline scientific data to either confirm or deny these various conflicting statements or, indeed, to develop a sound fisheries management strategy. It is further difficult to involve stakeholders in sound management of the resource without tangible results from research work as well as proper engagement with these stakeholders in conducting such work 3.2.3.2.1 Inadequate knowledge of the fish stocks Until recently, relatively little research had been done on fish stocks of the Okavango Delta. Maar (1964) did some preliminary surveys in an effort to estimate the standing

45

fish stock. Maar’s survey came up with an estimate figure of the standing fish stock of 15 000 tons and an estimated annual fish production of 4 500 tons. These figures did not have any sound scientific basis and hence could not assist the Fisheries Division in developing fisheries management strategies that could enhance sustainable utilisation of the fishery resource. Subsequent to that, Merron carried out a comprehensive study which provided a general picture of fish distribution, biology, ecology, behavioural breeding patterns and feeding regimes but that failed to produce an estimate of the standing fish stock in the Okavango Delta. Recently, Mosepele in another study revealed some preliminary findings that the Okavango Delta fish stocks are still in a healthy state. This is in contradiction to some allegations made by some interests groups that the fish stocks are declining. A further three year fish stock assessment study was undertaken by Fisheries Division. The findings of the study are yet to be analysed, hence the need to complete this work and institute a monitoring programme. 3.2.3.2.2 Hydrology The other potentially threatening natural factor on the Delta fishery are the impacts of what appear to be a reduced and more erratic rainfall and the associated flooding size and duration. Over the last 20 years or so, the annual flood has been reduced in volume and thus extent due to reduced rainfall, this has affected the fishery as less area has been flooded and because many fish species, both the Delta proper and the main river, rely on the flood to trigger and enable spawning activities. 3.2.3.2.3 Poor management Incompatible fisheries and other management practices in upstream parts of the ORB may also negatively impact on the fishery sector in Botswana as many fish species, particularly certain important target species, such as tigerfish and catfish, migrate quite long distances up and down stream.

3.3 ECOLOGICAL ASPECTS – PROPOSED OR ACTUAL INTERVENTIONS

3.3.1 Hydrology

DWA will develop a topographical model of the Delta and use this, in combination with the existing hydrological data, to develop an integrated surface-groundwater hydrological model for the Delta and use the model to test various scenarios, agreed with and modified by other project partners, of changes in water volumes and flow patterns, e.g. increased or decreased rainfall, channel blockage or unblockage etc. DWA will also undertake a thorough reassessment of the existing hydrological monitoring programme, including water quality monitoring, and make proposals to improve this programme while ensuring implementation of the improved scheme. DWA will also work in association with other ODMP project partners to determine and quantify the current and estimated future water requirements of each of the different sectors, e.g. tourism, wildlife, agriculture etc. These figures will be used to in conjunction with the model and the above scenarios to assess potential or actual impacts on these and other sectors. DWA is aware of the concerns raised by stakeholders about channel blockages in the Delta and is seeking to address them, partly through its routine work programme and

46

partly under its ODMP activities. DWA has so far mapped all of the blockages in the Delta and is seeking, wherever possible, as part of its routine work and through ODMP activities to conduct hydrological monitoring in relation to these in order to understand the effect they are having on water flows and distribution both up and downstream. The impacts of blockages will also be modelled using the hydrological model that is being developed under the ODMP. The model can also be used to assess what the impact of removing the blockages would be and to estimate and assess the potential impact of blockages forming in other areas. Although this partly addresses the issue, there are two main issues preventing DWA from dealing with the channel blockages issue head. These are: i) DWA and stakeholders need to jointly come to an agreement on the way forward

and to develop an appropriate policy with which to address the issue of channel blockages. The formation of blockages, through siltation and vegetation build up is an entirely natural process (assuming this is not precipitated by the unnatural occurrence of an IAS). Indeed the ecology and general landscape nature of the Delta has been largely determined by the fact that channels form and die regularly across the entire area. If environmental management should reflect societal choice (see section 4.3 on the Ecosystem Approach) then society needs to clearly decide whether it wishes to put a good deal of effort, time and money into clearing blockages and thereby possibly preventing channels from dying and moving or to leave them and let the flow patterns continue to change.

ii) Should it be decided that some or all blockages should be removed, DWA currently doesn’t have any specific funds to deal attend to this matter. Although it incorporates the required finances into its annual budget this area of work is often cut back when budgets are revised and agreed as it appears not to be being given sufficient priority as a management issue at a senior level and/or that there are sufficient funds in the DWA annual budget (see section 3.4.7.6.7 under Capacity constraints).

For more details of what DWA is actually proposing to do under the ODMP, see Volume 2, Chapter 4.

3.3.2 Flora

A combination of the ARB, the Division of Forestry in MEWT and Range Ecology in the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA) will undertake an assessment of the carrying capacity of the vegetation resources of the Delta and propose livestock stocking rates. They will also conduct vegetation profiling and produce a vegetation resources management plan as well as develop a fire management plan. For more details, see Volume 2, Chapter 8. Extensive work has already been done by DWA to control and monitor the amounts of S. molesta and P. stratiotes and the locations at which they are found. DWA also monitor for the possible arrival of other species. Although this programme of work is set to continue it needs to be improved, e.g. there is a need to increase the parameters currently measured in relation to invasive species, and extended, e.g. there is a need to increase the number of sites currently monitored. Currently, there are no funds to do this under the ODMP and DWA is trying to address the issue through its standard work plan and regular annual budget. Funds allocated to deal with this issue are, however, regularly cut indicating that the issue is not seen in a serious enough light at a high enough level and/or that there are insufficient funds in the DWA (see section 3.4.7.6.7 under Capacity constraints).

47

Although there is existing regulation pertaining to import and relocation of boats into and within the Delta, there is a need to improve its implementation. Currently, there are insufficient staff and funds to adequately ensure that all boats brought into and moved within the Delta area are licensed, checked and sprayed by appropriately trained and equipped officers, especially at the more remote border crossings and within the central Delta area itself. Cooperation and willingness to comply with the current regulations by boat owners has also been encountered, possibly related to a lack of knowledge and understanding of the issues and threats related to such movements and importations. Again, currently there are no funds to do address these issues under the ODMP. As with control of IAS, DWA is trying to deal with the problem through its routine work plan and regular annual budget. Funds allocated to deal with this issue are, however, regularly cut indicating that the issue is not seen in a serious enough light at a high enough level and/or that there are insufficient funds in the DWA annual budget (see section 3.4.7.6.7 under Capacity constraints).

3.3.3 Fauna

The DWNP will implement surveys and studies on buffalo, slaty egret and selected rare species and produce reports with recommendations on future management and monitoring for each. For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 5 The Division of Fisheries will continue with their routine monitoring programme and produce a report on the status of the fish stock in the Delta for use in developing an overall fisheries management plan. For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 7 DAHP will implement a review of their current fence maintenance programme to see if, where and how it can be improved. For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 12

3.4 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS – CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES

3.4.1 Economic value of the Delta

Currently, there is also limited knowledge of the economic value of Delta in what is still a relatively intact or pristine environment. Although the economic value of the tourism that is undertaken in the area may be well known and recorded, the economic value of many of the Delta’s other “goods and services” has never been calculated. This impoverishes not only the full understanding of the real value of the Delta to Botswana as a country, as well as those Batswana directly associated with the Delta itself, but also hampers an effective management planning process and, in particular, robust and sensible negotiation on actual or potential changes and proposals with neighbouring countries.

3.4.2 Tourism

The Okavango Delta is arguably the single most important tourism destination in Botswana and in order for this to continue and develop and for the benefits of this characteristic to be properly spread, the active participation of local communities' is crucial.

48

Traditionally, programmes such as the RAD aimed to integrate remote communities into mainstream society by providing access to economic opportunities, usually through provision of livestock. This approach, however, excluded certain communities, like Khwai and Mababe, because they are situated inside the buffalo fence which is a cattle free zone. This has meant that their economic base has had to be based on something other than cattle and is therefore dominated by tourism and CBNRM activities. Livestock farming is generally not practiced in a rigorously commercial manner in any community areas, even where cattle are allowed, and is therefore not providing the economic upliftment that such communities require. Tourism, on the other hand, has recently overtaken cattle as the 2nd contributor to Botswana’s gross domestic product (GDP) figures and there is a widespread belief that it is this sector that can provide the required economic opportunities for local communities. Empowering Batswana to enter the tourism industry is, however, a long-term challenge and has meet with many and varied problems such as a lack of skills and insufficient investment capital, as well as restricted opportunities, often perceived to be due to deliberate exclusion of citizens from the industry at any senior level. During consultation, communities clearly expressed these issues and expressed a desire to get more benefits from the tourism sector, either through increased job opportunities and/or through more support for local initiatives, e.g. CBNRM activities. Stakeholders also complained about a lack of the skills and capacity required to enter, effectively participate and compete in the tourism sector. Communities that have not been given the right to administer their own natural resources, i.e. who haven’t been allocated one of the WMAs, felt that they did not get an adequate share from the enormous incomes they see the tourism sector generating. The tourist carrying capacity of the Delta, both in and outside conservation areas has, however, also been subject to much debate. Specific standards and acceptable densities for the number and type of tourists and tourism activities in any one area need to be established. At one stage, the serious proliferation of tour operators resulted in a temporary moratorium on mobile safari licences. This was done with a view to carrying out a study to establish such limits and produce an agreement on the acceptable levels and types of utilisation and densities. The study was never undertaken but its need is still manifest through instances of gross overbooking, on-going (and possibly even increasing) illegal operations, as well as conflict over camp proximities etc. Currently it is unknown whether or not tourism activities have already increased beyond the capacity of the area to sustain such activities. There is furthermore almost a complete lack of monitoring, regulatory mechanisms and enforcement in the tourism sector. Existing tourism activities are also often linked to existing conflicts and threats in and to the Delta, i.e. the need to reconcile sport and commercial fishing and the impact of the tourism market for famous Botswana baskets on the continued survival of mokolwane palm trees. The increase in tourism facilities and a lack of appropriate control and monitoring mechanisms, with the concomitant potential that the natural resources of the Delta might become overexploited, were issues expressed by stakeholders during consultation. Stakeholders, particularly in the private sector, also criticised uncontrolled development of access roads in the Delta and the lack of maintenance of infrastructure and facilities in Moremi Game Reserve. A specific issue raised by many stakeholders, often in relation to tourism, was that of the need to better regulate the type, number, size and speed of boats, as well as the “etiquette” used by those in control of them, e.g. which side of the channel to use, speed when passing other craft, particularly mokoro, etc. There is also a perceived need for temporal and spatial zoning of different types of boats, particularly in the panhandle

49

area. Many stakeholders addressed such concerns to DWA but it far from clear whether such issues are indeed the responsibility of DWA alone or whether the Ministry of Transport (MoT) shouldn’t also play a role here. Tourism planning in the District has also been fairly ad hoc to date and NWDC/DoT recognise the strong need to develop an overall District Tourism Plan in order to ensure a well structured and sustainable tourism industry both within the Delta and in the District in general. It is envisaged that such a plan would, for example, also assist NWDC/DoT in encouraging tourism activities outside the Delta, thus reducing the strain on the Delta’s resources. NWDC/DoT also recognises that the Ngamiland CBNRM programme is not delivering its intended outcomes. This is thought to be, at least in part, due to a concentration on tourism activities based around the main wildlife resource as a potential source of income and because there is already a good deal of competition in this area. It is believed that there are, however, many other viable and profitable possibilities for CBNRM activities and NWDC/DoT intends to initiate a thorough review of the programme with a view to diversification of the sector and to maximise the use of non-wildlife natural resources. Currently, it appears that a lack of knowledge in the District about the potential harvesting and marketing of other products and resources has hampered such development. In order for such projects to be successful in the future, however, there is also a need to undertake a resource inventory and to establish sustainable harvest levels etc. Such work is, therefore, proposed under the vegetation resources component. The existing Ngamiland district CBNRM forum, designed to bring all CBNRM stakeholders together to both discuss issues and problems as well as agree on solutions, does not have the funding required in the long-term to hold bi-annual meetings. In order for the current socio-economic opportunities offered by the tourism sector to continue, the Okavango system will have to remain an attractive tourism destination and the type and number of tourism activities will have to continue to develop. In order for this to happen, regional peace and stability will have to prevail, e.g. the spill over of the Angolan civil war into Namibia in 1999 – 2002 and the on-going political instability in Zimbabwe, had severe negative impacts on the tourism market. It isn’t only regional instability that can seriously affect the market, however, as was demonstrated by the impacts of the September 11th attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York and the subsequent slump in the numbers of people prepared to fly.

3.4.3 Human – elephant conflict

The increase in elephant numbers and related expansion of their range is not only perceived by many as a threat to biodiversity, through destruction of trees and overall change in vegetation, but also results in conflicts with the people living in and around the Okavango Delta. The majority of conflicts arise from damage to property (fencing, housing etc.) and loss of / damage to and crops. In some unfortunate, but gratefully rare, instances there has also been loss of human life. A number of studies aimed at quantifying the extent of the elephant problem and at developing mitigation measures designed to minimise the impact of the interactions between humans and elephants have been and are still being conducted, both by DWNP and independent researchers. From its own work, DWNP has already put forward a number of strategies and actions that could be employed to mitigate human –

50

elephant conflict (HEC) but the Department and stakeholders also feel that further work is needed in this area. The issue of compensation for crops destroyed by elephants was also regularly raised by stakeholders who stated that: i) It was difficult to find anyone to come and assess damages. ii) Compensations payments are too low. iii) Claims take too long to be processed.

3.4.4 Livestock predation

Predators, principally lion, leopard, hyena, cheetah and African wild dog, are a source of protracted conflicts with communities due to their, often deadly, interaction with livestock and occasional interaction with people. This has lead not only to growing resentment by affected communities for certain animal species but also to resentment by communities for the DWNP who they see as either protecting such animals or “taking their side”. Based on the number of reported cases of conflict between predators and livestock, especially by lion and leopard, it appears that the Okavango Delta and the surrounding areas have a healthy, if not increasing, population of such species. Between 1998 and 2000, DWNP conducted intensive lion surveys to determine the number and distribution of lions in the country, including Ngamiland; a follow up survey is ongoing. In addition to this, DWNP has also been collecting data to determine the exact extent of predator–livestock conflicts in Ngamiland. From this research, it is apparent that lions are responsible for almost 60% of the livestock predation in Ngamiland and the main locations of such conflicts have been identified. Similar work now needs to be carried out on leopards and cheetahs to develop effective planning and deploy mitigation measures. There remains the possibility, however, that the proximity of people and agriculture to wildlife may be too close for any leopard/cheetah – livestock mitigation measures to be really effective. The issue of compensation for animals killed by wild animals was also regularly raised by stakeholders who stated that: i) It was difficult to find anyone to come and assess damages. ii) Compensations payments are too low in relation to the market price for the animal

killed. iii) There is inconsistency in the compensation laws, e.g. animals killed by lions will be

compensated for but those killed by hyenas won’t be. iv) Claims take too long to be processed.

3.4.5 Fisheries management

3.4.5.1 Lack of fisheries regulatory instruments The only legislative document relating to fisheries in Botswana and relevant to the Okavango Delta is the Fisheries Act (1975). This piece of legislation is now, however, largely redundant and in desperate need of updating. For this reason, draft fisheries regulations were drawn up detailed after consultation and stakeholder involvement. These were submitted to the Attorney General’s (AG) chambers through the MoA in

51

1997 but since then there has been no movement. The AG’s Chambers have now indicated that the finalised regulations would be available by end of November 2004.

3.4.5.2 Conflicts between different sectors of the fishery industry The key conflict areas are over user rights and access, targeting of the same species and the timing of fishing and tourism activities. 3.4.5.2.1 User rights and access The user rights conflict principally emanates from a desire by tourism concessioniers to maintain exclusive rights over fishing for their clients, thereby denying local fishermen what they see as their traditional right of access to certain areas and fisheries resources within the concession areas. Unclear boundaries of the Moremi Game Reserve, especially in relation to the areas latter extension into the permanent swamp, is also an issue for fishermen who either aren’t aware of the location of the boundary or who feel that traditional fishing grounds were removed in the reserve’s extension. 3.4.5.2.2 Same target species Commercial and sport fishermen generally also often target exactly the same size and type of fish species, e.g. bream, tiger and catfish, which creates conflict related to the availability, or lack of it, of such resources. 3.4.5.2.3 Timing of activities The preferred time at which various different activities take place in the Delta is also a source of conflict as the favoured or best time for these different, sometimes incompatible, activities is simultaneous or occurs within the same period. An example would be that tourist lodges prefer to take their clients on morning and evening game drives, as these are the prime game viewing times, but these are also the periods when fishermen prefer to set and retrieve their nets.

3.4.5.3 Lack of a fisheries stakeholder consultative forum There is currently no forum where matters concerning fish resources can be aired and addressed by all the different stakeholder groups. This has resulted in lack of involvement of all sectors in monitoring and research of the fishery and created a lack of understanding between them. This lack of understanding has developed into mistrust and ultimately conflict between the different sectors of the fishery.

3.4.6 Settlement structure and physical planning

The population in the Ngamiland District, especially in the Okavango Delta area, has been growing rapidly over the last two decades. This is thought to be not only due to an overall population increase but also specifically due to an influx of people to the district caused by the local abundance of natural resources; the accessibility to which has improved over time due to better roads etc. The popularity of the Okavango Delta for tourism and associated employment opportunities are also significant factors. It is for these reasons, and despite the toll of the human immunodeficiency virus/ acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS) epidemic, that most settlements in the District have witnessed exponential growth. As population grows, pressure on services and infrastructure increases, hence the need to plan for orderly nodal development and service centres within the larger context of Ngamiland District Settlement Strategy (NDSS).

52

During consultation, several communities raised issues of needs for basic health care and education services, better drinking water supply and reliable terrestrial (as opposed to mobile) public telephone services and connections. In the remote settlement of Khwai, the main concern was the constant threat of being resettled again and the community’s perceived need for official recognition of the village’s existence (status). In Sexaxa, the 15kms between the village and the nearest school in Matlapaneng was raised and community members requested a primary school for the village. In Etsha and Tsau the poor state of the feeder roads was raised. These issues are not new to the council and are generally reflected in the NDSS and are in District Development Plan (DDP) 6 to be actioned although resources are a major limiting factor. The Ramsar site includes a total of 65 recognised settlements of which only two currently have prepared physical development plans; namely Maun and Gumare, the district headquarters and sub-district headquarters respectively. Shakawe, a fast growing village and the third largest in the Ramsar site lacks a settlement development plan and now also needs one, providing a document stipulating the policies and objectives required to guide and shape its future development. This document will further provide settlement development options for Shakawe that can also then be adapted to other settlements as the settlement development planning process is rolled out within the Ramsar Site and the district as a whole.

3.4.7 Land use, land use planning and management

Several land use plans have been developed in Ngamiland, e.g. Moremi Game Reserve Management Plan (1991), Kwando and Okavango WMA Management Plan (1991), Photographic Areas Management Plan (1996) and Okavango River Panhandle Management Plan (2001) to name a few. These and other plans (e.g. for CHAs) form the land use zoning and utilisation foundation for current land allocation, land management and natural resource management in the district. Ngamiland is divided up into eight (8) major planning zones for which land use zones exist but not all of these planning zones have detailed land use plans nor is there an overall district integrated land use plan. The Ramsar site, therefore, currently has no overall land use plan. Traditional land users held the TLB responsible for holding up local development initiatives because of the delays in allocation of land and asked TLB to more carefully consider and recognise traditional land rights and land use practices, e.g. by involving the local institutions in the land allocation process. TLB states that delays in the allocation of land are partly related to capacity issues within the TLB (see section 3.4.8) but also to other issues, such land availability, willingness of communities to provide land, resolution of compensation payment issues etc. Such issues affect Land Boards across the country and are not unique to the TLB. The importance and high productivity of the traditional floodplain cultivation system (molapo farming) was raised as were concerns about proposals in the Panhandle Management Plan, commissioned by TLB to ban such farming within 500m of the water’s edge in the panhandle. Tourism sector stakeholders were very concerned about what they perceived to be a lack of enforcement of existing land use plans, regulations and guidelines. They felt that the natural resources of the Okavango Delta could only be sustainably used if all concession areas, including those managed by communities, were regularly monitored and, in cases of severe mismanagement, the legal right of repossessing them is applied. They questioned whether this had ever happened.

53

3.4.8 Waste management

It is generally accepted that waste management needs to be improved in the whole Ngamiland district and that this doesn’t compare favourably with the current situation where NWDC only manages waste from gazetted villages. Mechanisms employed for management of waste generated in the Delta proper are though to be particularly deficient. If the dangers of polluting and littering of the Delta and the consequences of these things are to be avoided there is need for a District Waste Management Strategy that pays specific attention to the unique situation and waste management challenges presented in the Delta. Such a strategy is also required under the Waste Management Act 1998 should focus on waste management deficits in villages located within the Ramsar site and address the very specific waste (particularly sewage) management challenges faced by tourism camps, houseboats, camp sites and service settlements in the Delta proper. Although a NWDC Waste Management Plan was completed in 2002, it concentrated on the major conurbations, especially Maun. Issues of concern identified by the management plan were that:

Local rules for waste handling and resources recovery are not available. Potential benefits of involving the private sector are rarely taken advantage of. Performance and availability of the present waste collection fleet is extremely low. Waste reduction, reuse and recycling programmes are either non-existent or

inadequate. There is a lack of community and other stakeholder participation in the planning

and decision making, which is often mentioned as a reason for the non-compliance with existing waste plans and regulations, as well as a lack of active participation by stakeholders in managing their own waste.

The management plan did not, however, address the unique and complex issues of waste management specifically within the Ramsar site and especially in the remote wetland areas of the Delta.

3.4.9 Livestock management

Despite the contribution and potential shown by the livestock sub-sector, a number of concerns and challenges relating to its long-term viability have emerged over the years. The major concerns and challenges include, but are not limited to, the following.

3.4.9.1 Recurrent droughts Drought is a natural phenomenon across most of Botswana. Recurring droughts have had a negative impact on the livestock sub-sector by reducing water and grazing availability and thereby negatively impacting on livestock condition. In terms of its capital effect on the rural economy, drought had decimated the national livestock herd, depriving the nation and its citizens of a productive and life-sustaining asset. In the drought of the 1980s cattle population fell from 3 million to less than 2.3 million. While the cattle population slightly increased from 2.3 million to 2.7 million between 1987 and 1990, the drought of the 1990s led to a significant decrease in cattle population from 2.7 million in 1990 to 1.8 million in 1993. In terms of its effect on income in the rural economy, drought has often resulted in lost production, lost employment in the sub-sector and lost incomes at sectoral and

54

household levels. Recurrent droughts have therefore adversely affected the viability of the livestock sub-sector; inherently making the livestock industry risky. Added to this, the removal of drought as a threat to the livestock industry in a naturally arid country like Botswana is not possible.

3.4.9.2 Environmental degradation Botswana’s gazing resource is seriously constrained by low and uneven distribution of rainfall combined with high temperatures. In the Delta, this natural situation is exacerbated as livestock and wildlife tend to congregate together in areas of open water around the periphery of the Delta, resulting in overgrazing, trampling and consequent depletion of the resource. In years of good rain, however, the best grazing resources are available away from permanent water sources; these tend to be largely underutilised due to the absence of water for drinking. It has been suggested that if more water points could made available to cattle in such areas, this would contribute to reducing the unwanted interactions between livestock and wild animals along the immediate edges of the Delta.

3.4.9.3 Recurrence of major epidemics Raising livestock in close proximity to wild areas, and therefore wild animals, also presents problems such as the spread of disease, e.g. FMD and sleeping sickness or ngana in cattle (Trypanosomiasis). In 1995, around 320 000 cattle were destroyed in Ngamiland as a result of CBPP. Government spent P360 million in compensating farmers for this event. More recently, 16 000 cattle were destroyed at Matsiloje in the Francistown area due to FMD and Government again spent P52 million on the eradication exercise. Dealing with such epidemics therefore requires implementation of, unfortunately often unpopular, disease control strategies and maintenance of livestock farming in Ngamiland is primarily based on disease control although supplemented by other animal production techniques, such as artificial insemination. Disease control is delivered through construction of strategic veterinary fences, vaccination programmes, strict control on the movement of livestock and livestock products. The fences provide boundaries for three disease control zones in Ngamiland but controversies surround the utility of the fences. Major issues of concern relate to both environmental and social issues. From an environmental viewpoint, fences can have substantial influences on the ecosystem functioning both through the fragmentation of natural habitats and restriction of movement. These have various potential knock-on effects, such as:

Preventing or substantially altering the traditional, seasonal movements of migratory species such as elephant, buffalo, zebra, wildebeest and hartebeest.

Inducing habitat degradation, by confining wildlife to limited areas and thus limited resources.

The potential for increased predation as wildlife are forced to concentrate in certain areas, e.g. at specific water holes.

Exacerbation of water shortages during drought years e.g. by preventing access to continuous water sources.

Physical entrapment by fences (both in the fence itself and the debris left behind after construction).

From a social viewpoint, veterinary fences can also have negative effects. For example, due to the increasing number of elephants in the Delta and possibly due to the actions

55

of occasional internal and cross-border poaching incidents, large sections of the veterinary fences are regularly being destroyed, negatively affecting the department’s fence maintenance programme. Fence destruction allows cattle grazed outside the fences to enter wildlife areas and vice versa; there is thus mixing of cattle and wild animals. Of greatest concern here is the mixing of cattle and buffalo. DWNP responds to such situations by driving buffalo back behind the broken sections of fence using people, vehicles and even helicopters. DAHP’s response, however, has to be more severe. Not only does the department respond by trying to continuously fix the destroyed fence sections, they also have to cull any cattle that have strayed into the wildlife only area as a disease control precaution, e.g. to prevent the spread of FMD from Buffalo. Not only are the strayed cattle killed but their carcasses are also destroyed. The combined actions of the two departments often causes great disquiet among the affected communities who lose their cattle, do not benefit from their meat and see at the same time see large resources and efforts made in protecting wild animals. Communities also feel that the compensation payments offered for the destruction of their cattle in such instances are: i) Too low, i.e. below the market rate for the animals destroyed, and; ii) Take too long to be paid out. It was mainly due to the perceived fence induced environmental problems that the GoB commissioned an Environmental Assessment of the Veterinary Fences in Ngamiland in 2000. Due to export restrictions, e.g. FMD regulations and the importance of the livestock market to Botswana’s national economy, the whole-scale removal of fences appears not to be an option. Given this situation, priorities and strategies have to be carefully developed in cognisance of the comparative benefits and disbenefits of wildlife versus livestock utilisation of the available resources. Even if fences could and were to be removed, livestock-wildlife conflicts would continue through competition for grazing resources and predation of livestock by some wild animals in and around the Delta. In view of this, the GoB has commissioned a detailed study on the viability of the livestock sub-sector and based on the findings of this will develop a long term strategy for the future. The study will be carried out taking into account economic, technical and environmental considerations in a globalised competitive market place and with the objective of determining the viability of the livestock sub-sector in order to promote a viable, competitive and sustainable livestock sub-sector taking into account risk issues. Long term decisions about the alignment, design and need for veterinary fences will only be able to be made in the light of the findings of this study despite the recommendations that came out of the EIA of Veterinary Fences in Ngamiland. Many communities also requested the department to develop new water sources, by sinking boreholes, away from the central Delta area. This was suggested as a way to reduce conflict between livestock and wildlife, with the perception that the latter concentrate in the central Delta area and that if only water were available in the sand veld, livestock would be better protected there.

3.4.9.4 Tsetse fly The Okavango Delta provides an ecological environment where Tsetse flies (Glossina morsitans centralis) thrive. The Tsetse fly is responsible for the transmission of Trypanosomiasis, a disease also known as locally as nagana when it occurs in cattle and more commonly referred to as sleeping sickness in people. Throughout the 20th Century, new and sound strategies and techniques for tsetse control have evolved,

56

such as odour baits, sequential aerial spraying and the sterile male technique. The GoB has utilised these control measures, which has resulted in a good deal of debate on their potential environmental impacts; this is especially true for the recent aerial spraying campaigns. In response to an outbreak of Trypanosomiasis in 1999, an aerial spraying campaign was carried out in two blocks, northern and southern, in the central section of the Delta proper in 2001 and 2002 and concerns were raised about the potential environmental effects. In response to this, an environmental monitoring programme was put in place by DAHP. The results of this programme showed that although there had been some limited impact on non-target species, the vast majority had made a good recovery by 2003, i.e. both terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. At the same time, Tsetse flies have not been recorded in the treated area of the Okavango since spraying ceased. Despite these very positive results, recommendations were made in the “Environmental Monitoring of Tsetse Fly Spraying in the Okavango Delta” reports that still require implementing. Cross-border reinvasion from Namibia or Angola where healthy Tsetse populations still exist could negate all Tsetse fly eradication efforts

3.5 SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS – PROPOSED AND ACTUAL INTERVENTIONS

3.5.1 Economic value of the Delta

NCSA will also undertake an economic characterisation of the Delta to assess its overall economic value to Botswana. For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 1.

3.5.2 Tourism

NWDC in conjunction with DoT will start to address the situation and issues raised in relation to the tourism sector by undertaking studies on carrying capacity and limits of acceptable change in the tourism and ecotourism sector and by making clear recommendations on the setting of limits. The institutions will also undertake studies on how best to diversify the tourism and ecotourism sectors in the district and on how to improve citizen participation, engagement and employment in the tourism sector making recommendations on areas for new tourism development and on any changes required to improve citizen involvement. The departments will also undertake a review of the existing Ngamiland CBNRM sector with a view to making recommendations for its diversification, especially into new, non-tourism based activities. All this work will culminate in the development of a District Tourism Strategy and an Ecotourism Action Plan that will seek to recommend how and where the tourism sector look for growth and, perhaps, also look at ways in which the market can to some extent protect itself from regional and global political instability etc, e.g. by continuing to develop the national and regional tourism market. DoT/NWDC will also develop a programme by which to monitor tourism and ecotourism activities. This will be built on, and developed simultaneously with, a functioning and user friendly database and information system that once populated with data and interrogated can be used to assess future industry performance, trends and impacts etc.

57

For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 6. In relation to the specific issues on boats and boating, some regulations already exist but others will need to be developed. This will, in all likelihood, need to be addressed jointly by DWA and the MoT. There are currently no funds within the ODMP with which to address this issue although it is more a matter of policy and can perhaps be incorporated into the NCSA’s policy review activity as an issue that needs to be addressed. For more information on policy review, see Volume 2, Chapter 1.

3.5.3 Human – elephant conflict

DWNP will undertake studies, test practical measures and make recommendations on how to reduce HEC in and around the Delta. For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 5. The issue of compensation is seen as a policy issue and will therefore be addressed by the NCSA’s policy review activity. For more details, see Volume 2, Chapter 1.

3.5.4 Livestock predation

DWNP will undertake studies, test practical measures and make recommendations on how to reduce predator-livestock conflict in and around the Delta. For more details, see Volume 2, Chapter 5. The issue of compensation is seen as a policy issue and will therefore be addressed by the NCSA’s policy review activity. For more details, see Volume 2, Chapter 1.

3.5.5 Fisheries management

Fisheries will use the information from their monitoring programme (see section 4.2.6), in conjunction with that obtained through fish frame and creel surveys, as well as by reconstitution of a fisheries consultative forum in order to bring different parties together, to try and reduce the conflict between different factions within the fishery sector. All of this information, combined with the results of a fisheries socio-economic study, will be used to produce a fisheries management plan for the Delta. For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 7.

3.5.6 Settlement structure and physical planning

The PPU in the NWDC, in conjunction with the DTRP will undertake a geotechnical survey and an EIA for the Shakawe village area and then develop a Shakawe Settlement Development Plan. The experience gained from undertaking these processes will then be used to benefit settlement development planning for all other recognised settlements in the Delta area, especially within the Ramsar site.

58

For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 9.

3.5.7 Land use, land use planning and management

In order to address the current situation and issues relating to land use, the TLB will undertake a review of all existing land use plans in the Delta area and produce a report detailing both physical and policy gaps in these and in current land and natural resources use. The report will also outline stakeholder aspirations as well as any identified need for new, detailed land use plans, their location and type. From this work, TLB will then seek to develop an integrated land use plan for the entire Ramsar site aimed at regulating land use and land management and that pays specific attention to vulnerable areas in the Okavango Delta; this is most likely to be a gap filling exercise based on existing plans. TLB will also produce overall land use plan and policy implementation guidelines (land management, ecosystem and natural resources management and wetland management) for use in all future land use planning exercises. It is hoped that by undertaking the activities outlined in this component some steps will also be made in addressing the complicated, national issue of delays in land allocation. For more details, see Volume 2, Chapter 10.

3.5.8 Waste management

NWDC EHD will develop a district waste management strategy with emphasis on management of waste from the remote areas, especially tourism facilities, in the Delta proper. For more details, see Volume 2, Chapter 11.

3.5.9 Livestock management

In order to address the situation and issues raised by stakeholders relating to livestock, the DAHP will undertake a study on its existing veterinary fence maintenance programme and make proposals for improving this in the future. DAHP will also implement a series of educational programmes on the disease control measures it implements, what they are designed to achieve and why. To address the issue of facilitating grazing away from the Delta proper, the department will also undertake a study on the effectiveness of providing boreholes away from the Delta to encourage grazing there and thereby reduce wildlife-livestock interaction. The Tsetse control department will also undertake a survey to develop rigorous baseline data by which to assess the effects of any future Tsetse control programme/s. For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 12. The issue of compensation is seen as a policy issue and will therefore be addressed by the NCSA’s policy review activity. For more details, see Volume 2, Chapter 1.

59

3.6 OTHER ASPECTS – CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES

3.6.1 Policy and planning

3.6.1.1 Lack of coherent policies affecting the Delta The existing diverse and complex nature of the Okavango Delta in terms of its natural resources, its wide range of users and uses, its multiple managers (both in and outside government and including communities) and an array of national laws, policies and guidelines as well as regional and international conventions, agreements and protocols are all factors that dictate the need for an integrated management planning process. While addressing the ultimate goal of sustainability, any management planning process must also be aligned to existing laws and policies governing the area as well as expectations of national and district development goals articulated through the NDPs and DDPs; as well as other legal and policy instruments, such as Vision 2016. The current scenario, however, is that the many and various national laws, policies and guidelines, including Vision 2016 and the regional and international conventions, agreements and protocols that guide development planning and the use of resources of the Delta are:

Spread throughout a number of different government institutions, each with its own responsibility for implementation

Often either not or only partly implemented, and; Not necessarily in consonance either with one another or with the principles of

sustainable development or sustainable resource use (especially in relation to a shared river basin).

These three issues have in the past been the source of much conflict in resource use and management and, unless changes are made, will continue to be in the future.

3.6.1.2 No common vision for the Delta Any management planning process must also have broad stakeholder “buy-in” in order for it to be successful. For this to happen in the Okavango Delta, an essential step in the planning process is the need to develop a clear, common vision of the Delta itself, one shared by all stakeholders and project partners and around which the plan can be developed. Such a vision must outline exactly what everyone can and should expect the Delta to be, both now and in the future.

3.6.1.3 Need for revision of the Ramsar Information Sheet and boundary line Although the Delta is registered as a Ramsar site and thereby protected under the provision of the Ramsar convention, neither the current Ramsar boundary nor the associated RIS have been reviewed since they were submitted to the Ramsar Bureau. Ramsar requires that both the boundary and the RIS, which contains detailed information on the general characteristics of the site as well as its special features, must be reviewed every 5 years. The existing boundary especially needs to be realigned to fit more logically with social, physical, ecological and other features on the ground. The various scenarios that are likely to emerge given inherent climate change, within country and upstream structural and population developments and their related anthropogenic activities will also have implications for and on management and development options for the Delta.

60

3.6.1.4 A need for planning Some areas of the Ramsar site are already covered by land use or user management plans and there are a number of policies, rules and regulations that relate to natural resource management and use as well as other aspects. Currently, neither the existing plans nor regulations are well enforced. What little planning there is tends to be of a static nature and does not include monitoring or the type of adaptive management planning required for dealing with an area as dynamic as the Delta ecosystem. Stakeholders, especially in the tourism sector, expressed concerns about how any regulations, planning guidelines and recommendations resulting from the ODMP would be enforced effectively. They suggested that funds be set aside to establish a permanent Okavango Delta Management Authority (ODMA) that would implement, monitor and revise the ODMP planning and management decisions beyond the lifetime of the present project. Stakeholders also suggested that there maybe a need to further increase the protection status of the Delta. There appeared to be some misunderstanding amongst communities about the exact planning area for the ODMP with many assuming that it related solely to the wetland area inside the buffalo fence (the Delta “proper”) and not to the surrounding dry land that is also included as part of the Ramsar site.

3.6.2 Communication

The aspirations of each community of stakeholders should be known to each other and the exchange of information organised systematically. Negotiations will need to start and trade-offs must be made. These processes require an extensive communication programme for the overall project in order to formulate an effective ODMP. Information gathering and communication methods traditionally used often fall short in terms of effectiveness and expectation in terms of:

Their inability to accurately target desired groups Difficulties in adequately conveying the intended message Presenting different messages about the same issue by different institutions The time taken for the message to reach the target groups Inaccuracies and inconsistencies in the intended or actual content The inappropriateness of the communication and information exchange methods

used Difficulties in ensuring and achieving information flow from “bottom to top”

The vast nature of the Ramsar site, let alone of the whole ORB that is equally the target of the ODMP communication strategy, and the unique problems these areas experience in term of difficulties in physical and remote (radio, telephone, email, internet etc.) access, present enormous problems in the formulation of an effective communication strategy. This is compounded by the huge diversity of views and opinions among stakeholders, which range from local communities to international governments and include the tourism private sector operators and tourists themselves, about what should or shouldn’t be done. Such factors also make effective and efficient communication and information exchange, and especially reaching consensus, a very difficult task. Stakeholders stressed, however, that they like to be consulted, that they welcomed the ODMP consultation processes already put into place and said that they saw these as an

61

opportunity to channel their concerns to be addressed by the management plan. A number of statements reflected this, e.g. “Consultation is important in a democracy”, “We are happy to have an active role in the plan” and “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”. Stakeholders emphasised that consultation should continue throughout the project and that the suggestions made by stakeholders should become an integral part of the plan. It was stated that in the past, Government did not take their opinions and concerns seriously. Communities explained that they had been consulted on many occasions but that they had never received any feedback on their suggestions nor witnessed any action that they could determine was based on their comments or aimed at resolving the issues they raised. These negative experiences appeared to have created a deep feeling of mistrust that genuine stakeholder participation would also not be employed in the ODMP planning process. People raised the fear that ODMP had come with preconceived plans or that the consultation exercise was purely motivated by political aspirations and/or part of an election campaign. Government was also accused of being more interest in the protection of the Delta than in addressing the issue affecting the livelihoods and well-being of the people who live from the natural resources of the wetland. Harsh criticism was raised about Government employees doing their job without social commitment and looking down upon, or even mal treating, community members; some had experience that the work of Government officers often did not result in positive change. Stakeholders also described how they had experienced a lack of communication and coordination between different government departments working in their area; the integrated approach described for ODMP was therefore appreciated. The important role traditional leaders had taken in natural resource management in the past was also often highlighted and it was pointed out that the natural environment was largely still in a good condition because it had been so well managed by communities and their leaders over the years. It was stated that some of the conservation regulations and laws introduced by Government ran contrary to traditional land users and uses and people requested that new environmental laws should at least be translated into Setswana so as to make them more easily understandable. Local land users regarded their lifelong experience and profound knowledge of the natural resources of the Delta as very crucial in the planning process, e.g. “We know better than the educated people what is happening in the Delta as we lived here since many generations” and they declared their willingness to share their traditional knowledge on the use and conservation of natural resources with the ODMP. Community members also expressed their willingness to assist in the identification of issues that need to be addressed. Stakeholders also realised at the same time that they also need more technical knowledge and education to become part of the planning process and requested for educational workshops to be conducted at the local level. All stakeholder groups stressed that they could only contribute to the project in a meaningful way, if they were provided with more detailed information on the anticipated activities (project document). The tourism sector representatives stressed, that a project of this magnitude needs to have a communication specialist (CoS), who could regularly and effectively update stakeholders on the progress of the project. The installation of a web site was suggested as one possible communication media for this sector. Private sector stakeholders also suggested that representatives of all the different stakeholder groups like, CBOs, NGOs, Government institutions and the private sector

62

should be called jointly to meetings to avoid one sided views and accusations that are often based on misunderstandings. Concern was also raised on the lack of feedback from the pre-feasibility study of the “Popa Falls Hydropower Scheme”, a project that might have significant influence on the hydrology of the Delta and stakeholders asked ODMP to assist with providing the relevant information.

3.6.3 Research and data

Information on the Delta is widely scattered, formats are not standardised and many data are not easily accessible. There is a lack of updated information on present land use, socio economic, hydrological and ecological conditions of the Delta for planning purposes. In addition, uncoordinated research activities and limited use of local knowledge for resource management might lead to research results that are less useful for planning. The participation of stakeholders in the planning and implementation of rural development interventions needs improvement and would require specific attention in a project of such magnitude as the ODMP. Stakeholders, especially in the tourism sector, emphasised the need to compile existing data and research results on the Okavango Delta in a central institution and said that these should be utilised in ODMP so as to avoid duplication of effort and ensure well targeted research work. It was suggested that data should be integrated into a data bank, analysed and made accessible to all stakeholders. The importance of identifying research gaps and developing clear guidelines and criteria for data collection, allowing for meaningful contributions by stakeholders in monitoring and information collection, as well as in providing regular feedback to them, was stressed.

3.7 OTHER ASPECTS – PROPOSED OR ACTUAL INTERVENTIONS

3.7.1 Policy and planning

It was against the background of the management issues and challenges outlined so far that a development planning framework, based on the ecosystem approach (EA) and premised on the concept of the environmental reserve, was set up to guide future development in, and management of, the Delta. The plan produced by this process will then be used to feed into subsequent DDPs and NDPs targeting the Delta area, to support the decisions made by OKACOM and guide day-to-day management and resource use in the area. This framework will further facilitate fulfilment of national obligations under the various multi-lateral environmental agreements (MEAs) in a synergised and cost effective manner. NCSA not only has the overall responsibility for the creation of the management plan but also for addressing specific policy related issues that need to be incorporated within it. To this end, NCSA will undertake a comprehensive policy review and make recommendations on how existing policy can best be adapted or harmonised to ensure implementation of the plan and sustainable use of the Delta. NCSA will develop a common, shared and agreed vision for the Delta through a detailed process of stakeholder consultation. As the Ramsar representative in Botswana, NCSA will also

63

undertake to update the boundary map of the Ramsar site and the Ramsar Information Sheet which accompanies this. For more details, see Volume 2, Chapter 1

3.7.2 Communication

NCSA will, in association with the IUCN, develop a widely agreed communication strategy for the project that will incorporate the use of specific communication mechanisms, tools and training manuals, meetings and workshop proceeding in order to deliver its aims. The details of this strategy are yet to be finalised as the strategy is still under development. For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 2.

3.7.3 Research and data – proposed or actual interventions

In order to address this situation and these issues, HOORC will compile and collate all relevant data on the Okavango Delta and develop a comprehensive data storage and management function. This will be supported by a comprehensive library service for reports and data only available in hard copy. Both these facilities should be of use in supporting research and inquiries of project partners and third parties. HOORC will also develop an Okavango Delta 5–10 year research strategy based on wide consultation and aimed at filling gaps vital to the development of the management plan; they will also provide guidance (reports, advice and training courses) in participatory planning to partner institutions. For more details see Volume 2, Chapter 3.

3.8 OTHER PROJECTS AND PROGRAMMES RUNNING IN THE ORB

ODMP is already working closely with, or actively seeking to build contacts to, certain other relevant and related projects in the Okavango Delta and the wider ORB. ODMP will continue to seek, widen and maintain these links both during the development and implementation phases. Some of the other Okavango basin projects and programmes are outlined below:

3.8.1 Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the ORB

The long term goal of this project is to protect the ecological integrity of the basin. It is funded by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the Global Environmental Fund (GEF) and coordinated by OKACOM and will entail completion of a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and formulation of a Strategic Action Programme (SAP).

3.8.2 Okavango integrated river basin management project

This is a joint project between OKACOM and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) project being implemented by Associates in Rural Development

64

(ARD) which, among other things, is designed to act as a precursor to the OKACOM secretariat soon to be established and based in Maun. The other duties and tasks of the project are yet to be finalised but it is undoubtedly, along with the GEF/UNDP project, one of the bigger and more important projects operating in the river basin at present and one with which ODMP must seek to collaborate and work.

3.8.3 Water and Ecosystem in Regional Development (WERRD)

The WERRD project is about balancing societal needs and natural resources systems sustainability in international river basins. It is designed to:

Improve and develop scientific methods that will facilitate the monitoring of fluctuations of hydrological and ecosystem variables of the ORB

Articulate local knowledge and relate this to other dimensions of knowledge Link the components of the natural resource system to the socio-economic

dynamics and to national and international policy

3.8.4 Twinning European and third countries river basins for development of integrated water resources management methods (TwinBas)

TwinBas is a European Union (EU) funded research project with the goal of knowledge brought to a level where integrated water resources management (IWRM) can be implemented for five twinned river basins around the world, including the ORB.

3.8.5 Leseding Project

This is an initiative from the University of the Free State, South Africa conducting research focussing on fish ecology and the livelihood sustainability of Ngamiland people

3.8.6 TIGER Partnership

This is a partnership between the European Space Agency (ESA), the Federal Institute of Technology (ETZ) in Zurich and DWA in Botswana – establishing a monitoring programme for the Okavango Delta based on remote sensing

3.8.7 Proposed hydropower scheme at Popa Falls

The Namibian government is currently investigating the possibility of constructing a hydro-electric power generation scheme at Popa Falls on the Okavango River just upstream of the Delta. A pre-environmental appraisal has been completed for Namibia’s proposal to develop a hydro-power scheme at Popa Falls and a full EIA has now been commissioned. As part of this work, morphological studies have been undertaken and were conducted by DWA Namibia in cooperation with Witwatersrand University in Johannesburg.

65

3.8.8 The Every River has its People Project (ERP)

The KCS in Botswana, the Namibia Nature Foundation in Namibia and ACADIR in Angola, have been running a community engagement and awareness raising project for communities in the ORB. This has been operating in communities based in and around the Delta in Botswana, as well as along the river in Namibia and Angola. The three organisations have undertaken consultation and studies in each country and the next step is to ensure that people are fully informed and consulted about future developments in the river basin. The activities outlined in the ODMP project proposal in many instances came from information collected by the ERP. ODMP and the ERP have already begun a collaborative and cooperative approach to their communication and consultation efforts, especially concerning aspirations of the communities. Staff from the ERP and ODMP worked closely together during community consultation carried out during this Inception Phase and the ERP benefited from Kgotla meetings organised by ODMP through widening their base of participation in the project’s “Basin Wide Forum” by recruitment of one or two people from each village.

3.8.9 OKACOM

At a regional river basin level the planned river basin management planning activities of OKACOM, the tri-partite commission comprising government officers from Angola, Namibia and Botswana and charged with overseeing development of the river basin, are crucial. The ODMP Project Proposal stated that development of the ODMP would be expected to provide input into the overall management of the ORB. The ODMP project has already met with some of Botswana’s OKACOM commissioners to discuss the ODMP project and now anticipates doing the same with commissioners from Namibia and Angola. Close cooperation with all the OKACOM countries and OKACOM secretariat on the management plan is vital for its success. Information and management interventions emanating from ODMP can be fed into the wider river basin management planning effort being coordinated by OKACOM. The ODMP will seek to ensure that any cooperation will have a highly consultative and information-sharing nature the details of which will be finalised in the ODMP communications strategy once in place. The ODMP project will also seek to be supportive to similar local level management planning activities in the other riparian states wherever relevant and appropriate.

3.8.10 Other national initiatives in Botswana

The GoB is also undertaking various developmental activities in the project area ranging from the efforts of local authorities (land allocation, primary education, primary health care, community development etc.) to the activities of devolved central government institutions such as protected areas’ management, CBNRM, road construction, agricultural development and promotion of small and medium enterprises often through the Citizen Entrepreneurial Development Agency (CEDA). All of these interventions have a bearing on the management of the Okavango Delta and although not directly part of the ODMP project structure must be taken into account as the project undertakes planning and programming activities. In order to facilitate this, the secretariat has contacted all local authorities and institutions in the district as well as central government institutions devolved to district level to highlight the existence of the ODMP and ensure joint working and decision-making wherever possible.

66

Probably the single most important and relevant of these to the ODMP will be the activities and developments outlined in the recently completed NDSS. Unfortunately, this strategy, which goes well beyond just addressing purely settlement related matters, was already almost nearing completion when the ODMP project started its work in the district. The secretariat and some of the project partners have, however, had a chance to provide input to the Report of Survey (July 2003) and the Draft Report (January 2004). This has allowed not only the NDSS to be influenced by the ODMP but also made the ODMP secretariat aware of the recommendations coming out of it and can plan the ODMP with these in mind ensuring effective delivery and reducing the possibility either of duplication of work or leaving of gaps.

3.9 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS – CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES

3.9.1 Training

3.9.1.1 Training needs of project partner staff The following general training needs have been identified for all ODMP CFPs:

Data and database management Participatory Rural Appraisal and other techniques required to improve

stakeholder consultation and participation Statistical analysis of mathematical data EIA techniques Project management techniques Presentation skills Conflict resolution techniques Many institutions also expressed a desire to be trained in the use of geographical

information systems (GIS) systems and associated field techniques such as use of global positioning systems (GPS) machines and data loggers.

The following specific training needs were identified by individual institutions: 3.9.1.1.1 NCSA

Environmental economics, particularly methods in economic valuation of wetlands Policy analysis and review Environmental law Strategic Environmental Assessment

3.9.1.1.2 HOORC All ODMP component institutions will require training in the use of the ODIS to be created and housed at HOORC 3.9.1.1.3 DWA

Hydrological modelling Remote sensing Other techniques used in development of the topographical and hydrological

models

67

3.9.1.1.4 DWNP Training that will allow officers to:

Provide appropriate guidance to other government departments, the district council, NGOs, the private sector etc

Adequately enforce regulations Provide appropriate levels of tourist management Undertake requisite biodiversity inventories Implement required conservation measures

3.9.1.1.5 DoT/NWDC Limits of acceptable change methodology Carrying capacity methodology Tourism strategy development Review and diversification of the Ngamiland CBNRM sector Development and implementation of monitoring programmes, specifically for

tourism activities and associated impacts 3.9.1.1.6 Division of Fisheries

Fish identification Principles of fisheries management The situation is further exacerbated by a lack of fisheries training institutions in the

country, if not the whole of the Southern Africa region. 3.9.1.1.7 ARB, Division of Forestry and Range Ecology

Sampling and inventory techniques Fire suppression techniques

3.9.1.1.8 TLB Multi-zone land use planning Integrated water resources management

3.9.1.1.9 NWDC EHD Waste technology

3.9.1.1.10 DAHP Training on monitoring impacts and data collection to assess impacts of Tsetse

spraying

3.9.1.2 Stakeholder training needs Many of the specific training requirements of stakeholders (communities, private sector partners etc.) will become clearer as activities of the project are implemented. Many of the project partners wish to involve their respective stakeholders in monitoring activities and details of such involvement will need to be worked out and specific training courses designed and delivered. So far the following training needs have been identified:

Accurate recording of useful hydrological, especially climatological, information, e.g. rainfall readings from lodges in the Delta

68

Identification, monitoring and control of aquatic weeds Conflict resolution for community reps (e.g. farmers) Problem animal control techniques Fish farming / production Fisheries management Fish handling and processing Basic book keeping Fishing gear technology, existence and use Data recording

3.9.1.3 Joint training for project partners and stakeholders The main issue here is that many of the individual project partner institutions and the ODMP project overall would like stakeholders to play a more active part in monitoring their own resources. The key issue here is how to ensure that stakeholders collect the right data in the right way and at the right places and times and that data collected by stakeholders is provided to appropriate government department, in an appropriate format and that this data is then utilised by that department.

3.9.2 Capacity

3.9.2.1 Staff resources All of the ODMP partner organisations feel that their capacity to deliver their general mandate is restricted by insufficient staff numbers. Once they also begin to undertake activities to develop the ODMP and perhaps even more so to ensure its implementation in the future, this becomes even truer. Specific examples include:

The NCSA states that its current staffing numbers are not commensurate with the Agency’s mandate, constraining its effectiveness in coordinating environmental activities.

HOORC state that the lengthy, often unsuccessful, administrative procedures to recruit permanent staff, particularly their need for a database manager/technician and librarian which has been highlighted by their involvement in the ODMP project, could jeopardise the sustainability of the ODIS system and library functioning developed by HOORC.

The hydrological monitoring unit established by DWA under the ODMP is short of the originally envisaged appropriate number of staff. DWA also expressed concerns about the difficulty in attracting and retaining qualified staff and cited a lack of suitable promotional positions and unattractive salaries as reasons for this.

In order to deliver its stated activities for the ODMP, DWNP will have to engage the assistance of consultants to carry out baseline inventories of birds and predators as well as conduct the socio-economic analysis of living with wildlife. DWNP also feels that staff shortages, combined with insufficient finance and appropriate expertise results in a reduced ability for the Department to:

• Always provide appropriate guidance to other government departments, the district council, NGOs, the private sector etc

69

• Adequately enforce regulations and provide appropriate levels of tourist management

• Undertake requisite biodiversity inventories

• Implement required conservation measures The DoT feel that with the likelihood that responsibilities for the CBNRM

programme will become its mandate, it will not have sufficient capacity in terms of staffing to deliver. DoT also identify that with the increasing importance of Maun for tourism, more staff will be required for the office there in order for it to be effective. The DoT is faced with manpower and budgetary constraints in the delivery of its mandate. This has resulted in, among other things, the following activities not being adequately undertaken:

• Extensive educational programme

• Licensing and inspection activities

• Law and enforcement The mandate of the Division of Fisheries has gradually expanded over the years to

include both research and aquaculture components, in addition to its extension work. Staffing levels have, however, remained the same leaving the unit overstretched. The fisheries division currently has 3 professional officers, 1 technical officer and 3 artisanal officers all of whom are divided amongst the three main fisheries functions.

For the three institutions involved in the vegetation resources component, they feel that there is insufficient skilled manpower, e.g. rangeland ecologists, botanists, computer modellers and managers.

The TLB is also constrained by a lack of sufficient numbers of professional and technical staff. These capacity constraints result in severe delays in processing of applications, allocation of land and hearings of disputes and appeals. Because of these capacity constraints, the TLB also often has to rely on other government departments for professional and technical advice in relation to coordination of land related issues. Provision of this advice is often delayed and the TLB, therefore, needs additional staff capacity in order to operate effectively and efficiently in discharging its day to day work. Adding the workload created by the ODMP to the existing workload creates an immediate requirement for additional capacity.

DAHP has insufficient personnel to attend livestock clinical cases and educate farmers. Its lack of staff also adversely affects the Department’s ability to operate effectively at veterinary checkpoints which has implications not only on issues of animal health of concern to DAHP but also on issues such as the trade in endangered species or the legality of tour operators as both DWNP and DoT rely on DAHP staff to undertake checks to assist them in regulating such issues.

3.9.2.2 Workload Focal points in all project partner institutions state that the combined workload of their routine work and new duties related to the ODMP project is too great and affects their ability to deliver both efficiently and effectively. The feeling is that ODMP has, in the majority of cases, just come as an added duty which has not been rationalised with existing duties.

70

3.9.2.3 Staff transfers All ODMP project partners stated that their capacity to deliver was very likely to be restricted by the high possibility of transfer of staff away from the district during the life of the project. The primary reason for this is the practice of staff transfers in Botswana are to reduce the likelihood of corruption, to ensure that there are sufficient government officers to work in the more remote areas (which might otherwise not attract people should appointments be left to preference and application) and to make sure that skills are available whenever and wherever they are required. To date, the project has already lost 4 critical staff to transfers.

3.9.2.4 Institutional budgets Nearly all of the ODMP partner organisations feel that their capacity to deliver their general mandate is restricted because they have insufficient funds. There is concern that in the many instances where consultancies are being offered by partner institutions to assist in delivery of their ODMP obligations (an approach often being adopted to address the staffing issue outlined above) that the cost of the proposals made by prospective consultants is higher, often quite considerably so, than the funds available. There is also concern about whether or not the funding that institutions will require to ensure implementation of the ODMP in the future will be forthcoming or not. Specific capacity issues mentioned in relation to this issue were as follows:

NCSA is concerned that the best method of communicating with stakeholders, both in the short and long term, may be both logistically and financially burdensome due to the remoteness and size of the area.

HOORC states that budgetary constraints could jeopardise the sustainability of its ODIS database and library functions in the long-term. Even after a research strategy has been set up for the ODMP, HOORC and other institutions will still have to find funding for each individual research project and there is a risk that funding will not become available.

DWA has insufficient funds to properly overhaul its hydrological monitoring network throughout the Delta leading to constraints on the existing model it has developed to accurately predict actual or theoretical impacts of changes in water quantity etc. This will also hamper future further development of the model.

DWNP feels that an inadequate budget, combined with staff shortages and lack of appropriate expertise in the Department, results in a reduced ability to:

• Always provide appropriate guidance to other government departments, the district council, NGOs, the private sector etc

• Adequately enforce regulations and provide appropriate levels of tourist management

• Undertake requisite biodiversity inventories

• Implement required conservation measures The DoT feels that the combination of budgetary and manpower constraints

adversely impacts on its ability to deliver its mandate. This has resulted in, among other things, the following activities not being adequately undertaken:

• Extensive educational programme

• Licensing and inspection activities

• Law and enforcement

71

NWDC furthermore lacks the resources to effectively administer the District CBNRM Forum, to create and maintain a District Tourism Forum and establish and administer a CBNRM stakeholder newsletter.

Currently there are insufficient funds to deliver all of the activities required under the Physical Planning component. Notwithstanding, a tendering process will be initiated to proceed with the geotechnical survey and the EIA under the belief that additional funding will be secured. Should additional funds not be forthcoming, however, development of the Shakawe development plan cannot be completed under the ODMP.

TLB feels that insufficient finances and budget ceilings also have a bearing on its ability to operate effectively. Procurement of what can be considered as relatively basic equipment, such as GPS devices for surveying, is often not easy due to the expense, circa P300 000 and most of the time the budget does not allow for such purchases. The TLB also, on occasions, needs to acquire people’s properties, e.g. for village expansion, especially in larger settlements. If there aren’t sufficient funds for compensation, such land acquisition becomes difficult, again resulting in delays in land allocation etc.

DAHP currently has no funds to implement its proposed activities.

3.9.2.5 Transport Many, if not all of the ODMP project partner institutions state that their capacity to adequately implement their routine activities is restricted by insufficient numbers and/or types of transport (referred to here as vehicles but meaning any means of transport such as a car, a combi, a 4x4, boat etc.). Specific issues raised included:

The Division of Fisheries states that a severe shortage of transport is one of the major bottlenecks hampering implementation of fisheries projects in the district. The Division has only two vehicles at its disposal and they are expected to cover the whole of both the Northwest and Chobe districts and are further shared by officers based in Maun and Shakawe and with the fisheries research team.

The NWDC’s EHD has insufficient vehicles (both in terms of numbers and types) in its collection fleet to cover the entire Ramsar site and the existing fleet suffers from regular breakdown of both refuse and supervision vehicles.

DAHP lacks the appropriate modes, quantity and availability of transport to access all the areas for which it has responsibilities as and when necessary.

3.9.2.6 Information technology (IT) and other equipment Many, if not all of the ODMP project partner institutions, state that their capacity to adequately implement their routine activities is restricted by inadequate and/or insufficient IT and other equipment required. Both the ODMP project secretariat and HOORC state that, despite funds provided by the ODMP project for IT and other equipment, there is very limited capacity and availability of effective e-mail and internet facilities at the partner institutions. This seriously and adversely affects the ability of the project overall, and the individual partners within it, to communicate efficiently and effectively, as well as their ability to share information and transfer data. Currently only 50% of project partners have their own, dedicated work email address. Another 25% rely on personal email addresses and the other 25% have no email facilities at all. Access to a fast and reliable Internet is also extremely restricted in the district, with less than 25% of project partners having this facility. The Internet is an increasingly important medium for the provision of information and data, e.g. HOORC propose to have an Internet link to their ODIS system and much

72

of the pertinent information produced by the Ramsar Bureau and IUCN on wetland management and project planning is Internet based. Specific issues mentioned here include:

DWNP states that equipment constraints, such as a lack of computers and suitable and appropriate telecommunications equipment prevent implementation of certain of their activities.

The Division of Fisheries states that inadequate facilities e.g. training facilities, lack of GIS equipment, old computers and outdated software restrict its ability to deliver its mandate.

TLB state that procurement of what can be considered as relatively basic equipment, such as GPS devices for surveying, is often not easy due to the expense, circa P300 000 and most of the time the budget does not allow for such purchases. Although TLB is responsible for land allocation, the existing cadastral records of land allocation lack detail spatial information and there is currently no comprehensive database management system. Records of land allocations are mainly done on the basis of sketch plans and only a few records are computerised. The lack of a fully digitised and computer based cadastral record system results in poor service delivery.

DAHP has insufficient equipment required for repair of veterinary fences.

3.9.2.7 Facilities Many ODMP partners feel that their capacity to deliver is restricted by the nature and number of appropriate facilities available to them. Specific issues include:

The village of Maun attracts a lot of tourists and tourism businesses due to its proximity to the Okavango Delta, Tsodilo Hills, Moremi Game Reserve and Chobe National Park. The DoT Regional Tourism Office therefore also needs to be upgraded to accommodate additional offices.

Fisheries staff does not have appropriate accommodation as the offices in Maun as the existing facilities are old and dilapidated. There are no offices at all for field staff that use their two-roomed residences both as offices and homes instead. Although all research work done by the fisheries division is currently carried out in the upper Delta (panhandle) there are no research facilities there with the only existing, but limited facilities, located in Maun. The Research Team has, therefore, to travel every month from Maun as far as Seronga. This not only inconveniences research work but also diminishes the amount that can be done; furthermore, it is not a cost effective ay of working. There is a dire need to establish a modern and well equipped facility elsewhere in the Delta that would provide an appropriate environment for research and researchers.

The PPU at the NWDC has insufficient office space for its requirements. NWDC EHD reports that there is a shortage of refuse storage facilities in the

district. DAHP state that the department suffers from a shortage of suitable housing and

accommodation, especially for officers stationed at fence checkpoints, leading to low morale and ineffective operating.

73

3.9.2.8 Inter and intra – departmental/ministerial relations and collaboration Many project partners state that their own capacity to deliver is restricted by their need to refer to other departments/ministries and their reliance on inputs from them in order to address certain issues. Specific issues raised here included:

The status of the NCSA as a unit within the Ministry puts limitations on its capacity to deliver, especially given its cross-sectoral mandate.

In addition to its own constraints, DWNP also often has to rely on other government departments for assistance, for example in maintaining park facilities, provision of professional and technical information etc. Crucially, the Department also relies on the actions of specific partners, e.g. DAHP in checking vehicles at vet fences, for assistance in implementing and enforcing certain regulations, e.g. hunting of protected species. Any capacity constraints in those departments, therefore, also impacts on the way in which DWNP performs and is perceived.

In carrying out its mandate, DoT also has to engage the services of other institutions. With regards to conducting inspections, for example, authorities such as the TLB and the EHD in the NWDC have to be involved. This increases the time taken to undertake such activities and poses problems of how to implement the most coherent and effective delivery. Furthermore, the Department’s inspection unit is based in Gaborone and not always readily available to service all the district tourism centres.

The vegetation resources component falls under two ministries namely the MEWT and the MoA. The institutions responsible for vegetation management within these are the ARB and Forestry Division under MEWT and Range Ecology under the MoA. Furthermore, there are other institutions which have a stake in vegetation resources management, such as DWNP and certain NGOs. The ARB is responsible for conservation of vegetation resources and veld products, with more emphasis on veld fire management. Forestry is mandated with development and implementation of strategies and programmes aimed at conservation of forestry resources in communal areas and forestry reserves. Range ecology is responsible for developing and implementing strategies aimed at improving range management. Given these mandates, there is a problem of co-ordination and collaboration which leads to overlaps in projects, programmes and use of resources or facilities.

The NWDC’s PPU’s ability to do undertake and implement work is hampered by insufficient coordination between district and national levels.

Land administration procedures are currently constrained by unclear reporting procedures as, like all Land Boards, the TLB falls under both the Ministry of Local Government (for administration) and the Ministry of Lands and Housing (for technical issues). This is further compounded by the fact that the DOLs and district physical planners report to the DC’s office and the CS respectively and are, therefore, sitting in different parts of the local authority. This separation of the technical cadre in the district often results in failure to deliver crucial advice and guidance on time to the TLB, thereby negatively affecting its efficiency.

3.9.2.9 Procedure and protocol All ODMP partners are concerned at the delays incurred by the cumbersome procedures and protocols involved in the purchase of equipment and services for the project, especially central government institutions with departments in the district as authorisation has to come from headquarters in Gaborone. This issue is also true for routine work but especially so for ODMP work due to the short timescales and set

74

deadlines involved. This issue seems to be particularly problematic where institutions have to go to tender for purchase of equipment or services through public procurement and asset disposal board (PPADB).

3.9.2.10 Capacity issues specific to individual project institutions Certain of the issues identified as capacity constraints by project partners were unique to that institution as outlined below: 3.9.2.10.1 NCSA NCSA is not represented at district level and because of this coordination of conservation matters has remained entirely with local government within existing structures such as District Administration, District Council and TLB especially though their technical support structures (DDC, DLUPU, etc.). The proposed draft National Wetlands Policy and Strategy provides for the creation of Wetland Management Committees. There is need for ratification of this policy in order to formally establish such committees (although one has already been established by the ODMP for the Okavango). Even though NCSA has a cross-sectoral mandate, its capacities to develop an effective communication programme covering all actors, both within and outside Botswana, are limited. This is partly due to the relatively recent creation of the Agency but is also related to the enormous amount of work involved in dealing with and communication about environmental issues and their ramifications for all layers of society. 3.9.2.10.2 DWNP A number of stakeholders have existing negative preconceptions about DWNP due to historical issues etc. and this may impact on the Department’s ability to deliver its ODMP mandate in some areas, e.g. “overseas” and sectors, e.g. HEC. 3.9.2.10.3 Vegetation resources component Weakening of local authorities and institutions traditionally used to control the use of vegetation resources is leading to lack of appropriate management 3.9.2.10.4 Fisheries and NWDC EHD The inaccessibility of many areas of the Delta constrains the capacity of EHD to adequately manage waste in the Delta area and for the Division of Fisheries to survey and implement any future fisheries regulations.

3.9.2.11 Capacity issues specific to project stakeholders Much more detailed work is required amongst the project’s stakeholders in the identification of capacity issues. Identification of such should play a major part of the next stage of the planning programme. One broad capacity issue that has been identified so far is that communities’ capacity to successfully implement CBNRM and tourism activities is restricted in many ways.

75

3.10 INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS – PROPOSED OR ACTUAL INTERVENTIONS

3.10.1 Training

3.10.1.1 Training needs of project partner staff One of the consequences of providing a budget for, particularly IT, equipment that the project wants to avoid is that each department will buy its own version of a software package and seek training in its use. This is particularly true for GIS software, such as Arc View which requires not only a good deal of skill to use but also regular use to ensure that the ability to use it is maintained. It was on this basis, and despite requests by many of the project partners to purchase and be trained in the use of such software, that the project recommended a “nodal approach” to provision of such expertise in the district. It has been recommended that staff at the Land Board and in the NWDC PPU purchase and be trained in the use of GIS software and that they then provide GIS services to other project partners in association with the HOORC. The project is in the process of developing and agreeing a training programme for project partners that will be executed over the next year.

3.10.1.2 Stakeholder training needs The project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the issue of stakeholder training needs – a training programme will be developed and implemented as exact needs become clear.

3.10.1.3 Joint training for project partners and stakeholders The project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the issue of joint training for project partners and stakeholders – a training programme will be developed and implemented as exact needs become clear.

3.10.2 Capacity

3.10.2.1 Staff resources The ODMP secretariat has largely been staffed by officers on short-term project contracts with new funds made available specifically for the project. On a more general basis, however, the project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the issue of insufficient staff resources, not least as the issue is linked to, and has potential implications for, central government policy. There are, however, a number of possible solutions to this issue, of which several are outlined below:

Change overall government policy and allow an increase in staff numbers where requested by individual departments and agreed as necessary by the ODMP project secretariat.

Increase staff numbers where recommended (as above) but fund the increase through funds gathered at district level, e.g. through a Okavango Delta Management toll charged to tourists

Undertake an assessment and propose a restructuring of each individual department to ensure existing staff resources are allocated in the right place. Placement of DOL from the Council to the TLB and the confirmation of the ODMP Project Coordinator (PC) on a D2 government scale, rather than as a short-term contract for the duration of the project only, are examples of this kind of approach.

76

TLB believe that the former will go a long way in addressing its current lack of adequate professional and technical capacity.

Recruit staff needed to undertake any additional work required in the formulation of the ODMP as short-term, project staff. This has been the approach taken for most of the staff at the ODMP project office in Maun and for the post of Land Use/Physical Planner at the Land Board. The latter is a desk officer primarily dealing with all ODMP project matters in relation to land use.

Hire consultants on short-term contracts as and when needed The pros and cons of all these approaches will need to be considered and recommendations for addressing the staffing issue will form part of the ODMP.

3.10.2.2 Workload In the first instance, the managers of those involved (focal points) in the ODMP project need to be brought fully on board so that they are aware and supportive of both the long-term usefulness and aims of the project. This needs to be done by the project facilitator (PF) whose role it is to ensure the political and practical support for the project at all levels from district staff (focal points) upwards. The project has yet to make concrete proposals on this issue but there are several possible interventions once support exists for the project at all levels. Some of these are outlined below:

Focal point managers need to sit and agree with their staff what their duties are and to prepare a work plan and schedule that will allow them to fully participate in ODMP and deliver a revised version of their routine work.

Managers need to identify new staff to which they give their departments duties under ODMP as a sole responsibility. This relates to the staffing issues described above.

Managers effectively second staff to the project for its duration.

3.10.2.3 Staff transfers The project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the issue of staff transfers, not least as the issue is linked to, and has potential implications for, central government policy. One way of dealing with the issue would be for the project to request the departments and ministries involved in the project to put a moratorium on staff transfers during the life of the project (management plan development).

3.10.2.4 Institutional budgets In most instances, specific funding has been secured to ensure that the activities required to develop the management plan will be undertaken. On a more general basis, however, the project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the issue of inadequate financial resources, not least as the issue is linked to, and has potential implications for, central government policy. There are, however, a number of possible solutions to this issue, of which several are outlined below:

Change overall government policy and allow an increase in budgets where requested by individual departments and agreed as necessary by the ODMP project secretariat.

Increase budgets where recommended (as above) but fund the increase through funds gathered at district level, e.g. through a Okavango Delta Management toll charged to tourists

77

Undertake an assessment and propose a restructuring of the financial allocation within each individual department to ensure existing financial resources are allocated in the right place.

Fund raise, e.g. from donor organisations and/or the private sector, for specific project activities

Work in association with other ORB projects so as to ensure that financial resources are effectively spread among the different parties and that there is no, or as little as possible, duplication of effort.

The pros and cons of all these general approaches to finance will need to be considered and recommendations for addressing the staffing issue will form part of the ODMP. Regarding the specific issues surrounding the NWDC’s PPU and DAHP, PPU are going to commence on a geotechnical survey with the funds they have and source other funds as they progress and DAHP is submitting a project memo to the MFDP requesting for funds for the component. Any constraints in budgets and finances obviously also relate to other issues of capacity, such as transport, office facilities and equipment. Although these three items are essentially budget related, they are dealt with specifically in the next few sections as they were consistently raised by project partners as constraints to delivery of their routine and ODMP related work.

3.10.2.5 Transport Some partners, such as the DoT and DWA, budgeted for and purchased additional vehicles with ODMP project funds in order to allow them to undertake the additional work required for the project. On a more general basis, however, the project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the issue of insufficient transport resources, not least as the issue is linked to, and has potential implications for, central government policy. There are, however, a number of possible solutions to this issue, of which several are outlined below:

Change overall government policy and allow an increase in the numbers and types of vehicles where requested by individual departments and agreed as necessary by the ODMP project secretariat.

Increase vehicle numbers where recommended (as above) but fund the increase through funds gathered at district level, e.g. through a Okavango Delta Management toll charged to tourists

Undertake an assessment and propose a restructuring of the central transport organisation (CTO) to ensure existing vehicle resources are allocated to the right place, e.g. do away with the current system of pooled vehicles driven by government drivers and replace this with allocation of specific vehicles to specific officers who have to drive themselves and who are responsible for their vehicle.

Purchase vehicles needed to undertake any additional work required in the formulation of the ODMP and sell at the end of the project. This has been the approach taken by DoT, NWDC Tourism office and DWA.

Hire vehicles as and when needed The pros and cons of all these approaches will need to be considered and recommendations for addressing the transport issue will form part of the final ODMP.

78

3.10.2.6 IT and other equipment All project partners were provided with an equipment budget for the purposes of the ODMP which in the majority of cases has been spent on IT and office equipment. TLB will develop an effective and comprehensive land database as part of its component activities and has a budget to do so. On a more general basis, however, the project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the issue of insufficient equipment, not least as the issue is linked to, and has potential implications for, central government policy. There are, however, a number of possible solutions to this issue, of which several are outlined below:

Change overall government policy and allow purchase of new equipment where requested by individual departments and agreed as necessary by the ODMP project secretariat.

Purchase equipment where recommended (as above) but fund the purchase through funds gathered at district level, e.g. through a Okavango Delta Management toll charged to tourists

Undertake an assessment and propose a restructuring of institutional budgets to ensure existing resources are allocated to the right place.

Purchase equipment needed to undertake any additional work required in the formulation of the ODMP and sell it at the end of the project.

Hire equipment as and when needed The pros and cons of all these approaches will need to be considered and recommendations for addressing equipment issues will form part of the final ODMP. IT needs especially should be addressed by the project’s communication strategy.

3.10.2.7 Facilities The project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the issue of insufficient or inadequate facilities, not least as the issue is linked to, and has potential implications for, central government policy. There are, however, a number of possible solutions to this issue, of which several are outlined below:

Change overall government policy and allow development of new facilities where requested by individual departments and agreed as necessary by the ODMP project secretariat.

Develop new facilities where recommended (as above) but fund this through funds gathered at district level, e.g. through a Okavango Delta Management toll charged to tourists

Undertake an assessment and propose a restructuring of institutional budgets to ensure new facilities can be constructed where necessary.

Hire facilities as and when needed. The pros and cons of all these approaches will need to be considered and recommendations for addressing facility issues will form part of the final ODMP.

3.10.2.8 Inter and intra – departmental/ministerial relations and collaboration The project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the issue of inter and intra – departmental/ministerial relations and collaboration, not least as the issue is linked to, and has potential implications for, central government policy. There are, however, a number of possible solutions to this issue, of which several are outlined below:

79

The establishment of the OWMC, as recommended in the draft national wetlands policy and achieved by the ODMP project, should help with coordination between and within departments and ministries. There are, however, already several forums in which staff from the different departments with responsibilities for management of the Delta regularly meets, e.g. DLUPU which does not seem to have solved this capacity constraint.

Regarding delivery of project activities, coordination between and within institutions should also be improved by the establishment of TFs for each component, comprising some or all the CFPs from other components.

Regarding the specific example of the TLB, the ideal situation would be for it to report to just one ministry, both technically and administratively, as well as to have the services of a technical cadre directly under its control, either through recruitment and/or secondment. Just such a proposal is apparently already being considered through the amendment of the Tribal Land Act and with a view to rationalising the situation. Perhaps similar considerations should be given to the difficulties faced by DoT, DWNP and the PPUs.

The pros and cons of all these approaches will need to be considered and recommendations for addressing issues of collaboration and cooperation will form part of the final ODMP.

3.10.2.9 Procedure and protocol The project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the issue of procedure and protocol, not least as the issue is linked to, and has potential implications for, central government policy. There are, however, a number of possible ways of potentially easing delays caused by this issue, of which several are outlined below:

Utilise ministerial tender boards rather than PPADB wherever possible, i.e. for work within set ministry board financial limits.

The PC should be given authority to approve certain project payments for all project partners within set financial limits.

The pros and cons of all these approaches will need to be considered and recommendations for addressing issues of procedure and protocol will form part of the final ODMP.

3.10.2.10 Capacity issues specific to individual project institutions 3.10.2.10.1 NCSA The project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address the specific capacity issues raised by NCSA. There are, however, a number of possible ways of potentially dealing with these issues as outlined below: District representation of the NCSA, at least in the North West District, has been addressed by the permanent appointment and transfer of the ODMP PC as a full-time government officer (as opposed to a short-term project post) to Maun. NCSA is working with MEWT to get the Draft Wetlands Policy ratified as soon as possible and is in the meantime trying to implement A concentrated effort is needed to enhance the capacity of the NCSA to address the issue of communication within the ODMP project. This need and current constraint should be addressed through the Communication Strategy that is currently being developed for the project.

80

3.10.2.10.2 DWNP As DWNP will always be operating under the banner of the ODMP for its project activities it is hoped and envisaged that any negative attitudes toward the department will be tempered by the efforts being made by the project to genuinely involve and respond to stakeholders. 3.10.2.10.3 Vegetation resources component The ODMP project as a whole is designed to make management proposals that have been developed hand-in-hand with stakeholders, such as those traditional authorities and institutions that used to manage resources. This is being done in order to ensure that sustainable management practices are reinitiated and that, wherever it is possible and appropriate, this is achieved by strengthening and supporting the traditional mechanisms and institutions that used to do this. 3.10.2.10.4 Fisheries and NWDC EHD The problem of the inaccessibility of the Delta is, in reality, an issue for all departments. This issue is not easily solved and the project is as yet to develop clear proposals to address this issue. There are, however, a number of possible ways of potentially dealing with this as outlined below: Resolving the capacity issues related to the type and availability of transport should assist with accessibility. Determining a programme of works based on seasonal changes in the Delta, e.g. arrange waste collection visit times and locations around known patterns of flooding and rainfall. Increase collaboration with other institutions, especially in the private sector, e.g. utilise tourist lodge delivery trucks, boats, planes etc to recover waste, conduct surveys etc.

3.10.2.11 Capacity issues specific to project stakeholders Once stakeholder capacity issues have been more clearly identified then concrete proposals can be made as to how to address these. Again, this is an essential part of the next phase of the project. Activities being undertaken under the sustainable tourism and CBNRM component of the project should help to address the issues relating to communities’ capacity to successfully implement CBNRM projects.

3.11 RISKS TO DELIVERY OF THE PROJECT

3.11.1 Loss of staff

In addition to the existing capacity constraint of staff transfers there are additional risks that staff may be lost from to the project for several pertinent reasons. These are:

Leave to undertake further study (already directly impacted on the project) Maternity leave (already directly impacted on the project) Leave to take up new work Death, particularly loss of staff to the HIV/AIDS epidemic

81

3.11.2 Building consensus by taking a participatory approach

The biggest broad risk identified by most project partners pertained to the intricacies, difficulties and time involved in building consensus. It is perceived by many that this will be especially difficult considering the size of the area being planned for, the range and complexity of the issues involved and the diversity of interests concerned in the area’s management. Project partners were concerned about:

The potential for delay in implementing the project resulting from the amount of time required to reach consensus on issues of how to manage resources, especially those resources where their use currently causes conflict

Any lack of buy-in from project institutions or project stakeholders resulting in an inability to reach consensus

The ability of the plan to represent all stakeholders needs at some level The assumption that stakeholders, particularly communities, are homogeneous in

their organisation, ability and desire to speak and act as a unit The difficulty of ensuring that all the pertinent stakeholders are involved in

reaching consensus and/or the possibility that inappropriate or poorly designed or delivered consultative or participatory methods, e.g. women tend not to speak at traditional kgotla meetings, fail to capture a representative response and input from communities. This might, for example, result in a “false consensus” being reached only for this to later become apparent when stakeholders not originally involved, or not initially properly involved, appear later on and disown the project recommendations or findings

3.11.3 Sharing data and information

There is a risk that not all pertinent players in the project will agree to openly share data and information they hold of relevance to the project.

3.11.4 Increase in existing conflicts during planning

Due to the existing volatile situation relating to some resource uses and management practices, it is possible there may be an increase in conflict during the planning phase of the project. This would create further difficulties in bringing parties together to work on such management issues. Examples of this include:

Existing conflict between sports and commercial fishermen may escalate Certain communities who already feel disenfranchised by the private sector

tourism industry start to look for, or implement, alternative methods of economic enhancement that might not be in line with sustainable development and use of the Delta.

Precipitation of “finger pointing” and apportioning of blame between project partner institutions in trying to address certain topics raised by stakeholders e.g. DWNP and DAHP on compensation issues.

82

3.11.5 Ongoing direct financial and political support for the ODMP project

Various positions within the project, such as the PF, the chief technical advisor (CTA) and the PP are not guaranteed beyond July 2006. This is because funding for these posts is due to end then and the current indication is that the donors funding these posts will not provide any further funding; this is definitely the case for the PP. This will have significant impacts on the project, especially as it is currently running a year behind schedule and thus unlikely to be completed by the original deadline of July 2006. Should this be the case, continued provision of technical advice, facilitation of the project and the active involvement of stakeholders may suffer although the GoB has indicated that it will continue to support the project. The PP funded by Deutscher Entwicklungsdienst (DED) is currently also the main contact point for HOORC’s involvement in the project and is heavily involved in coordinating and administering their overall involvement in ODMP. There is a risk, therefore, that HOORC’s input will be less effective once the post of PP has ended. Uncertainty over the long-term funding and departmental support for involvement in specific areas, such as the funds required by DWA to maintain a reliable monitoring programme in order to further improve the hydrological model, upgrade of DWA’s existing database and ongoing support for the hydrological monitoring unit, may also adversely affect the project.

3.11.6 Natural or anthropogenic events

The occurrence of certain new factors during the life of the project may present serious problems to the project, such as:

The introduction of new IAS, e.g. Water Hyacinth (Eichornia crassipes). Rapid changes in water quality due to upstream influences Drought Diamonds are discovered in the Delta or Ngamiland Popa Falls hydropower scheme is commissioned

3.11.7 Other political changes and decisions

It is possible that certain political decisions or possibly changes may affect the project. Examples include:

That the recommendations on how to deal with Botswana’s very large elephant population, outlined in the forthcoming Elephant Management Plan, may not be implemented thereby reducing the effectiveness of mitigation measures developed in the ODMP.

A decision about the alignment of new veterinary fences in Ngamiland is made Regulatory procedures and investment policies, such as those affecting the

tourism industry, are rationalised The Botswana Democratic Party (BDP) was recently re-elected so there is a stable

government for the duration of the project but there remains the possibility of a change in political priorities within the BDP possibly affecting support for the project.

83

3.11.8 Inability to secure appropriate expertise

It is possible that the many activities still scheduled to be undertaken in association with consultants may not occur or will be severely delayed by if suitable consultants cannot be identified through advertising and tendering. Delays to, or failure in, doing so will also impact on project implementation.

3.11.9 The “consultancy approach”

As many of the activities of the project are being implemented by consultants working in association with staff from district institutions and due to the capacity constraints on staff time already outlined in previous sections, there is a risk that, despite the intentions of the project, training of staff will not occur or be very effective.

3.12 DEALING WITH IDENTIFIED RISKS AND CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS

Most, if not all of the identified risks and institutional capacity constraints identified in the sections 3.4 & 3.5 will need the attention of their respective ministries and/or at senior level in government. The PSC should assist the project secretariat by involving itself in determining and agreeing on recommendations to address these issues and by supporting and promoting their implementation.

84

4 PROJECT APPROACH

4.1 INTRODUCTION

There are many different approaches that could be taken in the development of a management planning process and a management plan for an area such as the Okavango Delta Ramsar site. The approach and the thinking, or rationale, behind the approach actually taken in the ODMP project are largely based on the principles of management planning as set out in the Ramsar Bureau’s “New Guidelines for management planning for Ramsar sites and other wetlands” as described and set out at the 8th meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) held in Valencia, Spain, 18-26 November 2002. In addition to the Ramsar bureau guidelines, the ODMP project approach also recognises that the livelihoods of people all over the world depend on goods and services provided by ecosystems that are under increasing pressure from unsustainable use and outright conversion. One of the main ways that has been developed to address this threat is that of the EA, comprising 12 over-arching principles. The EA is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. It was endorsed at the fifth Conference of the Parties (CoP) to the CBD in Nairobi, Kenya in May 2000. It has become the primary framework for action under the Convention. This chapter aims to describe what an ideal management planning approach would be, i.e. one based purely on the Ramsar planning guidelines and/or the EA, and then outlines the approach actually being implemented in the ODMP project; it compares and contrasts the ideal with the actual. The approach proposed and being implemented by the ODMP project is essentially one of addressing issues and areas of conflict that relate to natural resources, their sustainable use and the need to manage them. The Okavango Delta Ramsar site is an extremely large area, the world’s biggest Ramsar site in fact, and to make a comprehensive management plan covering all possible aspects of the Delta’s ecological and socio-economic aspects would be an extremely costly and lengthy process. This is why ODMP has chosen to use areas where management of natural resources is immediately required, indicated by those areas and factors that are now causing conflict among the Delta’s stakeholders, as the driver and determinant for what it does, where and when. It should be noted that the proposed management planning process for development of the ODMP is extremely ambitious, very complex and comprehensive. The way that the ODMP project has been designed, it is as much about process as it is about product, in that it is as much about ensuring integration and coordination of thinking and action by relevant institutions as it is about producing a physical management plan containing guidelines, strategies and rules and regulations. In order for the envisaged process to be successful, it will take a good deal of time, deliberation, hard work and the cooperation, as well as ensuring the “buy-in” of all involved at their many different levels. Lastly, the proposed approach has never been used before and so there are no templates on which to base procedures and processes; this is a learning project. Learning will have to occur as the process goes along, including allowing some degree of learning from making and correcting mistakes.

85

4.2 NEW GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT PLANNING FOR RAMSAR SITES AND OTHER WETLANDS – A COMPARISON WITH THE ODMP PROJECT

The approach prescribed by Ramsar is outlined below in normal text and that being implemented by ODMP follows in italics for each section.

4.2.1 General guidelines

Wetlands are dynamic areas, open to influence from natural and human factors. In order to maintain biological diversity and productivity and to permit wise use of their resources by people, an overall agreement between the various managers, owners, occupiers and other stakeholders living and working in the area is essential. The management planning process should provide the mechanism to achieve such an agreement.

ODMP will seek to implement just such an approach The management plan itself should be a technical document, though it may be appropriate for it to be supported by legislation and, in some circumstances, to be adopted as a legal document.

ODMP will be a technical document. Within it, however, recommendations will also be made to government on how other government policies can or need to be altered in order to best support its implementation. Such recommendations may also suggest what, if any, direct legislation is needed to ensure the plan is implemented and will also consider whether or not the plan should become a legal document.

The management plan is part of a dynamic and continuing management planning process. The plan should be kept under review and adjusted to take into account the monitoring process, changing priorities, and emerging issues.

There is a commitment in government, currently through the NCSA, to regularly update the ODMP in the future, along with the Ramsar site boundary and the Ramsar Information Sheet

An authority should be appointed to implement the management planning process, and this authority should be clearly identified to all stakeholders. This is particularly important on a large site where there is a need to take account of all interests, users, and pressures on the wetland, in a complex ownership and management situation.

Although no such authority exists or has been proposed at present, the PS in the MEWT has already worked to ensure that the post of PC in the ODMP project secretariat has been made permanent. This was done with a view to ensuring that a body exists to oversee implementation of the plan once completed.

Integrating wetland site management within broad-scale environmental management planning, including river basin management It is the permanent presence of water in wetlands, or at least for some significant period of time, that creates the soils, micro-organisms, plant and animal communities that make them distinct from terrestrial habitats and cause them to function in a different manner. Wetland ecosystems are adapted to their hydrological regime and are vulnerable to changes in this. For most wetlands, direct rainfall provides only a small proportion of the water regime, with the primary source being rivers or aquifers.

86

Successful management of wetland sites therefore requires maintenance of these sources of water. The inter-connectedness of the hydrological cycle means that changes some distance from the wetland can have a detrimental impact. Insufficient water reaching wetlands, due to climate change, land use change, abstractions, storage and diversion of water for public supply, agriculture, industry and hydropower, are all major causes of wetland loss and degradation. A key requirement for wetland conservation and wise use is to ensure that adequate water of the right quality is allocated to wetlands at the right time. The fundamental unit for water issues is thus normally the entire river basin (or catchment), as this demarcates a hydrological system in which components and processes are linked by water movement and the term “integrated river basin management” (IRBM) has been developed into a broad concept that seeks to take a holistic approach to management planning.

These last three statements are true of the Okavango Delta which is why the ODMP will seek to operate as much as possible through OKACOM and by including the other basin states in the ODMP planning process. ODMP is, however, a national project of the GoB and although it will seek to link to basin wide activities being conducted by GEF/UNDP (amongst others) through OKACOM it cannot and will not operate as an integrated river basin management (IRBM) planning project.

4.2.2 The functions of wetland management planning

According to the Ramsar Bureau, the most important functions of a wetland management planning process and a management plan are: To identify the objectives of site management - It is essential that management objectives be defined for each important feature of the ecological, socio-economic, cultural and educational characters, functions and values of the site.

The overall objective of the ODMP has been set as have specific objectives and outcomes for each of the individual components and the activities within these. Many of the individual component activities currently relate only to developing a better understanding of important ecological and hydrological characters and functions and socio-economic functions and values. The information gained from these can then be used in setting management objectives. Other activities relate directly to developing management objectives, e.g. developing a district waste management strategy. Currently there is little work on the cultural or educational aspects of the Delta and this will need to be brought in at a later date, perhaps when the management plan is reviewed in the future. The other aspect required in the ODMP development process is to clearly define and agree on the “important features”, whether they are ecological, socio-economic etc. so that specific objectives can be set for them. Although there are already a number of features that are of obvious importance, such as the hydrological functioning of the Delta, its ability to provide goods and services of many kinds to people etc., such things have never been widely and commonly agreed as being of importance by the large and varied group of stakeholders who manage, own, occupy, live and work in, and pay to visit the area. This vital process will form an integral part of the proposed visioning exercise for the ODMP and will be conducted by the NCSA.

87

To identify the factors that affect, or may affect, the agreed important features - the ability to achieve wise and sustainable use of wetlands will always be influenced to some extent by any factor, including trends, constraints and obligations, that has influenced, is influencing, or may in the future influence the important features of the site and for which objectives are set. It is, therefore, essential that all such factors should be identified, and that their impacts, particularly the agreed important ecological features, should be considered. For very significant factors, e.g. Namibia’s proposed hydroelectric dam across the river upstream of the panhandle, it may be necessary to undertake EIA as part of the planning process.

ODMP project has and will continue to undertake and improve detailed and extensive consultation with and the active participation of stakeholders. This is, at least in part, designed to identify factors that stakeholders feel may have in the past, may now or might in the future negatively impact on important features of the Delta. ODMP has and will also continue to rely on scientific research, such as that undertaken by the HOORC for example, to also assist in identification of factors influencing or affecting the Delta. The GoB, through OKACOM, has requested that a full EIA be undertaken for the proposed Namibian hydropower scheme; although this is outside the scope of the ODMP project.

To resolve conflicts - on most sites there will be some conflicts of interest and difficulty in identifying priorities. It is essential that the planning process should be recognised as a forum for resolving conflicts and establishing commitments for the future.

The process of stakeholder consultation and participation described above is also designed to identify causes of existing conflict as well as to provide an initial mechanism to develop resolutions for such. Specific conflict resolutions mechanisms will also be put in place during development of the management plan and it is hoped that by doing this, the ODMP project will become recognised as a forum for conflict resolution; at least during development of the management plan. Once the plan has been developed this duty will then pass to whatever authority or structure is developed to implement the ODMP.

To define the monitoring requirements - A function of monitoring, in the context of management planning, is to measure the effectiveness of any management implemented. It is essential to know, as well as to be able to demonstrate to others, that the objectives of the management are being achieved. Monitoring must thus be recognised as an integral component of management and planning and should be designed to identify change in ecological character of the site and to provide information required to respond to, i.e. assist in managing (for) such change.

The first stages of a detailed monitoring and evaluation (M&E) programme have been established for each project component as well as the project as a whole. Completion and subsequent implementation of this programme will be overseen by the ODMP project secretariat.

To identify and describe the management required to achieve the objectives – in most cases where habitats or species require safeguarding, some action, i.e. management, will be necessary. Having established that a plan identifies the objectives of management, it follows that it must also identify, describe the action required, as well as estimate the cost of this.

As stated above, some of the activities outlined in the ODMP are directly aimed at identifying and describing the management actions required in certain areas, e.g.

88

waste management, fisheries management etc. These activities will also identify the costs, i.e. manpower, salaries, equipment etc. of the people and things needed to implement the required actions. Other activities are aimed at generating more information on certain issues and areas. It will be from this information that the ODMP will identify and describe the management actions required in these areas and the costs involved in implementing such actions.

To maintain continuity of effective management – continuity of effective management and monitoring is essential. Management processes must be adapted to meet a wide range of varying factors. Although management will change as circumstances change, the purpose of management should remain more or less constant. This is why it is important that continuity of effective management and monitoring must be maintained, and not simply the continuity of any specified process.

Although the purpose of ODMP is to develop a management plan for the Okavango Delta Ramsar site, once this has been achieved this management plan will need to be implemented and the actions identified as necessary to achieve the management objectives will need to be monitored. Although the ODMP project, with its present remit and life span, cannot itself achieve this, it should and will include recommendations on how to maintain continuity of effective management and monitoring once the plan is being and has been implemented.

To obtain resources – management planning must identify and quantify the resources required to manage a site, and this should include the preparation of a detailed budget. This information can then be used to support and justify bids for resources. It is essential that the management plan identify mechanisms for financing management, which may include generating income through, for example a tourism levy, harvesting and sale of natural resources and/or the establishment of a trust fund for the site or other long-term funding mechanism. In many cases it may also be necessary to assess the capacity of the organisation responsible for implementing the management plan at an early stage in the plan’s preparation.

Capacity building is one of the ODMP’s 13 project principles (see section 4.3). Identifying, developing, describing and proposing mechanisms to ensure that there is the financial capacity to implement the management plan once developed will be an essential part of the planning process and of the management plan itself. The project’s capacity needs assessment process will also look at the capacity of the NCSA, the institution charged with ensuring implementation of the plan, in terms of its structure, manpower etc., as well as other government departments, to assess what structures and mechanisms may be needed to ensure plan implementation, e.g. development of a new district institution or sub-office or the NCSA or maintenance of the ODMP project secretariat.

To enable communication within and between sites, organisations and stakeholders – communication is essential within organisations, and also between organisations and individuals. Management plans and the management planning process are a means of presenting information in a structured and accessible format that will inform others about the site, the aims of management, and the management processes. Planning and management for the maintenance of ecological character are largely dependent on the availability of information. It is also important that those responsible for developing the plan should be aware of management techniques and procedures developed or improved elsewhere. The communications, education and public awareness (CEPA) components of the plan from its inception to full implementation should be clearly defined.

89

HOORC’s main role in the ODMP is the creation of a database and improvement of their library, both of which are designed to hold, as well as provide a mechanism to present, all relevant information on the Okavango Delta thereby contributing to communication. The main communication component of the project is, however, funded by the SIDA who have provided $720K for the development of a communication strategy and appointment of a communication staff for the project. It is this component that will concentrate on ensuring communication between sites, organisations and stakeholders on the Delta as well as the ODMP’s aims and processes. As regards identifying and securing details of management techniques and procedures used in other wetlands, as well as incorporation of such information into the ODMP, this is essentially the role of the CTA and IUCN and its global network or partners, such as the Ramsar Bureau. Unfortunately, the communication component is still under development and is therefore coming rather late in the plan’s development. Details of the ODMP’s CEPA components have yet to be defined.

To demonstrate that management is effective and efficient – those responsible for developing the plan must always be in a position to demonstrate that they are making the best use of resources and that management will be effective. In other words, the plan should provide the basis for any cost benefit analysis. It is also important that the need for accountability is recognised.

The coordination of financial resources and other project resources is administered through the project secretariat. Financial requests are channelled through the normal government protocols and disbursements based on agreed project component budgets are made at the beginning of each financial year. CFPs are encouraged to use ODMP resources for project activities and, where possible, to pool their resources. Both the GoB and its technical partner IUCN will implement reviews during the project to monitor progress, assess performance and make recommendations on any required adjustments.

To ensure compliance with local, national, and international policies – it is essential that the management plan recognises and is compliant with a wide range of policies, strategies, and legislation. Occasionally policies may be contradictory, and consequently one of the functions of a plan must be to integrate the various policies. A National Wetland Policy and related national biodiversity plans and policies provide the context and framework for the development of a site management plan. In particular the plan should contribute to the implementation of the National Wetland Policy and/or national biodiversity strategy and other related plans and policies.

The policy, planning and strategy component, headed by NCSA, has an activity to look at all other relevant national, regional and international policies to ensure that not only does the ODMP recognise and is compliant with these but also to make recommendations to government on where existing policy that is contradictory, especially in the context of the ODMP, can best be modified. Botswana’s National Wetland Policy is yet to come before the government for ratification but the ODMP project was largely designed around the draft wetlands policy and incorporates many of its proposed structures and mechanisms. In doing so, development of the ODMP should contribute towards adoption and implementation of the policy.

90

4.2.3 Stakeholders, particularly local communities and indigenous people

Wetland management, and particularly the planning process, should be as inclusive as possible. Legitimate stakeholders, particularly local communities and indigenous people, should be strongly encouraged to take not only an active role in planning but also in monitoring and joint management of sites. It is highly desirable that positive steps be taken to ensure that gender issues, including women and their interests, are fully taken into account at all stages in the process. If necessary, appropriate incentives to ensure full stakeholder participation should be identified and applied.

Detailed consultation with, and the participation of, stakeholders, especially local communities, is one of the 13 principles of the ODMP project (see section 4.3). Details on the consultative process undertaken so far are given in Chapter 3.

4.2.4 The precautionary approach as applied to environmental management

When considering the carrying capacity of a site for any human use, activity or exploitation (i.e., its sustainability), the best available evidence should indicate that the activity will not be a threat to the features of the ecological character of the site. Contracting Parties are, when implementing their wetland management planning process, invited to take into consideration the precautionary approach, as established in Principle 15 of the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development adopted by the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), which affirms that: "In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

The precautionary approach is one of the ODMP project principles.

4.2.5 Management planning is a process

Management planning must be regarded as a continuous, long-term process. It is important to recognise that a management plan will grow as more and new information becomes available. Planning should begin by producing a minimal plan that meets, as far as resources allow, the requirements of the site and of the organisation responsible for managing the site, and no more.

The ODMP project will not be developing a management plan that necessarily addresses all important features of the Delta nor one that deals with all existing or potential future problems at the first attempt. The ODMP will rather follow its 6th project principle and, in the first instance at least, be “action orientated and address areas of conflict”. Consultation has allowed the project to identify the areas that stakeholders feel are of the most critical importance for management planning and this is where the ODMP will concentrate its efforts.

All available information should be collated and assessed. Any shortfall of relevant information must be recorded, and projects should be planned to correct this deficiency. In time, as further information is collected and resources become available, the plan can grow, and may eventually meet all site management requirements.

91

HOORC’s role in the project is collect and collate all available relevant information and to design a research strategy that will plan to fill important deficiencies in the information required for management planning so that the plan can be modified and improved in the future.

4.2.6 Adaptable management

The planning process should be adaptable and dynamic. It is essential that the plan change, or evolve, in order to safeguard sites and their features. Managers must adopt a flexible approach that will allow them to respond to the legitimate interests of others, adapt to the ever-changing political climate, accommodate uncertain and variable resources and survive the vagaries of the natural world.

The ODMP project itself will not be using the principle of adaptable management; rather it will develop a management plan that is designed to be further developed in response to the adaptable management process.

The adaptable management process as is as follows: A decision is made about what should be achieved. Appropriate management, to achieve the objectives and based on the best

available information, is recommended and forms the management plan. These first two steps are the main aim of the ODMP project.

Appropriate management is initiated, i.e. the management plan is implemented. In the ODMP project, initiation of appropriate management will be done in two main ways. The first will be via the implementation of pilot projects, which are essentially designed to be field tests of recommended management interventions or practices thereby allowing a process of “learning by doing”. The second will be through the development and subsequent testing of the FRAMP; due by the end of 2005.

Features are monitored in order to determine the extent to which implementation of appropriate management is assisting, or otherwise, in meeting the set objectives. The majority of monitoring implemented in the ODMP will be done to ensure that project objectives are being met. The project itself will not be undertaking monitoring to determine whether or not the long-term management objectives are being met. ODMP will, however, implement and monitor certain pilot management activities in order to inform whether or not proposed interventions and practices are practical, feasible and actually have the desired effect. The ODMP project will also establish feature specific monitoring programmes, such as hydrological and tourism monitoring programmes, as well as an overall M&E system that should allow long-term assessment of the effectiveness of the ODMP to be done in the future.

If objectives are not being met, management is modified. Monitoring is continued to determine if the modified management is meeting the

objectives, and step iv) is repeated for any further adjustments, as necessary. In exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to modify the objectives.

92

These last three steps propose long-term activities that do not form part of the ODMP project, although the management plan produced by the project should make recommendations on how such activities will be initiated and undertaken.

The adaptable management cycle is usually repeated at predetermined intervals, e.g. every five years. The interval should be established to take into account the nature and in particular the fragility and rate of change of the site features, however, many countries and organisations will impose a mandatory cycle. In all cases, the cycle should be repeated at any time when emergencies or unforeseen threats become apparent.

The period at which the management cycle should be repeated will be proposed in the management plan produced by ODMP.

Adoption of the adaptable approach enables wetland managers to: Learn through experience Take account of and respond to changing factors that affect the features Continually develop or refine management processes Demonstrate that management is appropriate and effective

It is for these reasons that pilot projects, i.e. test management activities, are to be undertaken as an essential part of the plan development process. In the long run, however, use of the adaptable approach will be dependent on the will and capacity of the authority or institution charged with implementation of the ODMP, i.e. currently the NCSA.

4.2.7 Use of management units, zonation and buffer zones

In general, the management planning process and management plan should cover the entire site. Where a wetland site is composed of more than one discrete sub-site separated by areas of other land use, however, separate management plans for each sub-site may be appropriate.

ODMP is still considering the need to divide the Okavango Delta Ramsar site, what is after all currently the world’s largest Ramsar site, up into smaller and more manageable units or zones. An example of one such possible zoning approach would be to divide the Delta into areas based on the frequency of flooding each experiences, e.g. zones of areas with permanent water, zones of areas that flood annually, areas that flood only under certain rainfall/flooding conditions and areas of dry land etc.

4.2.8 Actual format of the management plan

The format of the management plan, as recommended in the Ramsar guidelines, is that it should comprise five main sections, reflecting the main steps in the management planning process:

Preamble Description Evaluation Objectives

93

Action Plan The steps of this process should be repeated several times through the plan, i.e. they should be applied to ecological features, socio-economic features, features of cultural value and any other features of interest. In general, it is good practice to begin with ecological character, but there is no set hierarchy.

It is the intention of the project to follow this format in the development of the framework, draft and final ODMP.

4.2.8.1 Preamble The preamble is a concise policy statement that should reflect, in broad terms, the policies and/or practices of international, regional, national and local authorities and other organisations and traditional management systems, including, for example, non-governmental bodies, local communities or private owners' resource management arrangements that are concerned with the production and implementation of the management plan. The preamble should also recall the broad Ramsar Convention requirements; namely the maintenance of the ecological character of Ramsar sites, the wise use of wetlands, the establishment of nature reserves at wetlands (whether or not they are included in the Ramsar List) and international cooperation in managing the site, particularly in the case of shared wetlands and water systems.

Such a preamble will be included in the ODMP FRAMP, DMP and FIMP. The provision of such a preamble will be greatly assisted by the work of the NCSA under the policy, planning and strategy component in its stipulated activity of “policy review”.

4.2.8.2 Site description Site description is fundamentally a collation and synthesis of existing data and information. The identification of any shortfall of relevant data and information is also a key function of this part of the process. In many cases, not all information needed for the basis of management planning will be available. Collection of more detailed data on these features and/or the factors influencing them, in order to fill any identified essential gaps, may be necessary, but care should be taken to ensure that only additional information essential for the establishment of management objectives for the site is the subject of further data collection.

This collation and synthesis of existing data will take place during the development of the FRAMP in 2005. This has already been initiated through HOORC’s activity of developing a comprehensive database for the Okavango Delta and will be further assisted by the activity of developing a research strategy for the development of the management plan. The later will focus on identifying those areas for which more information is required in order to develop or, in the longer term, improve the management plan as well as propose how such gaps can be filled. As stated in the Ramsar guidelines above, “only additional information essential for the establishment of management objectives for the site” should be the focus of further data collection. Stakeholders raised a number of areas that they felt were of importance in developing the management plan, e.g. hippos, micro-organisms etc. This project will, however, concentrate its attention on the issues of existing conflict raised by stakeholders during consultation, as the areas that require

94

“establishment of management objectives”, at least in the first instance. This can and will be reviewed in the future as the plan is.

The description should be regularly reviewed and updated, so as to incorporate new sources of data and information, including updates from time-series monitoring.

This duty will fall to the authority charged with long term implementation of the plan.

4.2.8.3 Evaluation Evaluation is the process of identifying or confirming the important features for management planning. A process of evaluation should be undertaken for each of four major areas of interest, namely ecological, socio-economic, cultural and other features; the evaluation process must be applied to each in turn. Evaluation should focus on the values and functions and goods and services usually provided by the ecological features of the wetland and that support human well-being. It should also concentrate on the presence of cultural features, both cultural artefacts and structures and their religious and faith significance, especially for local communities and indigenous peoples. Hydrological, geological, geomorphological and landscape significance should also be evaluated in the plan. In order for the process of evaluation to be undertaken, evaluation criteria must be developed for each of these four main features. A list of recommended criteria for evaluating ecological character features, complete with examples, is provided by the Ramsar planning guidelines as are indicative lists for socio-economic and cultural criteria although these need to be further developed.

The process of evaluation will take place during the development of the FRAMP in 2005. Evaluation criteria will be developed by the project by combining the suggestions made in the Ramsar guidelines and through consultation with the project’s partners and stakeholders.

4.2.8.4 Objectives By undertaking the evaluation process and through consultation with stakeholders, a list of the important site features will have been identified. The next step is to prepare management objectives for each of these features. An objective is an expression of something that should be achieved through management of the site and must have the following three characteristics: i) It must be measurable. Objectives must be quantified and measurable. If they are

not measurable, it will be impossible to assess through monitoring whether they are being achieved.

ii) It should be achievable, at least in the long term. This is a very obvious, but often forgotten, characteristic - there can be little purpose in pursuing unattainable objectives.

iii) It must not be prescriptive: they define the condition required of a feature and not the actions or processes necessary to obtain or maintain that condition. Objectives are an expression of purpose.

4.2.8.4.1 Preparing measurable objectives There are three key steps in the process of preparing measurable objectives:

95

i) Describe the condition that is required for a feature. ii) Identify the factors that influence a feature and consider how it may change as a

consequence. iii) Identify and quantify a number of performance indicators for monitoring progress in

achieving the objectives for that feature. The process of objective setting will take place during the development of the FRAMP in 2005. Objectives will be developed by the project through consultation with the project’s partners and stakeholders.

4.2.8.5 Action plan 4.2.8.5.1 Management actions There is a need to identify and describe, at least in outline, the specific management actions or projects considered necessary to maintain, restore or (re)create site features in the agreed condition. Decisions in this section are based on a second assessment of the factors that influence the features but concentrating on seeking management solutions to bring the factors under control. Control can mean removal, maintenance or (re)application of factors. For example, grazing is an obvious factor that affects wet grassland habitats. Options to be considered here could include removing, reducing, maintaining current levels, increasing, or (re)introducing grazing. For each management action identified, it is important that the following issues should be addressed for each:

When - when the work will be carried out and for how long. Where - where on the site activities will take place. Who - who will do the work and how much time will be required for it. Priority - what priority is given to this work in relation to others? Expenditure - how much the work will cost.

The process of identifying and describing specific management actions for features will take place during the development of the FRAMP in 2005. Objectives will be developed by the project through consultation with the project’s partners and stakeholders.

4.2.8.5.2 Compliance with existing legal and other obligations It is necessary to define and prepare operational objectives so that existing legal and other, e.g. social, obligations in the site are met during management planning and implementation. It may, however, also be necessary to ensure that such obligations are not also factors cause harm to features.

This will be done in the ODMP and assisted by NCSA’s policy review activity. 4.2.8.5.3 Management of site infrastructure and major operational and logistical

support services It is necessary to determine what infrastructure, e.g. access routes such as roads, waterways etc. and operational and logistical support services, e.g. adequate numbers of trained staff and an appropriate type and number of vehicles, will be required to operationalise the plan.

96

This is probably the single biggest threat to the effective implementation and operation of any plan that is developed by this project, especially the logistical aspects. The ODMP will seek to determine and stipulate exactly what it feels will be needed in terms of people and equipment to implement the plan, it will then be up to government and the authority charged with implementation to ensure that these stipulations are met.

4.2.8.5.4 Reviews and audits In order to ensure that the developed management plan is being implemented and having the desired effect, it is necessary to review and audit the process on a regular basis. In the short-term, i.e. perhaps a year or so after the plan has been developed, a review should be made to confirm that the site is being managed in accordance with the requirements of the plan. Subsequent to this, major reviews or audits should be considered as an essential component; the functions of which are to: i) Assess whether or not a site is being managed at least to the required standard; ii) Confirm, as far as possible, that management is effective and efficient; and iii) Ensure that the status of the site features is being accurately assessed. This review/audit process is best, though not always necessarily, carried out by external auditors. It should be a constructive process which seeks to identify any problems or concerns and to provide recommendations for resolving any issues. Reviews and audit should be carried out in accordance with a predetermined timetable and the interval between reviews should a reflection of the confidence that managers have in their ability to protect site features, e.g. for sites with robust features which are easily managed, the interval may be five years or more but for fragile sites, where threats are not readily controlled, the interval should be much shorter. Reviews should also be undertaken at any time if new or unforeseen threats become apparent. It is essential that the timing of the planning process be adjusted to meet the requirements of the site.

The authority charged with implementing the plan will also be responsible for ensuring that reviews and audits are undertaken. The ODMP project will ensure that recommendations on reviews and audits, e.g. their frequency and who should implement them, will be included as part of the management plan structure.

4.3 THE ECOSYSTEM APPROACH – A COMPARISON WITH ODMP

The EA to management has 12 main sub-principles all of which the ODMP has attempted to address in one form or another. The following section outlines the principles and then states how ODMP has and will continue to seek to internalise these. i) Reflecting societal choice.

This is being achieved by the project as a whole. The ODMP Project Proposal was heavily based upon and shaped by society through extensive consultation (see Chapter 2). During the current development stage, the project has also already undertaken significant consultation with many

97

sections of society and will continue to do so. The final ODMP should, therefore, reflect societal choice.

ii) Decentralising to the lowest appropriate level. This is being achieved by the project as a whole. Although all of the institutions directly involved in the management planning process are central government departments, the ODMP secretariat operates primarily in the Ngamiland District with the district offices of these institutions. ODMP also seeks to actively involve as many other district based institutions as possible as it is aware and supportive of the fact that the FIMP must and can only be implemented in the district by the district.

iii) Considering the effects (actual or potential) on adjacent and other ecosystems. This is being done by the project as a whole. As well as the effects on adjacent and other ecosystems, in the case of the Okavango there is also a pressing need to consider the effects of adjacent and other ecosystems. Although the ORB upstream of the Delta is in fact part of the same ecosystem ODMP has recognised that whatever happens there can and will affect what happens in the Delta. Similarly, management decisions taken and implemented in the Delta could also have impacts on the Makgadikgadi Pans and the Kwando-Linyanti-Chobe river system. It is for these reasons that the ODMP is seeking to nationalise and regionalise its dialogue, communication and networking strategy so as to involve other ecosystems and their stakeholders and thereby take account of and for them in its own planning.

iv) Seeking to manage in an economic context by: a) Reducing those market distortions that adversely affect biological diversity. b) Aligning incentives to promote biodiversity conservation and sustainable use. c) Internalising costs and benefits to the maximum extent feasible. This is being addressed directly by components 1, 6, 7 & 8. ODMP is incorporating economic issues through several component activities. These include conducting an overall economic evaluation of the Delta, assessing the viability and possible expansion of commercial activities (such as commercial fishing, veld product harvesting and tourism activities) and aiming to propose mechanisms not only by which more local people can benefit from these but also to ensure that they are conducted in a manner conducive to their sustainability.

v) Seeking to conserve ecosystem structure and functioning in order to maintain systems, good and services. This is being addressed by the project as a whole. ODMP recognises, and seeks to promote understanding, that it is the ecological structure and functioning of the Delta that provides the goods and services from which so many benefits. ODMP will, therefore, seek to ensure that any form of management proposed by, and ultimately implemented under, the management plan promotes or enhances the continuation or restoration of the Delta’s fundamental ecological and hydrological processes.

vi) Operating within the limits of ecosystem functioning. This is being addressed by the project as a whole.

98

Any management practices developed or proposed by the ODMP will be ones commensurate with the ecological limits of the Delta’s functioning. An example is that setting of catch quotas for fisheries management would have to be based on the amount of fish that the Delta can naturally produce under the still relatively pristine conditions. It may be possible to increase fish production artificially by, for example, addition of nutrients, but this would entail operating beyond the limits of the Delta ecosystem’s existing functioning.

vii) Undertaking work at appropriate spatial and temporal scales. This is being addressed by the project as a whole. ODMP’s spatial scale for management is pretty much determined by the size of the Ramsar site although in discussions already held about the rationalisation of this boundary the need to have a manageable area for management planning was re-iterated. Large extensions to the area were thus avoided. The need to set a realistic temporal scale for management planning has also been highlighted by the ODMP project to date – this issue is further explored in Chapter 9.

viii) Recognising varying temporal scales and lag-effects and manage for the long term. This is being addressed by the project as a whole. ODMP will seek to ensure that any management practices developed or proposed by the project will ensure the Delta’s ecosystem long-term wellbeing is protected and not just that management will benefit the short term. An example might be that the settlement development plan for Shakawe and elsewhere should recognise the high water mark from floods that haven’t occurred for many years and not assume that these areas are now safe for development.

ix) Recognising that change is inevitable. This is being addressed by the project as a whole and it is for this reason that the ODMP is due to be reviewed on a regular basis in the future.

x) Seeking an appropriate balance between, and integration of, conservation and use of biological diversity. This is being addressed by the project as a whole and is the driving force behind the whole management plan. The ODMP is designed to ensure that the area is managed in such a way that it, and its goods and services, are used and that people benefit from that use but only in a way that doesn’t threaten the continuance of such use, i.e. sustainability.

xi) Consider all forms of relevant information, including scientific and indigenous and local knowledge, innovations and practices.

xii) Involve all relevant sectors of society and scientific disciplines. The last two principles are being addressed by the project as a whole, especially through component 1. The role of HOORC’s PP, in conjunction with the project’s Information and Public Education (IPE) Officer and, yet to be appointed Rural Sociologist, is to ensure not only that all relevant sectors of society are involved but also that the information they have to offer, of whatever nature, is incorporated and utilised by the project wherever possible.

99

4.4 ODMP PROJECT PRINCIPLES

In addition to, and in part drawn from, the Ramsar planning guidelines, ODMP has developed its own set of project principles. Each and every part of the ODMP project, e.g. proposed component activities, project and component consultation processes, overall plan development etc. seeks to adhere to or address at least one of these principles in its delivery. Some of them, such as being gender aware and addressing HIV/AIDS are cross cutting for all components and although the details of how these principles will be incorporated are yet to be determined, the fact that they are stated as project principles should ensure that this will be done. Creation and strengthening of ownership is the overall principle of the project. It seeks to create and strengthen ownership at all levels and among all stakeholders, whether they be communities, existing institutions with responsibilities for managing the Delta and its resources, NGOs, regional and international governments or private individuals who come to the area as tourists. Central among the stakeholders are those who benefit, either directly or indirectly, from the Delta and are thus directly impacted by its management. It is vitally important that any such institution, individual or group mandated to be, or inextricably involved in, any form of management and especially in any part of implementing the ODMP are fundamentally linked to and associated with the planning process. This will ensure that the final product is “their” plan and thus that they will either implement it or ensure its implementation. In addition to this main project principle, there are 13 other supporting principles that the project will also adhere to, these are as follows:

4.4.1 Vision based

The most fundamental and important activity identified for NCSA in the project, is the development of a “shared and common vision for the Okavango Delta”. This activity will start soon after the inception phase and, once in place, the created vision will be the fundamental base from which the management plan will be developed.

4.4.2 Responsibility and accountability

The project will seek to create responsibility and accountability among all existing institutions with responsibilities for managing the Delta and its resources and among all stakeholders who benefit, either directly or indirectly, from these. The project will assist institutions and stakeholders to participate in the planning process, to consolidate their existing responsibilities and interests and implement the new plan by making provisions for capacity building.

4.4.3 Active stakeholder participation

All activities will involve active stakeholder participation including, but not limited to, the following:

Identification and use of traditional knowledge Recognition and respect of traditional resource user rights

100

Ensuring that stakeholders responsible for managing the resources benefit directly or indirectly from them

Ensuring stakeholder association to the decision making process Demonstrating transparency in the planning process Guarantying and facilitating stakeholder access to information

4.4.4 Association of international stakeholders

Promoting association of international stakeholders to the planning process will be a key principle of the project and achieved by:

Integration of international environmental obligations, e.g. CBD, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES), Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD) etc.

Working with and through OKACOM

4.4.5 Partnership building

ODMP as a whole will seek to build effective partnerships that will help to ensure implementation of the management plan in the future. Such partnerships might be between or amongst substantive project partners, the secretariat or different stakeholder groups, e.g. private sector tourism lodges in partnership with DWA to enhance hydrological (rainfall etc.) monitoring or communities and DWNP in assessing and monitoring HEC or livestock predation by wildlife.

4.4.6 An integrated planning process

Components and stakeholders have been identified and will be involved in such a way as to ensure horizontal (inter-department and inter district) integration in planning at the district level (e.g. through establishment of component TFs, a “stakeholder forum” and the OWMC). Vertical (intra-department) cohesion within the different line departments and institutions where the components are housed has also been established but a similar method still needs to be established for national stakeholders – this will come through the dialogue, communication and networking component (see Volume 2, Chapter 2).

4.4.7 A dynamic and phased approach

A first version of the management plan, the FRAMP, shall be produced six months after the IR has been approved. This will be based on existing knowledge and take cognisance of existing land use and sector management plans. The FRAMP will be subjected to an evaluation and review with participation of stakeholders, assisted by national and international expertise. Identified shortcomings in the FRAMP will be addressed during the following year, so that at the end of that year a DMP will be produced. This will then go through a similar review process and the FRAMP should be

101

available by August 2007. It must be realised that this plan will then still require implementing and periodic review and updating after that.

4.4.8 An action orientated plan that primarily addresses areas of conflict

Project activities will be action orientated and aimed at addressing areas of conflict, where possible, early in the process. Prioritising the issues to be dealt with in the planning process will enhance ownership and acceptance of the plan. In each key area of management, one or two conflict issues (a “hotspot” approach) will be selected at a very early stage and in consultation with the stakeholders, for immediate attention and solution during the planning process itself. Integration and cooperation will be pursued amongst stakeholders in solving these issues and the solutions will form an integral part of the final ODMP.

4.4.9 Undertaking training

Training and learning will be enhanced in the participating institutions through hands-on working during the plan development process and specialised technical training as identified during the Inception Phase. In addition to the recurrent training funds in the institutions, there are special training funds allocated to individual components and a lump sum is set aside for training in the policy, planning and strategy component. Allocation of these funds will follow a training needs assessment during the Inception Phase.

4.4.10 Building capacity

In the previous chapter, the perceived capacity constraints of the project partner institutions were identified and discussed. A similar exercise will also be conducted for the project’s stakeholder groups. Once the capacity constraints have been identified, the project will seek to either address them directly wherever possible or at least to make recommendations to government and other bodies, e.g. NGOs or donor agencies, as to hoe to address these issues.

4.4.11 Gender aware

The project will incorporate gender specific activities, such as reporting and monitoring where feasible and appropriate. Consultation, participation, training and capacity building efforts will be designed to benefit men and women equitably and natural resource management interventions will be designed in such a way as to empower women and men to participate and benefit equitably from the sustainable utilisation of the Okavango Delta resources.

4.4.12 Addressing HIV/AIDS

The project will seek to address HIV/AIDS by incorporating behavioural change, ethical issues and the effects of the pandemic in project interventions, community outreach, staff management and training and capacity building efforts.

102

4.4.13 Use of the precautionary approach

When considering the carrying capacity of a site for any human use, activity or exploitation (i.e., its sustainability), the best available evidence should indicate that the activity will not be a threat to the features of the ecological character of the site. In assessing this, the precautionary approach will be used, i.e. "Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."

103

5 PROJECT MANAGEMENT & GOVERNANCE STRUCTURES

5.1 INTRODUCTION

ODMP has a number of project management and governance structures, such as a PSC, the PMG, a project secretariat, the district OWMC and individual component TFs or technical committees. All of these structures are designed to provide guidance in management, integration, coordination and technical input in the development and implementation of the management plan. They all also allow some degree of input from stakeholders, as all of these groups, except the PMG, includes representatives from non-partner institutions and organisations, such as NGOs and CBOs. Once the project’s communication strategy is in place it is also the project’s intention to establish either a single Stakeholder Forum or a series of stakeholder forums or committees around the Delta to aid community consultation and participation and further assist in development of the management plan.

5.2 THE PROJECT STEERING COMMITTEE (PSC)

The PSC is the ultimate governance structure in the project and thus has the final say in how the project is implemented and the management plan development. The terms of reference (ToR) for the PSC were agreed at its first meeting in Maun in October 2003.

5.2.1 Terms of reference for the PSC

The PSC will be comprised of the following representatives: DPS, MEWT – Chairperson Representative from the MFDP – Deputy Chair Director, DWNP Director, DWA Director, DoT Director, DCP Director, DAHP Director, DTRP Director, HOORC CEO, ARB CEO, HATAB CEO, KCS HoD, Division of Fisheries in DWNP HoD, Division of Forestry in DWNP Principal Natural Resources Officer 1, NCSA

104

DC, Ngamiland CS, NWDC Secretary, TLB Representative, Ngamiland Tribal Administration Country Programme Coordinator (CPC) –IUCN Botswana office Programme Officer (PO), DANIDA PO, SIDA Botswana coordinator, DED

5.2.2 Objective of the PSC

To monitor the implementation of the project as set out in the formal project proposal document and in accordance with the project implementation plan.

5.2.3 Responsibilities of the PSC

The PSC’s role is to provide guidance to the project, mostly through the operations of the project secretariat, thereby ensuring that the operations of the secretariat and the direction of the project fall within Government policy and priority programmes. Members of the PSC represent their respective institutions and their endorsement of actions and plans signifies endorsement by these agencies. The PSC’s specific responsibilities are to: i) Monitor implementation of the project and ensure that project objectives are met on

time and within budget. ii) Provide guidance to the implementing agencies and the PMG. iii) Approve, on behalf of the GoB and the donor agencies, any changes in project

activities that do not cause major changes to the project output. iv) Approve minor changes to the project output. v) Consider and forward major changes in project activities outputs and budgets to the

MFDP and the other project donors for approval. vi) Approve the draft IR, FRAMP, DMP and the FIMP. The PSC reports to the GoB and all other donors involved and meets quarterly. The contact details for the PSC are shown in Table 5.

105

Table 5 PSC contact details

Surname Forename Position Institution Postal address Telephone Fax E-mail address

Chephethe Ralph Director DTRP P/Bag 0042, Gaborone 3658400 3956015 rchephethe@gov.bwde Wolf Cornelis Coordinator DED PO Box 707, Gaborone 3970424 3953370 cor@ded.org.bw Diederiks Jonathan PO DANIDA PO Box 11439, Hatfield, RSA +27124309350 +27123427620 jondie@um.dk Katai Othusitse Director DWA P/Bag 0029, Gaborone 3959743 3903508 okatai@gov.bwGaetsewe Neo Chf. Economist MFDP P/Bag 008, Gaborone 3950286 ngaetsewe@gov.bwHubona Badumetse DC DA PO Box 4, Maun 6860431 6860038 Kwerepe Raymond SFREO MoA P/Bag 003, Gaborone 3950511 3905077 rkwerepe@gov.bwMadzwamuse Masego CPC IUCN P/Bag 00300, Gaborone 3901584 3971584 masego.madzwamuse@iucn.orgMatlhare Joseph Director DWNP PO Box 131, Gaborone 3971405 jmatlhare@gov.bwMerafhe Odirile CEO HATAB P/Bag 0043, Gaborone 397144 3903201 omerafhe@hata.bwMmono Eunice PRO DTRP P/Bag 0042, Gaborone 3658593 3656012 emmono@gov.bwMmopelwa Trevor HoD Fisheries PO Box 131, Gaborone 3971405 tmmopelwa@gov.bwMonggae Felix CEO KCS PO Box 859, Gaborone 3974557 3914259 felix@kcs.org.bwMurenga Kumbulani PO SIDA PO Box 4710, Harare +2634790051 +2634754851 kumbulani.murenga@sida.seNkoni Paulos CS NWDC P/Bag 001, Maun 6860471 Pitse Andrew Secretary TLB PO Box 134, Maun 6860292 6860603 Ramberg Lars Director HOORC P/Bag 285, Maun 6861833 6861835 hbendsen@orc.ub.bwSeopane Seole HoD Forestry P/Bag 199, Gaborone 3910955 Tema Wazha Deputy Director DoT P/Bag 0047, Gaborone 3953024 wtema@gov.bw Tsiang Tutu DPS MEWT P/Bag BO 199, Gaborone 3914955 ttsiang@gov.bw

106

5.3 THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP (PMG)

The PMG is comprised of the following representatives: PM, Executive Secretary, NCSA PF PC CTA

The PMG has no ToR as such but its role is to ensure the smooth running of the project through the project secretariat and to resolve the project’s administrative and middle level management related issues on a regular basis. The PMG makes recommendations and decisions based on consensus among the parties. It reports and makes recommendations to the PSC through the NCSA Executive Secretary; the latter taking overall responsibility for the management of the project. The specific roles of the members of the PMG are described in the following sections.

5.3.1 Project Manager

The PM takes overall responsibility for the project but is not involved in its day-to-day management, coordination or provision of technical support. The role of the PM is to provide advice to the secretariat on challenges facing the project and where the secretariat cannot, for whatever reason, progress the matter. The PM provides assistance when a recommendation or decision relating to the project is required at director level in government and keeps MEWT informed of project progress and any challenges.

5.3.2 Project Facilitator

The PF is employed by IUCN and seconded to government. The PF reports to the PM. His role is to assist the PM with the overall and especially day-to-day management and monitoring of the project as well as its integration in the Government system at the national (Government organisations, policies, legislation and regulation, etc.) and international level (Southern African Development Commission (SADC), OKACOM). The PF is also responsible for international relations with donors and partners, such as the IUCN’s water and nature initiative (WANI) programme, DANIDA, SIDA and DED etc. Specific tasks of the PF include providing assistance to the PC and the CTA in ensuring that conditions at the national and international level are such that the implementation of the project in the district and field levels are supported and accelerated by decisions from above, thereby ensuring the project progresses as planned. At the indication of the PC and CTA, the PF will make project results available at the appropriate national and international levels for discussion, evaluation and decision-making so that the project may proceed towards the next step in its cycle. If and when necessary, the PF can make an appeal on the project’s CoS, as yet to be appointed, with whom they will have to cooperate closely. The PF also assists Government in the integration of the project at the international level, i.e. with donors that finance the ODMP and other national and international projects of relevance to it, with international organisations and convention bureaus (e.g. Ramsar, CBD, UNFCCC), with multilateral organisations from the region (e.g. SADC,

107

OKACOM), and internationally, (e.g. the UN, the World Bank, UNDP, the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) etc.) and others (e.g. the EU) where appropriate.

5.3.3 Project Coordinator

The PC is a fulltime GoB employee, employed by the NCSA and transferred to the district to oversee development and implementation of the ODMP. The PC reports to the PM and essentially, therefore, acts as the PM’s and NCSA’s representative in Maun. The PC works closely with the CTA but leads on coordination and integration aspects rather than technical ones. The PC is the day-to-day district manager of the ODMP. The PC coordinates activities geared to the preparation of the ODMP in the district by being responsible for the operational phase of the project through the implementation of strategic guidelines from the NCSA. Specific duties of the PC are: i) Provide overall professional guidance in collaboration with the CTA to partner

institutions within the project area to implement the project. ii) Oversee planning and coordination of project components at the district level

(project area). iii) Coordinate the submission of quarterly progress reports from project components

and prepare single project progress report for the PM through the DDC. iv) Advise on the national policies, legislation and international obligations affecting

the ability to plan for sustainable use and development in the Okavango Delta Ramsar site and recommend review or other action where possible.

v) Advise on a proposed legal framework for the ODMP implementation and make recommendations to achieve this.

vi) Advise the PM on the institutional development and capacity building plans that will enable development and implementation of the ODMP.

vii) Manage and guide the IPE officer whose role is to promote public education and awareness on the conservation, protection and utilisation of Okavango Delta’s natural resources. Oversee development of educational and information strategies, programmes etc.

viii) Ensure and maintain linkages between the district authorities and partner institutions responsible for the preparation of the ODMP through regular OWMC and other district meetings.

ix) Assist CTA in the production and revision of IR, FRAMP and DMP and FIMP. x) Oversee the training and capacity needs assessments for the project in

collaboration with individual project components. xi) Manage the ODMP office in Maun by:

a) Allocating duties and responsibilities to all project staff and ensure effective regular supervision and execution of these duties and responsibilities.

b) Ensure coordination of activities within the project office. c) Initiate and supervise staff assignments with the project secretariat. d) Determine lines of supervision, communication and reporting within the project

secretariat.

108

e) Counsel and exercise disciplinary control over the project staff. xii) Undertake any other duties as assigned by the PM.

5.3.4 Chief Technical Advisor

The CTA is employed by IUCN and seconded to government. The CTA reports to the PC. The CTA is responsible for the provision of technical advice and assistance to all project components, either directly himself or by identifying and securing appropriate advice elsewhere. The CTA has the role to draw together the main outputs of the plan, i.e. the IR, FRAMP, DMP and the FIMP. The CTA works closely with the PC but leads on technical issues although providing advice on integration and coordination aspects. Specific tasks of the CTA include: i) Integrate component activities into one coherent programme commensurate with

the development of a management plan. ii) Provide technical assistance, advice and facilitation in the design and

implementation of project components and securing of consultancy services for each component.

iii) Provide technical assistance, advice and facilitation in the design and implementation of project training needs assessment and in the development and implementation of a training programme/s designed to address identified training needs.

iv) Provide technical assistance, advice and facilitation in the design and implementation of a project capacity needs assessment and make recommendations on, or provide actual capacity building programmes designed to address identified capacity needs.

v) Provide technical advice to project partners in the preparation of tender documents for the provision of services to the project.

vi) Provide technical advice on the selection and appointment of consultants and sub-consultants.

vii) Secure provision of guidance to the project’s M&E procedure and making recommendations known to relevant national authorities and donors.

viii) Submit periodic progress reports according to GoB and relevant donor guidelines throughout the project implementation period.

ix) Prepare a project completion report for submission to GoB and donors at the end of the project.

109

Figure 3 Project management group

PROJECT MANAGER

PROJECT FACILITATOR

CHIEF TECHNICAL ADVISOR

PROJECT COORDINATOR

IUCN funded

GoB funded

National and international coordination

Day-to-day district management & coordination

5.4 THE ODMP PROJECT SECRETARIAT

The PMG is supported by the project secretariat, which is comprised of the following officers:

An IPE An administrator A secretary A driver 2 cleaners

The contact details for the secretariat and the PMG are shown in Table 6. Table 6 Project secretariat and PMG contact details

Surname Forename Position Postal Address Telephone Fax E-mail address

Nchunga Mushanana PM P/Bag 0068, Gaborone 3902050 3902051 mnchunga@gov.bw Molosiwa Comfort PF P/Bag 0068, Gaborone 3190117 3190117 cmolosiwa@gov.bw Segomelo Portia PC PO Box 35, Maun 6801237 6802503 psegomelo@gov.bw Taylor Eliot CTA PO Box 35, Maun 6801237 6802503 eliot.taylor@iucn.org Motsumi Sekgowa IPE PO Box 35, Maun 6801237 6802503 Mmereki David Administrator PO Box 35, Maun 6801237 6802503 Toise Reebone Secretary PO Box 35, Maun 6801237 6802503 Kandu Steven Driver PO Box 35, Maun 6801237 6802503

5.5 THE OWMC

The OWMC is the district equivalent of the PSC and advises and steers the project in the district on issues that are pertinent to project development at the local level. The OWMC is also a discussion and information forum for project partners and certain stakeholder representatives.

110

5.5.1 Terms of Reference for the OWMC

The OWMC is comprised of the following representatives: Secretary, TLB (Chairperson) DOL (Deputy Chairperson) CFP, Division of Forestry CFP, Division of Fisheries CFP, DWNP CFP, DWA CFP, HOORC CFP, EHD, NWDC CFP, Tourism Office, NWDC CFP, DoT CFP, TLB CFP, PPU CFP, DAHP CFP, NCSA Station Commander, DWA, Maun Representative, PAN Trust Representative, Birdlife Botswana Representative, HATAB Representative, CI Representative, KCS Representative, Tribal Administration Representative, District Administration Representative, ERP’s Basin Wide Forum (BWF) Representative, BWMA Representative, Jakotsha Community Trust Representative, Kuru Development Trust Representative, Mababe Zokotsama Community Trust

5.5.2 Objective of the OWMC

The OWMC is to co-ordinate planning and development of the ODMP at District Level and then to ensure its subsequent implementation.

111

5.5.3 Responsibilities of the OWMC

The OWMC also acts as an information dissemination structure for the project but its main responsibilities are to: i) Ensure project objectives are met on time and within budget. ii) Provide guidance to the implementing agencies at district level. iii) Consider and recommend changes in the project activities, outputs and budgets for

consideration and approval by the PSC through the PMG. iv) Disseminate information on the project at district level during the development

phase. v) Coordinate and monitor the future implementation of the management plan and

provide advice on its periodic review. vi) Liaise with the DDC on project matters relating to the district developments. vii) Consider and give comments on the draft IR, FRAMP, DMP & FIMP The contact details for the OWMC are given in Table 7

112

Table 7 OWMC contact details

Surname Forename Position ORGANISATION BOX TEL. FAX E-MAIL

Badirwang Theo Station Commander DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452 6860372 gmpateng@gov.bw Bendsen Hannelore Research Fellow HOORC P/Bag 285, Maun 6861833 6861835 hbendsen@orc.ub.bw Chilume Patricia Regional Tourism Officer DoT Box 439, Maun 6860492 6861676 pchilume@gov.bw Gaebope Onkeme Senior Veterinary Officer Veterinary Division Box 6 Maun 6860236 6860315 ogaebope@gov.bw Habarard Jonathan Director People & Nature Trust P/Bag 357 Maun 6865129 6865126/29 Pantrust @dynabyte.bw Hancock Pete Director Birdlife Botswana Box 20463 Maun 6865618 cranegroup@dynabyte.bw Kalaote Kalaote Principal Water Resources Engineer DWA P/Bag 0029 Gabs 3607100 3903508 kkalaote@gov.bw Kelebemang Ramsden Lands Officer District Administration Box 4 Maun 6860431 6860038 Kemoreile Kealeboga Regional Forestry Officer Forestry Division P/Bag 111 Maun 6800060 686070 kskemoreile@yahoo.com Kennetseng Diye Jakotsha – CBO Representative Box 200 Etsha 6 6874929 Kgori Patrick Tsetse Control Officer Tsetse Control Unit P/Bag 364 Maun 6860208 6860315 tsetse@info.bw Kibakaya Fanuel Principal Physical Planner NWDC P/Bag 01 Maun 6863908 kibakaya@hotmail.com Koosimile Retty Acting Senior Environmental Health Officer EHD P/Bag 01 Maun 6860241 Kruger Chris Director District Representative, HATAB P/Bag 14 Maun 6860086 6860632 chrisk@ows.bw Kurugundla Naidu Senior Botanist DWA P/Bag 02 Maun 6860452 6860372 nkurugundla@gov.bw Magole Lapo Research Fellow HOORC P/Bag 285, Maun 6861833 6861835 lmagole@orc.ub.bw Malesu Mafila Tourism Officer NWDC P/Bag 01 Maun 6861423 6861423 mmalesu@yahoo.com Maswabi Boikago Conservation Officer Agricultural Resource Board P/Bag 111 Maun 6861133 6860670 Mmapatsi Thatavaone KCS P/Bag BO 050 Maun 6862351 6862110 outreach@kcs.org.bw Mokgethe Margaret Development Officer District Administration Box 4 Maun 6860431 6860038 Mongati Shimane Senior Physical Planner TLB Box 134 Maun 6860292 6860603 mongati@yahoo.co.uk Monna Stevie Principal Natural Resources Officer 1 NCSA P/Bag 0068 Gabs. 3902050 3902051 smonna@gov.bw Mosweu Kabo Kuru Development Trust/Tocadi Box 472 Shakawe 6875084 6875084 tocadi@botnet.bw Msinga Geoffrey Mababe Zukutsham Community

Trust Box 21637 Maun 6861255

Nengu Shaft Senior Scientific Officer Fisheries Division Box 70 Maun 6863935 6860053 Peake Debbie BWMA P/Bag 98, Maun 6864882 6862671 trophy@info.bw Phutego Kerileng Kgosi Basin Wide Forum P/Bag 0240 Maun 6867001 Pitlagano Mompoloki Head of research Department of Wildlife Box 11, Maun 6860275 6860053 lettie@hotmail.com Pitse Andrew Board Secretary and Chairperson TLB Box 134 Maun 6860292 6860603 Rabolo Felicity Assistant Tourism Officer DoT Box 439, Maun 6860492 6861676 frabolo@botmail.com Ramotsweta N.B. Secretary Tribal Administration Box 25 Maun 6862238 Regonamanye Letty Principal Technical Officer NWDC P/Bag 01 Maun 6860241 Sola Lovemore Biodiversity Corridor Manager CI P/Bag 132 Maun 6860017 6861798 lsola@conservation.org Vanderpost Cornelis Senior Research Fellow HOORC P/Bag 285 Maun 6861833 6861835

113

5.6 COMPONENT TASK FORCES AND TECHNICAL COMMITTEES

These groups are comprised of the CFP from a specific component, the CFPs from all other components and the CTA (and often the PC and/or IPE). The TFs are supplemented, whenever and wherever possible, by specifically co-opted members that have specialist technical knowledge to offer relating to that components work, e.g. HOORC has provided a named researcher for each ODMP project component. The responsibility of these groups is to provide technical assistance and guidance in the development of ToR and evaluation of tenders as well as in the appraisal of component outputs, such as inception, draft final and final reports. TFs also deal with any other technical matters that might arise during the implementation of project activities, e.g. methodology used, and any other technical issues for which they are deemed useful.

5.7 CORE PROJECT PARTNERS

The project is composed of a number of mainly sectoral components and the main responsibility for implementation of each within the framework of the ODMP lies with these agencies and their staff. The following twelve (12) components and lead agencies have been identified: 13) Policy, planning and strategy – including project management, co-ordination,

integration and technical assistance: NCSA and IUCN. 14) Dialogue, communication and networking: NCSA and IUCN. 15) Research, data management and participatory planning: HOORC. 16) Hydrology and water resources: DWA. 17) Wildlife management: DWNP. 18) Sustainable tourism and CBNRM: DoT and NWDC. 19) Fisheries management: DWNP, Division of Fisheries. 20) Vegetation resources management: DCP, Division of Forestry and ARB. 21) Physical planning: DTRP through NWDC’s PPU. 22) Land use planning and land management: TLB in association with DLUPU. 23) Waste management: NWDC’s EHD. 24) Sustainable livestock management: DAHP.

114

Figure 4 Outline of project organisational structure

IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITY COORDINATION

NATIONAL CONSERVATION

STRATEGY AGENCY (National &

international level project management)

Project manager Project facilitator (Communication specialist)

National project management, Implementation support, Project monitoring, PSC (chair and secretariat), Donors relations, International relations, e.g. Ramsar, WANI, OKACOM etc.

OKACOM

PROJECT MANAGEMENT GROUP

Project manager Project facilitator Project coordinator Chief technical advisor (Communication specialist)

Coordination between district & national issues, progress & financial reporting, coordination of components, reviews

Project Steering

Committee

ODMP PROJECT SECRETARIAT

(District level project management)

Project coordinator, Chief technical advisor, Information and public education officer, (Communication specialist), Participatory planner, Rural sociologist, Other support staff.

IMPLEMENTING INSTITUTIONS

NCSA, HOORC, DWA, DWNP (incl. Fisheries & Forestry), ARB, NWDC (incl. tourism, EHD & PPU), DoT, TLB, DAHP and their consultants appointed to assist.

Day-to-day project management, Coordination between components, Training and capacity needs assessment and support, Technical assistance and advice on consultancies, M&E, Integration with district structures, projects & programmes, Information and communication.

Implementation of agreed component activities as outlined in the Inception Report

Okavango Wetland Management Committee

Various stakeholder consultative and

participatory structures and mechanisms

Component Task

Forces and Technical

Committees

115

6 INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION ASPECTS

6.1 INTEGRATING THINKING

The project’s management and governance structures promote integrated thinking about the project within the project partners (and beyond). This is especially true of the OWMC and the component TFs and Technical Committees (see Chapter 6 – Project management and governance structures) as both structures “force” all project partners to consider all aspects of the project and not just their own activities. This is achieved either by getting them involved in project wide meetings and discussions through the OWMC or by requesting them to provide technical input and advice, or at least listen to discussions, on specific aspects of other components work (ToRs, technical proposals etc.). Integration within the ODMP and beyond is as much about engendering a way of thinking that promotes the fact that all aspects of the Delta’s ecology, hydrology, socio-economic issues, as well as the management of such, are inextricably linked and thus that managers and stakeholders need to consider issues and areas that they might traditionally have neglected as not being part of their remit or area of interest.

6.2 INTEGRATING AND COORDINATING PROJECT ACTIVITIES

The project secretariat has already begun planning on how best to deliver project activities in an integrated manner and this process needs to continue and accelerate over the next year. Exact details on how physical integration will actually be delivered have as yet to be determined but suffice to say the secretariat is fully aware of its importance. To this end, the secretariat is working to ensure that all the different components (and their consultants) of the project:

Avoid duplicating effort, e.g. mapping the same areas more than once Avoid wasting resources, e.g. by purchasing the same satellite or aerial photography

imagery Share existing resources, such as vehicles and equipment when conducting fieldwork “Piggyback” stakeholder consultation and participatory events wherever possible so

as to avoid stakeholder fatigue These are just some current examples of how the project will seek to integrate activities. In addition to integration, however, activities also need to be carefully coordinated, e.g. certain aspects of proposed work need to be done before others; this is true both within and between components. Examples include:

Between components – the vegetation resources component needs to assess current veld product use before the sustainable tourism and CBNRM component can make recommendations on diversifying the CBNRM sector.

Within a component – An estimate of the carrying capacity and limits of acceptable

116

change for the tourism sector need to be made before a district tourism strategy is developed.

To assist with this process of integrating and coordinating, project activity workplans (Gantt charts) have been produced for each component and for the project as a whole (see Volume 2). These Gantt charts allow the secretariat and project partners to visualise what is planned, by whom, when and where and thus how different activities etc. can best be combined and aligned.

6.3 INTEGRATING OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES

Chapter 5 of the IR outlines the way in which the ODMP project will be rolled out and the outputs, and perhaps more importantly the outcomes, of the project activities brought together to form a cohesive and coherent management plan. Chapter 5 also provides a structure for the plan within which this will be contained, i.e.:

Preamble Description Evaluation Objectives Action Plan

Many of the activities proposed by the different project components are designed to address different aspects of the management planning process and structure. For example, some activities address description aspects by determining species, numbers, behaviours etc., some address evaluation aspects by assessing issues and factors and some address objectives and action planning by developing strategies and plans. The different types of activity in the different components may at first appear to be unconnected and lacking in integration. It isn’t, however, necessary for each and every activity being conducted by ODMP and its project partners to be dependent on, or to feed into, every, or any, other. All proposed activities are, however, necessary to the development of a management plan. Ultimately, it is the compilation of the project’s outputs and outcomes into a single management plan that provides one of the main sources integration mechanisms required for the successful implementation of the plan.

6.4 INTEGRATING AND COORDINATING WIDER DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

ODMP project partners already have existing duties and responsibilities in the district that can only be delivered with the assistance of others, thereby requiring them to both integrate and coordinate the way in which they think and act. Good examples of this include the need of the TLB for input from the DLUPU before it can make certain land allocation decisions and for TLB and the DoT to collaborate in checking the leases of tour operators in the Delta. The modus operandi of the ODMP project is to use and build upon this existing need and existence of integration and coordination between district institutions, many now also ODMP project partners, to deliver the ODMP.

117

6.5 SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF PROJECT INTEGRATION AND COORDINATION

6.5.1 Policy, planning and strategy and dialogue, communication and networking

The role of the NCSA will be pivotal for the success of the project. In the first place, it is charged with the creation of a long-term shared vision of the Okavango Delta. Such an undertaking can only be done through deliberative and inclusionary consultation with all project partners and stakeholders, so that all involved both share and adhere to the vision and management plan, and through careful integration and coordination of all the views submitted, in order to develop a vision based on all inputs. Crucial to the visioning exercise specifically and the management planning exercise in general, is that the NCSA does not only coordinate and give guidance at the horizontal level, i.e. within the Ngamiland district, but that it will also integrate the ODMP planning exercise and implementation of the plan in the vertical sense, i.e. from the field level, through the district and the national levels and towards the international community (OKACOM and others). NCSA are also responsible for the whole ODMP management planning exercise and as such will have to coordinate and integrate the outputs from all its partners into a single management plan. NCSA also has the remit of providing and ensuring dialogue, communication and networking both within and for the project. This transcends all components of the project and requires the integration and coordination of stakeholders from all different sectors, levels and organisations. A rural sociologist is to be appointed under the communication component. They will work in close collaboration with the existing PP, funded by DED. The need for dialogue, communication and networking with stakeholders among the many different communities in the Delta and beyond, each often with its own cultural background, justifies explicit attention at the field level. Rural sociologist, as part of the communication unit, will ensure integration of community interests in the planning process.

6.5.2 Research, data management and participatory planning

HOORC is set up to be the centre of research, documentation and dissemination of information and knowledge on the Okavango Delta in order to be able to provide rapid response to environmental issues as they arise. HOORC in this role will integrate and coordinate all relevant information and data into their ODIS and will assume the status of a data and information service institution to all ODMP partners, and others. There are some complementary activities between some of the project components, e.g. the hydrology and water resources and the land use planning components both require aerial photographs of the Delta. The ODMP project secretariat, though HOORC, will integrate and coordinate these needs and ensure that mapping, purchase of satellite images, production of topographic data, purchase of remote sensing materials etc. will be

118

carefully coordinated.

6.5.3 Hydrology and water resources

Once developed, outputs from the hydrological model of the Delta are expected to be made available for utilisation by many other ODMP and other institutions in assessing actual or potential management interventions or strategies relating primarily to water resources (quantity) and possibly to water quality. The hydrological modelling unit in DWA will, therefore, become intimately involved in working with the other ODMP partner institutions and assist in providing relevant feedback and information. One proposed activity is to do a water balance for the Okavango Delta. This will be based on the estimated water requirements from each ODMP partner institution, thereby covering most relevant sectors in the Delta, and using this in conjunction with the hydrological model to assess actual or possible impacts of such water demand and use on the Delta as well as how things might change under different scenarios in the future. DWA’s control of invasive aquatic weeds programme will also need to be integrated with, and develop the active collaboration of, many other project institutions in order for it to be effective, e.g. the Division of Fisheries and DoT, in helping to prevent the spread of invasive species.

6.5.4 Wildlife management

Integration and coordination with key partners will be fundamental to the delivery of the activities outlined by DWNP under the ODMP and indeed for sustainable management of the Delta in the long run. The specific aspects of this integration and coordination are as follows: DWNP and DAHP will have to closely coordinate their work on all issues related to alignment, realignment, maintenance and management of veterinary fences. The results of the work undertaken by the Division of Forestry and ARB on utilisation of natural resources, especially grazing resources, by livestock and wildlife will have to be integrated into the wider DWNP in order to improve the department’s understanding of interactions between these groups and in making recommendations on their management.

6.5.5 Sustainable tourism and CBNRM

DoT/NWDC will have to coordinate with the DWNP and integrate their ODMP findings on carrying capacities etc. in assisting DWNP and TLB in management of Moremi Game Reserve and wider conservation areas in the Delta. DoT/NWDC will also specifically need to coordinate with DWNP to obtain and monitor certain statistics, e.g. numbers of different types of tourists entering through park gates etc. As NWDC has been mandated with implementation of the district CBNRM programme, it will also have to coordinate closely with the DWNP and DoT who also have responsibilities in this area and with the vegetation resources component on their activities related to veld products.

119

6.5.6 Sustainable fisheries utilisation and management

This component deals with management aspects which touch closely on the sustainable livelihoods of many Delta communities and issues relating to the tourism industry. It is thus vital for the Division of Fisheries to coordinate with communities and the tourism industry and to integrate the division’s ODMP findings into management planning. Fisheries will especially need to ensure coordination and integration with the DoT/NWDC component for links to the sport fishing industry

6.5.7 Vegetation resources management

Vegetation resources management cuts across the mandate and responsibilities of many different ODMP project partner and other institutions, including NGOs that promote CBNRM activities etc. Successful and effective delivery of the vegetation resources component will, therefore, hinge on coordination and integration not only of the component institutions, i.e. DCP, the Division of Forestry and ARB but also of the other ODMP project partners. Coordination and subsequent integration of information exchanges and information with other researchers in the Delta and further away, as well as international bodies such as the FAO and the UNEP, on specialised studies will lead to synergy, added value and complementary effort. This will reinforce timely data or information delivery on issues such as veld fire occurrence, its spread, frequency and possible damage to the environment and biodiversity. It will support the policy makers with appropriate information to use during their day-to-day activities.

6.5.8 Physical planning

Due to the fundamental and well known links between planning, environmental and socio economics factors, DTRP, NCSA, NWDC and TLB as the key institutions in this sector will have closely coordinate and integrate data, resources etc in order to produce a comprehensive settlement development plan for Shakawe. The input of ODMP partners and other relevant agencies will also need to be coordinated and integrated through their involvement in the component’s TF.

6.5.9 Land use and land management

The TLB is one of the most crucial institutions in the whole ODMP Project. TLB deals with land use planning and land management issues which are obviously integrally linked with the work of all other components. It is, therefore, imperative that very close coordination and integration is maintained amongst all components and TLB in order to make the ODMP project a success. TLB must also closely coordinate its work of allocating land and making management recommendations through leases with the DLUPU of which many of the other ODMP project partners are members. The existence and operation of DLUPU

120

should thus also contribute to coordination and integration of the ODMP project planning stage and in implementation of the plan. In order to promote such close involvement between district institutions, the chairmanship of the OWMC has been made the responsibility of the TLB Secretary. It is also likely that the TLB, through the OWMC, will either be charged, or at least heavily involved with, the responsibility for supervising implementation of the plan once developed, as well as general wetlands management activities in the district. In order to carry out this mandate, TLB must secure the support and full cooperation of other institutions and all stakeholders (including communities).

6.5.10 Waste management

NWDC will have to closely coordinate with all ODMP partner institutions and other key departments, such as Sanitation and Waste Management, as well as with communities and the private sector in order to effectively develop and implement its District Waste Management Strategy.

6.5.11 Sustainable livestock management

The DAHP will need to closely coordinate with other key departments involved with land and water use, such as the DWNP on the location, design and monitoring of fences and livestock – wildlife conflicts issues, with DCP, Division of Forestry and ARB on range management and the risk of overgrazing, with DWA on monitoring of aquatic invertebrates to develop a baseline from which any future impacts of Tsetse spraying can be assessed. DAHP staff will ensure that its component TF is formed and properly manned, under its chairmanship in order to guide coordination and integration of its component activities with the wider project.

121

7 PROJECT BUDGET

7.1 INTRODUCTION

In the following tables, some of the component’s budgets incorporate both government and donor contributions. These are:

Policy, Planning and Strategy – IUCN Communication – SIDA Research, Data Management and Participatory Planning – DANIDA and DED Hydrology and Water Resources - DANIDA

Budgets were drawn up using the original exchange rate for when project funding was agreed (United States Dollar USD – Botswana Pula BWP of 1 – 6) for all components except that of Communication which was calculated at 1 – 4.6 since the component has only recently been endorsed (May 2004). The sustainable livestock management and physical planning components were not part of the original budget and require additional funds from government or donors. In-kind contributions from the GoB are not included in these budgets.

7.2 POLICY, PLANNING AND STRATEGY COMPONENT

Table 8 NCSA budget for the policy, planning and strategy component

Activity Input Cost (BWP)

Preparation of the overall Management Plan NCSA/IUCN 5 355 000

Policy Review NCSA/IUCN 276 000 Economic valuation NCSA/IUCN 462 000 Review of Ramsar Site boundary NCSA 12 000 Development of the Delta Vision NCSA/IUCN 48 000 Office running costs 510 000 Transport 750 000 Office Equipment 588 000 Training 687 000 Pilot Projects 600 000 Travel and daily service allowance (DSA) 432 000

TOTAL 9 720 000

122

7.3 DIALOGUE, COMMUNICATION & NETWORKING COMPONENT

Table 9 NCSA budget for the communication component

Category Cost/Unit (USD) Duration/quantity Total Cost (BWP)

Develop communication strategy 20 days 70 941

CoS 32 200 per man month (MM)

30 MM 966 000

Rural sociologist 13 800 per MM 30 MM 414 000 International travel and DSA 27 600 per year 3 years 82 800 Local travel (rent of boats, aircraft, vehicles, per diem)

18 400 per year

3 years

55 200

Communications public relations (incl. subcontracting to specialised agencies)

368 000

Vehicle 4x4 184 000 1 184 000 Vehicle running costs 23 000 per year 3 69 000 Training, workshops, seminars, conferences 207 000 per year 3 621 000 Translation of documents (lump sum) 48 300 1 48 300 Engagement & communication with basin stakeholders

46 000 per year

3

138 000

Administrative Overheads (10%) 294 630

Sub total 3 240 930

GRAND TOTAL (Inception stage and main component)

3 311 871

7.4 RESEARCH, DATA MANAGEMENT AND PARTICIPATORY PLANNING COMPONENT

Table 10 HOORC budget for the research, data management and participatory planning component

Activity Input Unit Cost (BWP)

Database development Danida consultants 1 806 000 Library HOORC 412 000 Research strategy Danida consultants 1 176 000 Participatory planning DED 1 080 000 Training and capacity building 0 Office costs 156 000 Transport and DSA 80 000

TOTAL 4 710 000

123

7.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

Table 11 DWA budget for the hydrology and water resources component

Activity Input Unit Cost (BWP)

Hydrological modelling DWA/Consultant Lump sum 5 604 000 Monitoring programmes DWA/ Consultant Lump sum 840 000 Office costs Rent and utilities Lump sum 204 000 Transport Vehicles, boat and helicopter hire Lump sum 498 000 Office equipment Computers, books, photo copier Lump sum 204 000 Travel and DSA Lump sum 1 128 000 Training and capacity building Lump sum 330 000

TOTAL 8 808 000

7.6 WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT COMPONENT

Table 12 DWNP budget for the wildlife management component

Activity Input Unit Costs (BWP)

Buffalo Survey DWNP Lump sum 270 000 Slaty Egret Survey Consultants Lump sum 150 000 Predators Survey Consultants Lump sum 190 000 HEC Consultants Lump sum 300 000 Rare species surveys DWNP and Consultants Lump sum 350 000 Transport and DSA DWNP Lump sum 240 000 Office Equipment Lump sum 240 000 Training and capacity building Lump sum 180 000

TOTAL 192 0000

7.7 SUSTAINABLE TOURISM AND CBNRM COMPONENT

Table 13 DoT / NWDC budget for the sustainable tourism and CBNRM component

Activity Input Unit Cost (BWP)

Carrying Capacity and Limits of Acceptable Change Consultant 12 months 696 000 Tourism monitoring and Information System and Database Consultant 6 months 580 000 District Tourism Development Plan Consultant 6 months 360 000 Tourism offerings and citizen engagement Consultant 6 months 348 000 CBNRM review Consultant 4 months 120 000 Training and capacity building 360 000 Local transport and DSA 330 000 Office equipment 120 000 CBNRM forum 90 000 CBNRM newsletter 30 000

TOTAL 3 394 000

124

7.8 SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES UTILISATION AND MANAGEMENT

Table 14 Division of Fisheries budget for the sustainable fisheries utilisation and management component

Activity Input Unit Costs (BWP)

Socio-economic study Consultant 175 000 Fish stock assessment Fisheries and Consultant 65 000 Management Plan Consultant 60 000 Office Equipment Lump sum 30 000 Local transport and DSA Lump sum 75 000 Training and capacity building Lump sum 180 000

TOTAL 585 000

7.9 VEGETATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT

Table 15 ARB / Forestry Division budget for the vegetation resources component

Activity Input Unit Cost (BWP)

Study on alien species Consultant 4 months 72 000 Study on threatened and endangered species Consultant 6 months 108 000 Preparation of Management Plan Consultant 4 months 72 000 Preparation of Fire Management Plan Consultant 6 months 108 000 Training & Capacity Lump sum 180 000 Local Transport & DSA Lump sum 95 000 Office equipment, computer software Lump sum 150 000

TOTAL 785 000

7.10 PHYSICAL PLANNING COMPONENT

Table 16 NWDC’s PPU budget for the physical planning component

Activity Input Unit Cost (BWP)

Geotechnical Survey, EIA, Shakawe Settlement Plan Consultants Lump Sum 1 300 000 Transport & DSA Lump Sum 95 000 Training & Capacity Building Lump Sum 189 000 Office Equipment Lump sum 30 000

TOTAL 1 614 000

125

7.11 LAND USE PLANNING COMPONENT

Table 17 TLB budget for the land use planning component

Activity Input Unit Costs (BWP)

Land Use Planner Lump sum 320 000 Preparation of integrated land use plan Consultant 760 000

Office Equipment Computers, printers etc Lump sum 30 000 Local transport and DSA Lump sum 150 000 Training and capacity building Lump sum 180 000

TOTAL 1 440 000

7.12 WASTE MANAGEMENT COMPONENT

Table 18 NWDC’s EHD budget for the waste management component

Activity Input Unit Costs (BWP)

Waste Management Strategy Consultant Lump sum 360 000Office equipment Lump sum 30 000Local transport & DSA Lump sum 90 000Training / Capacity building Lump sum 90 000

TOTAL 570 000

7.13 SUSTAINABLE LIVESTOCK COMPONENT

Table 19 DAHP budget for the sustainable livestock component

Activity Input Unit Costs (BWP)

Implementation of Tsetse fly environmental monitoring programme DAHP and consultants 360 000Assess current veterinary fence maintenance programme DAHP and consultants 6months 180 000Education programme on disease control strategies DAHP and consultants 3 months 90 000Assess effectiveness of boreholes away from the Delta DAHP and consultants 3 months 90 000Training and capacity building Lump sum 180 000Office equipment Lump sum 30 000Vehicle Maun 2 420 000Office costs Gaborone and Maun Lump sum 60 000Local transport and DSA Lump sum 90 000

TOTAL 1 500 000

126

7.14 OVERALL PROJECT BUDGET

This budget does not take into account the financial ceiling of P3million for 2004/2005 and 2005/2006. These ceiling came about because of the slow spending by component during the 2003/04 and 2004/05. From the work plan most of the activities will be undertaken during 2005/2006 which means the set ceiling is going to be exceeded. These will taper down during 2006/2007

127

128

Table 20 Overall ODMP project budget

Budget detail: Project budget

Allocated amount in Pula

Actual expenditure

Amount allocated in Pula

Expected expenditure

Budgeted amount

Component name: (2003/04) Oct 2004 2004/05 2004/05 2005/2006 2006/2007

Policy, planning and strategy 4563000.00 2220000.00 1137000.00 588888.00 564175.75 600000.00 2261824.25

Research, data management & participatory planning

1218000.00

683000.00

180445.17

202000.00

180445.17

200000.00

657109.66

Hydrology and water resources 2374000.00 2096000.00 82471.00 920000.00 140000.00 700000.00 1451529.00 Wildlife management 1920000.00 498000.00 35346.10 276000.00 575716.00 800000.00 508937.90 Sustainable tourism 2160000.00 750000.00 3392.50 460000.00 453392.50 1000000.00 703215.00 Sustainable fisheries utilisation & management

585000.00

315000.00

0.00

450000.00

270000.00

315000.00

0.00

Vegetation resources management 785000.00

390000.00

0.00

360000.00

273640.00

198932.50

312427.50

Settlement development planning 665000.00

348000.00

0.00

450000.00

285000.00

855000.00

385000.00

Land use and management 1440000.00 445000.00 93586.50 140000.00 454046.00 700000.00 192367.50 NWDC (Waste Management & CBNRM)

1410000.00

890000.00

99131.80

120000.00

248000.00

320000.00

990868.20 Sustainable livestock management

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

750000.00

750000.00

Other expenditure

DoL (Office rental) 0.00 0.00 103000.00 210000.00 206000.00 230000.00 103000.00 Central Transport Organisation (procurement of four vehicles)

0.00 830000.00 240000.00 660000.00 472721.68 0.00 0.00

TOTALS 17120000.00 9465000.00 1974373.07 4836888.00 4123137.10 6668932.50 8316279.01

8 PROJECT TIMELINE – IMPLICATIONS FOR PROJECT DELIVERY

8.1 INTRODUCTION

In order to assist with project planning, timing of events and coordinating implementation of activities, workplans with timelines have been developed using Gantt charts for each project component, and for the project overall. These are based on the broad steps required to deliver each activity and indicate when project governance structures, i.e. TF meetings, should occur, and when project milestones, i.e. submission of reports (ToRs, IR, FRAMP, DMP, FIMP), should be reached. The timing of component activities, both within and between components, and project meetings have been aligned on their interdependencies with one another, i.e. where a meeting to agree on a ToR is required before a tender can be let and on other factors such as season, i.e. where a certain activity has to be done at a certain time of year, e.g. vegetation surveys in the rainy season.

8.2 CURRENT SITUATION AND ISSUES

The original project schedule which was for the project to run for 39 months, starting on 1st May 2003 and to have the following four major milestones:

IR after 7 months (7 months to develop, completed by the end of November 2003) FRAMP after 13 months (6 months to develop, completed by the end of May 2004) DMP after 25 months (12 months to develop, completed by the end of May 2005) FIMP after 39 months (14 months to develop, completed by the end of July 2006)

The IR was, however, only submitted in October 2004, 12 months behind the original schedule, for a number of reasons. Thee hydrology and water resources component started on time, although may have to be extended, but most other components were not fully up to speed until midway through 2004. This delay obviously has consequences for the rest of the project, especially for the original timing of its milestones. As there are currently no additional funds with which to extend the project beyond the original timeframe, the project still remains scheduled to end in July 2006. In order to achieve such a deadline, the timeline shown in Table 21 has been proposed by the project secretariat.

129

Table 21 Overall project timeline

130

131

Table 21 has the following deadlines for milestones: IR after 20 months (20 months to develop, completed by the end of December 2004) FRAMP after 32 months (12 months to develop, completed by the end of December

2005) DMP after 38 months (6 months to develop, completed by the end of June 2006) FIMP after 42 months (4 months to develop, completed by the end of October 2006)

The consequences of this new schedule for the delivery of the project are quite serious and have implications for many aspects of the project. One example of this is for the project’s governance structures. Governance structures, such as TFs, are designed to be one of main (technical) integration & coordination mechanisms for the project. In the district, TFs for each project component have the same core group of project partners that doesn’t change from one component to the next. Because of their composition it isn’t possible for TFs to take place simultaneously without affecting their composition, unless they are combined. In planning specific timelines for individual components (see Volume 2), a period of one week was allocated for the CFPs to organise and hold TF meetings as and when they are required, e.g. to consider an IR from a consultant. In reality, and judging from experience to date, organising and holding a TF meeting takes closer to 2 weeks, although forward planning should help to reduce this. Under the original project timeframe, development and delivery of project activities were to take place over a minimum period of 18 months, i.e. between the IR and the submission of the DMP; there also remained a further period of 12 months in which the FIMP was to be developed giving plenty of leeway for meetings, reporting etc. Under the currently proposed project timeframe, however, development and delivery all of the remaining project activities have been compressed into the remaining project period and are therefore scheduled to take place in a maximum period of 18 months, i.e. between IR and DMP, with only 4 months remaining between this and the proposed submission date for the FIMP. The compression of all project activities into a period 12 months shorter than that originally planned for is and will continue to cause serious problems in project management, planning and coordination. For example, between March and April 2005, a period of 44 working days, there are currently 16 scheduled TFs or other project meetings or workshops at which the majority of project partners are all required to attend. In addition to this, current component specific timelines do not include the detailed tasks required to deliver each proposed activity; they are only based on and around project milestones, such as reports etc. The inclusion of specific tasks and decisions on the timing of such still needs to be added to these timelines and agreed by component FPs (and their consultants). Until this has been done, it still remains unclear just how realistic the timelines are and thus whether or not they will fit into proposed schedules. In addition to this, the nature of the project often means that “delay will breed delay” in the implementation of activities due to the interdependencies between them. For example, should a TF fail to meet on time to discuss technical proposals submitted for a consultancy then the implementation of that work will be delayed. Failure to achieve activities that are dependent on being completed in a certain season would have even more serious consequences as they would have to shift to the next respective season. Decisions made by institutions or imposed by government regulations, e.g. that securing services for certain

132

work or the purchase of certain equipment must go to tender rather than be done by a specific client or through a waiver, may also cause further delay. Finally, the timelines that have been developed so far reflect a perfect planning world uninterrupted by other work commitments, leave of absence, sickness, transfers etc. Such unavoidable occurrences will only further delay implementation of activities and development of the ODMP.

8.3 PROPOSED INTERVENTIONS

There are several ways in which the issues raised above might be addressed by the project. This section explores these possible interventions and outlines their possible positive and negative impacts for the project.

8.3.1 Remove the need for task forces

One way of addressing the issues raised above would be to remove the need for TFs in the project. A positive consequence of such an approach would be to reduce delays as there would be no need for component FPs to find time to meet etc. On the negative side, the removal of TFs from the project would result in reduced quality control, as activities would not be checked by the project partners as they are developed and instigated. Removal of TFs would also weaken one of the projects prime mechanisms for ensuring integration & coordination between its different parts.

8.3.2 Limit task force composition

A potential method of allowing several TFs to meet at the same or within a short space of time would be to restrict their composition e.g. they could be comprised of just the FP for that component and those directly experienced in the technical aspects of the component at hand. The positives of this is that it would reduce the delays incurred in finding suitable meeting dates and perhaps allow a more focused technical analysis of the issues at hand. On the negative side, limiting TF composition may reduce quality control in that component as it would not be subject to a wider project peer review. As with removal of the need for TFs, restricting their composition would also weaken one of the projects prime mechanisms for ensuring integration & coordination between its different parts.

8.3.3 Allow task forces to run concurrently

As with the previous two suggestions, the positives to such an approach would be to reduce potential delays. One of the other results of such an approach, however, would be that the composition of each TF would be limited (as not every FP could be at every meeting) thereby resulting in the same negative impacts as described above.

133

8.3.4 Extend project timeframe

If the originally proposed intervals between the project’s four main milestones were to be adhered to, the project would run to the following dates:

FRAMP after 25 months (end of May 2005) DMP after 37 months (end May 2006) FIMP after 51 months (end July 2007)

This is essentially an extension in the project timeframe of 12 months to cover for the 12 month delay suffered in development of the IR. The negatives of this approach would be to delay production of the FIMP for Okavango Delta as well as creating the potential to test the patience of stakeholders and indeed project partners. There would also be increased costs associated with any extension. On the positive side, however, quality control and the coordination and integration of all different parts of the project could be maintained and the search for extra funding might also allow currently unfunded elements to be brought in, e.g. the sustainable livestock management component, the Shakawe Settlement Development Plan, some DWA work (water quality and certain types of hydrological monitoring for example) and possible new elements such as archaeology and cultural heritage. Another positive is that the project would be running more concurrently with the two other major ORB projects being implemented by USAID and GEF-UNDP.

8.4 FINAL RECOMMENDATION

Current project funders and donors need to give serious consideration to seek funding in order to extend the project by 12 months. Should this be agreed and achieved, the project should then be re-orientated so as to adhere to the originally proposed intervals between project milestones as described in section 8.2

134