The challenges to sustainable beef production in Botswana: Implications on rangeland management

*Kutlwano Mulale* Department of Sociology, Iowa State University.Abstract

The precursor to Botswana's present-day approach to pastoral issues took form in the colonial period. The colonial period witnessed the fundamental transformation and evolution of social relations, and the institution of market and infrastructure conditions, which wrought the logic for present day policy toward livestock development (Lawry, 1983). Up till then, livestock practices were normally organized and operated under a diversity of social and ecological conditions. The objective of this paper is to outline and analyze the historical development of the cattle sector before integration into the world trade system to present. Much of the data used here is from secondary sources. This paper is guided by the hypothesis that, due to the integration of the beef sector into the world trade system, the character of the interaction between cattle keeping and ecological conditions changed considerably and has had consequent implications in the construction of the livestock policy.

Introduction

There is mounting disapproval for developing countries’ rangeland livestock production systems worldwide. Critics maintain that current practices are bad for the environment. The livestock sector has come to be associated with overgrazing and desertification. Mearns (1996) has argued that the environmental consequences of livestock production differ extensively since production practices are contingent upon the options and restraints afforded by different production systems, as well as institutional and policy contexts. Nonetheless, with the growing commodification of beef, and its augmented significance as an export commodity, the wide-ranging functions performed by cattle, in Botswana, have been simplified or under-valued consequently prompting the transformation of rangelands to monocultures. As a result of the integration of the cattle sector into the world beef industry, the use value of cattle has declined. Customarily, the utility of cattle for owners rested in their provision of milk and draught power, which, among most pastoral farmers form the basis of their subsistence.

In Botswana, the strongest obstruction to the formulation of sustainable cattle sector policies is the vested interest of a small but influential socio-economic elite, who have gained and anticipate to continue doing so, from the cattle sectors’ integration into the world trade system. The prevailing bias towards beef production is induced by the beef protocol under the Lome Convention accorded to Botswana and other African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries by the EEC, now EC. This protocol gave the ACP countries access to the EC market on preferential terms. However, contemporary developments in the world trade in beef products portray a rather gloomy situation for ACP countries as a result of the growing EC surplus ensuing from subsidized production and exports under the Common Agricultural Policy. Escalating EC beef exports have had precisely harsh consequences on ACP beef exporters who now have to compete against EC beef dumped on their alternative markets. Under these circumstances, the ACP beef exporters turn out to be progressively dependent for export sales on their preferential access to the EC market. At present, with changes in the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) which include trade liberalization and dismantling of preferential trade terms, Botswana and other ACP beef exporting countries are fated to stumble upon intense competition in their formerly protected markets.

At the national level nevertheless, instead of broadening horizons in the face of this reality, policy makers in Botswana disregard these threats and are pushing harder for the commercialization of the beef sector as a means of increasing productivity. To this end the Government of Botswana is resolute on shifting the use over vast tracts of communal land from communities to individuals, setting up fenced farms to operate in beef production. Ecologists have maintained that the fencing policy is not compatible with the dynamic “drought driven” Kalahari ecosystem that covers much of Botswana (Albertson, 1998). Research findings point to the decline in wildlife populations as fences disrupt migratory routes of wildlife. Additionally, cattle keeping within private enclosures displace peasants and hunter-gatherer communities. With negligible industrial development to provide alternative employment for displaced people, the social costs of

farm development in Botswana will be high, exacerbating poverty and in turn environmental degradation.

In the pre-colonial era, Schapera (1943) noted that most cattle-owners in Botswana sold only one or two cows/oxen at a time to purchase essential goods, particularly grain during deficit years. For this reason, the primary purpose for keeping cattle was to obtain a means of subsistence livelihood - a safety net. Enhanced market conditions upheld by the colonial administration and continued by the present government turned a century-old pastoral subsistence society towards market oriented farming. As has been the case worldwide, the prices paid for livestock products fail to reflect fully the environmental costs associated with their production. The artificial attractiveness of the cattle sector has been encouraged through government subsidies of various kinds, which have distorted market prices.

In response to the cattle inclined policies, Botswana's national cattle herd grew from a few hundred thousand cattle in 1950 to close to three million today. The growth in cattle numbers culminated in an intense debate among ecologists who remain divided on the issues and the causes of range degradation. On the one hand the cattle industry is accused of causing range degradation, while on the other, the role of cattle in range degradation is down played and instead amplifying the role of natural phenomenal forces, like drought. A number of authors have articulated the view that Botswana’s rangelands have been severely degraded over the past few decades (Campbell and Child, 1971; Van Rensberg, 1971; Van Vegten, 1981; Arntzen and Veenendaal, 1986; Ringrose and Matheson, 1986). It is important to note that very little, if any, research has been conducted on the level of degradation within the freehold farms for comparison with the communal lands. However, the governments’ reaction to rangeland degradation has been to insist on the privatization of communal land under the pretext of avoiding the “tragedy of the commons.” While in reality, the privatization of land is viewed as a recipe for efficient beef production from a purely productivist perspective.

The World Systems Theory and the Dependency Theories has been employed to help understand the historical development of the cattle industry in Botswana. Polanyi (1944) noted that, no society could, live for any length of time unless it possessed an economy of some sort; but previously to our time no economy has ever existed that, even in principle, was controlled by markets. Wallersten (1984) argued that to understand the internal class contradictions and political struggles of a particular state, we must first situate it in the world economy. The international system shapes and constrains national development strategies. Furthermore, the peripheral countries’ earlier association with core nations in the form of colonialism set conditions for a dependency relationship commonly referred to as neocolonialism. Dos Santos (1970) defined dependency as a situation in which the economy of certain countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which the former is subjected.

Historical background of the cattle sector

Pre-colonial

Traditionally, areas outlying from the fields and village were designated grazing land. Various wards were apportioned grazing rights in a single large block, for which an overseer was appointed. One of the responsibilities of the overseer was to ensure that only ward members established cattle-posts in the designated land area. He also encouraged sufficient spacing of cattle-posts. However, there is no information on whether the overseer also regulated the aggregate stocking rate or directed the grazing patterns of individual herds (Lawry, 1983). Cattle numbers fluctuated according to disease and drought incidences. In the wet summer months, with water lying in riverbeds and pans, cattle could be trekked out to graze in the sandveld, retreating again to the perennial water places for the winter and spring. The poorer the pasturage within reach of perennial water the fewer the cattle could survive to the next season. Hence the amount of dry season grazing around perennial water points was the long-term determinant of cattle numbers, with shorter term fluctuations induced by disease, epidemics and drought (Hubbard, 1986).

Describing the pre-colonial economy of the Ngwato Kingdom (of Botswana), Parsons (1977:114) outlined their system of cattle holding as follows; “it was based on the mafisa system, characteristic of Tswana and Sotho societies, whereby the ruling class loaned cattle to clans or families, who became herdsmen holding royal property in a sort of feudal system.” This setup has led to the conclusion that in contrast to other parts of Africa, where land has greater commodity value as a means of production, here cattle were the particular commodity with the same significance in the feudal political economy (Hubbard, 1986). Cattle were both a production good (as draught power, transport and calves) and a consumption good (as milk, meat, and hides) and as a form of saving for future consumption and production (Hubbard, 1986).

The pre-colonial system of grazing land management based upon the overseer has all but disappeared (Hitchcook, 1980) and the basis of the system of mafisa was altered with the transition to private ownership of cattle, which appears to have taken place in the mid-to late nineteenth century. The transition to private ownership did not mean that the mafisa system ended, but it became a loaning of cattle by individual owners instead of the chief alone (Hubbard, 1986). The holder of such cattle enjoyed certain rights, e.g. consumption of milk and using them as draught power. The owner also could expect to increase his cattle, because in general, calves born belong to the owner. The holder had rights to ownership of one or more of the offspring. Mafisa contracts were a major opportunity for the many farmers without sufficient draught power to operate as subsistence farmers (Mthethwa, 1982).

Colonial: 1889 - 1966

The colonial period brought more water-points, opening the grazing wealth of unexploited lands for perennial use, and veterinary medicines leveled out fluctuations due to disease (Hubbard, 1986). As a result there was evident increase in cattle population and off-take numbers and in the number of water points in the geographical spread of cattle across the country. The country was fenced into separate veterinary compartments (Hubbard, 1986). All these have been the most visible changes on the ground in Botswana’s cattle production. Colonizers treatment of agroecosystems has often aimed at increasing short-term outputs, with no awareness or concern about depletion of the very resources that produced the bounty (Flora, 2001).

The alteration of the world beef trade in the late 1950’s created new openings in the British market resulting from the rising US beef shortfall, causing New Zealand and Australia to switch their supplies from the UK to the more attractive US market. The gap in the British frozen beef market, which, was opened, privileged peripheral Commonwealth suppliers specifically. This was facilitated by the prior existence of commonwealth preferences in the form of exemption from the heavy tariff on imports of boneless and canned beef (Hubbard, 1986). Until this time, Botswana’s beef industry was confined to the regional market outlets of the mining complexes of the Witwatersrand in South Africa and Central African Copperbelt (Perkins, 1991). In the late 1950’s volume restrictions on Bechuanaland Protectorate's (now Botswana) exports in regional markets tightened while preferential opportunities opened up in the British market (Hubbard, 1986).

The most significant demonstration of Britain’s new post-war colonial policy investment in colonial production was the Colonial Development Corporation (CDC). The British Secretary of State for the colonies sent the following message to the colonial governments in commencing the CDC in 1947; “The functions of the CDC which will be under me will be to initiate, finance and operate projects for agricultural or other development in the colonial empire…Need for such expansion (of colonial production) is of course very much in public minds at this moment owing to the prospect of continuing shortages of certain commodities and increasing difficulty in obtaining adequate supplies of dollars for purchase of raw food and raw materials from America…” (Hubbard, 1985). A colonial development and welfare grant of 400 000 pounds was made available to the Bechuanaland Protectorate explicitly for drilling boreholes. The drilling went ahead on an unparalleled scale, contributing to the 34% increase in the cattle population between 1949 and 1959. Veterinary expenditure was expanded greatly following the restitution in 1955 of the UK grants-in-aid to balance the colony’s budget. Initial plans for the operation was to build a herd of 356 000 over twenty years (Hubbard, 1986). The lack of water supplies was perceived as limiting expansion in the livestock sector, and was also seen as reducing carrying capacity of the range. For this reason the CDF/CD&W grants for borehole drilling, totaling over 850 000 pounds between 1935 - 1965, proved to be a direct and essentially important subsidy to the livestock sector in the protectorate. By 1965, however, a transformation had occurred in the role of water provisioning for livestock

production in the protectorate and livestock water development was most intense in the sandveld areas by private livestock holders (Hubbard, 1986). The skewed distribution of livestock holding and borehole ownership grew through mutual reinforcement over time (Emery, 1980).

Skewed patterns of ownership, originating in customary relations in cattle were preserved and reinforced as market relations in cattle became more valuable. The less advantaged had two alternatives:a) arable crop production b) labor migration - normally to mines in South Africa.Mine labor returnee's invested part of their cash earnings in procuring of one or two head of cattle. This was because, for households occupied in subsistence crop production, ownership or at least access to cattle was necessary to successfully cultivate the arable field (Lawry, 1983).

Post-colonial: 1966 - present

The skewed patterns of livestock ownership have given rise to a divergence of production aspirations and successively having implications toward influencing the construction of the livestock policy. It is estimated that 15% of the farmers own 75% of the estimated national herd. This group is quite small but includes some wealthy individuals including key political leaders. The small farmers (within 10 heads or less), including those without cattle, put emphasis on subsistence crop production. For the big cattle barons, arable production is not important. Whatever government assistance program has been accorded to these small arable farmers, it has been limited to maintaining their status as subsistence farmers (Lawry, 1983) and to keep them in the rural areas, to curb rural-urban migration and the resultant urban unemployment problems.

During the colonial period government revenues from cattle were usually more than double government recurrent expenditures on the industry. By contrast, in the post-colonial era, state expenditures on the industry began to exceed tax revenues from it (Hubbard, 1986). Amin (1976) has argued that, historically, nations first penetrated by colonial expansion experienced a period of surplus in their balance of payments. This began to slowly deteriorate as unfavorable terms of trade evolved to the advantage of manufactured goods and to the detriment of peripheral exports. The shift in the fiscal position of the industry, post 1970, reflects the alteration in the industry’s status from being the leading sector overall in the economy while remaining the hub for private local investment (Hubbard, 1986). The result is that the industry has contributed a declining proportion of public revenue while attracting an increasing amount of public expenditure as infrastructural support for the private investment -veterinary fences, stock route maintenance, breeding and management research, bull purchase subsidy, and artificial insemination subsidies etc (Hubbard, 1986).

When the UK (Botswana’s European export market) joined the EEC in 1975, Botswana’s beef exports were threatened by two impending obstacles. Firstly, the tariff and quota barriers and secondly, the satisfaction of European beef quality standards since the EEC Veterinary Commission replaced the UK Ministry of Agriculture as the licensing authority for meat imports. Botswana was thus negotiating both for favorable access and acceptance of her ‘veterinary credentials' (Hubbard, 1986). However, Botswana did manage to gain reasonably favorable access for her beef to the EEC markets in a special concession appended to the Lome Convention Agreement (Hubbard, 1986).

Theoretical Framework

The features and dynamics of the global system - imperialism, colonialism, the world market, foreign trade, flows of capital investment, and Multi National Corporation (MNC) investments are viewed as forces influencing the socio-economic development of nations (Jaffee, 1998). The Dependency Theory for instance, was developed in response to modernization and economic growth models that accentuate internal national, rather than external international effects on development. International-level models tend to focus on the interaction between nation-states and the political-economic forces that regulate these interactions. Trade lies at the center of these models because the exchange of goods raises questions about international specialization (international division of labor based on David Ricardo’s (1933) law of comparative advantage), methods of production, export vulnerability, and the balance of payments and the terms of trade (Jaffee, 1998).

Wallerstein (1975) rejects the view that national development can be explained by examining the internal characteristics of nation states. Instead nations are seen as systems that are heavily influenced by economic forces and patterns of exchange at the international level. Like individuals in a stratified society who occupy social-class positions, nations occupy class-like structural positions in the world economy. These three major positions are the core, the semi-periphery, and the periphery (Wallerstein, 1975).

Since the colonial era, food and agricultural systems across the world have gone through constant reorganization as they have been integrated into capitalist market relationships. Peripheral countries’ specialization in extractive raw material and the agricultural commodity production forced on them during the colonial and post-colonial period, helped integrate rural social systems within the broader market and political relations of the world economy. The state of Third World agriculture cannot be understood outside this world historical context. Already weakened peasant agriculture has experienced further marginalization and deterioration as market forces have claimed rural resources such as land, labor and government subsidies (McMichael and Reynolds, 1994).

The central historical fact of the colonial era was the violent incorporation of colonial lands and people into an expanding world capitalist economy driven by the process of commodification (McMichael and Reynolds, 1994). The cumulative effect of colonialism was to generate a pattern of world economic specialization whereby agriculture, and

agricultural exports, became the defining specialty of the region that became known as the Third World. This condition continues even today (McMichael and Reynolds, 1994).

Amin (1976) introduced the concept of disarticulation in his theory of peripheral capitalism and underdevelopment. Disarticulation refers to missing or nonexistent links between segments of the economy. DeJanvry (1981) makes a useful distinction between social disarticulation and sectoral disarticulation. Sectoral disarticulation (associated with multiplier effect) refers to an economic structure that lacks forward and backward linkages between productive sectors. Sectoral disarticulation has negative economic consequences because the relatively dynamic economic activity in one sector does not spill over and stimulate economic activity in other domestic sectors. This is due to the fact that the other sectors that supply the inputs and receive the output from the extractive sector do not exist within the peripheral economy, but is, located in the industrialized center states.

Social disarticulation (associated with accelerator effect - a rise in consumer demand) refers to the situation where the relationship between the capacity to produce and the capacity to consume is weak and tenuous. The concept of social disarticulation is a useful tool for understanding the relationship between the world-economic orientation and the political practices carried out in peripheral nations. In peripheral states, internal demand is not the driving force for production. The capacity to produce in peripheral economies depends on foreign exchange revenue derived from export trade. Because of social disarticulation, foreign exchange levels depend on the level of demand in the world economy.

The combination of state neglect and national and international competition has fuelled the long-term historical decline in Third World peasant agriculture. The commercialization of agriculture has undermined the viability of household food production as a livelihood strategy for peasant populations and a subsistence base for the rural poor (Barkin, 1987). Due to the restricted employment options and resultant poverty of displaced peasants, the process of de-peasantization has in most parts of the world been associated with growing misery and hunger. The organization and mobilization of the subordinate classes to counter the growing injustices against their lot can be facilitated by the existence of an organized civil society. Civil society associations provide the opportunity for interaction and communication among the subordinate social classes. The ability of mobilized and organized segments of the population to have an impact on the openness of political institutions is further contingent upon the existence of a "potentially autonomous” state. The final factor shaping the prospects for democracy is the “transnational structure of power.” This takes us back to the international level of analysis with a focus upon the position of a nation in the international division of labor and the geopolitical and economic relationship between nations (Jaffee, 1998).

Discussion

As earlier on indicated, it was the introduction of the borehole technology, which brought marginal land under full production. The diverse ecological conditions that shaped the land use patterns in Botswana prior to colonialism were ‘homogenized’ for cattle production. Cattle production could now take place at any place within the country as water has been made available even within the Kalahari Desert. The diversity that existed was systematically eliminated as it posed as a restraint to the growth of the beef industry.

Rangeland Degradation

The increased role of cattle as a commodity of exchange has shaped subsequent rangeland utilization and management policies. The industry has attracted participation by both the upper and the emerging middle class sectors of the local population, who operate as absentee managers. This socio-economic elitist interest group has over the years been pushing through their agenda of privatizing communal land, and subsequently grabbing it for their individual benefit. The formulation of the Tribal Grazing Land Policy (TGLP) in 1970 and of late National Policy on Agricultural Development (NPAD) in 1991 and the resultant land grab by the elite, demonstrates the ability of the elite to desist policy and allocate resources to its own advantage (Parsons, 1981 ; Picard, 1980). Hardin's (1968) model of 'the tragedy of the commons' forms the basis for the conceptualization of the defunct Tribal Grazing Land Policy (TGLP) and of late, the National Policy on Agricultural Development. One of the major components of these policies advocates for the fencing of communal rangeland by individuals, groups or communities. The proposed fencing under NPAD will be on those areas where the land use is predominantly livestock grazing and where there are existing boreholes. Individuals, groups and communities will be allowed to fence 8km by 8km radius around their boreholes. It is important to note that there are few, if any, community boreholes in the communal grazing areas and that large cattle farmers own most of these boreholes. According to this policy, the owner of two or more boreholes in the communal grazing area may be allowed to develop up to a maximum of two farms.

The drive towards privatization of communal land has been interpreted in the light of Hardin’s (1968) hypothesis of the general conclusive assumption that natural resources should either be privatized or controlled by a Central Government Authority to ensure sustainable use. The interpretation is silent on the possibility of communal management of the commons or rather visualizing a community as a private entity. Furthermore, NPAD does not have any comprehensive strategy on how the remaining communal rangeland is to be managed. Unless institutions are in place to help regulate communal rangeland utilization, the communal land will continue experiencing degradation, as users of such land are not clearly defined, resulting in the dual grazing rights enjoyed by the farm owners. The solution to communal rangeland degradation does not lie in the privatization of the communal land, but in the revitalization of local institutions.

TGLP has been evaluated and was found to be a failure since the expected improvement in range management was not realized. In fact, some of the TGLP farm owners graze their cattle in the communal rangeland, and when conditions deteriorate, they move their cattle into their farms where they have exclusive rights. The dual grazing rights that farm owners seem to posses worsens conditions within the communal grazing lands since such farmers keep large herds of cattle. White (1993) has argued that, the poor performance in TGLP ranches does not warrant such major changes in policy as envisaged by NPAD, for there is no justification in expanding private farm areas.

TGLP, from a programmatic point of view, was silent on smallholder livestock development. The advocates of NPAD and TGLP see these policies as symbols of efficient, commercial beef production. In line with this school, Mazonde (1993) observed that although cattle numbers have doubled since 1966, and whereas government has heavily subsidized the cattle sector, production management indicators especially in the communal (traditional) areas have not improved much, if at all. He concluded that cattle management in the commercial areas has been relatively better. To support his argument, he pointed out that while the commercial farming sub-sector records a calving percentage of about 70%, by contrast the communal sub-sector records a meager 50% (Mazonde, 1993). Such Production biased statements have dominated the mainstream government policy-making corridors and are used to sway policy towards privatization of communal lands so as to increase production in the export-oriented industry.

Abel (1987) argued that policy makers seek evidence to support their political agendas. Conservation and certain productivity arguments happen to coincide with, and are therefore employed to back policies, which have their origins not in science, but in ideology (Abel, 1987). In a desperate move seemingly aimed at preserving the communal rangelands, reactionary elements have emerged, questioning the prevailing scientific evidence that Botswana’s communal rangelands are degraded and disputing such evidence. Abel (1987) has argued that the diagnosis of degradation has relied on the discredited theory of vegetation change. He argues that this theory does not work where rainfall is highly variable, mainly because this variation is more important than stocking density in determining the composition, structure and productivity of vegetation in these circumstances. His argument is that vegetation change in these environments does not constitute environmental degradation.

Abel and Blaikie (1989) proposed the following definition of degradation; "degradation has occurred only where there has been an effectively irreversible decline in the rate of output of livestock products from the range under a specified system of management." Abel (1987) argues that the ground may be barer, but if the range still produces the same output per unit area, degradation, for that system of management, has not occurred. Abel and Blaike (1989) simplified degradation to fit into some economic model, thus undermining the intrinsic value of the environment and subjecting it to the whims of man’s productive forces. The environment is here perceived as a resource, not as an ecosystem and therefore can be exploited.

White (1992), like Abel (1987), has questioned and stood opposed to the privatization of the communal rangelands. He supports a productivistic approach to communal rangeland utilization. White has argued that "lowering the stocking rate raises productivity per animal, but it does so at the price of reducing productivity per hectare" (White, 1992). White (1992) argues that the above statement is based on the research findings by the Animal Production Research Unit (APRU) and analyzed by Abel and Blaikie (1989). The study found out that one of the primary plant responses to herbivory is to grow faster - hence increased grazing pressure stimulates primary production leading to an increase in secondary production. Kloppenburg (1991) has argued that what we know as scientific knowledge has attained virtually undisputed intellectual hegemony though there could be clear evidence that the basis of such science is politically or economically motivated.

Abel (1987) and White (1992) were responding to the evidence that in the communal areas, the main vegetation changes consequent upon heavy grazing are bush-encroachment and changes in species composition of grasses mainly from perennial to annual species (Ringrose et. al. 1996). Darkoh, (1999) also observed that, in terms of desertification, Botswana is one of the most affected countries in the Kalahari Region of Southern Africa. Problems include overstocking, large-scale vegetation depletion and changes, especially around livestock watering points, and accelerated soil erosion by wind, sheet-wash and gulling. Recent satellite imagery reveals that there has been considerable uncontrolled development of cattle-posts in areas set aside for wildlife management, resulting in the emergence of land use conflicts and extensive degradation of the tree savanna (Darkish, 1999).

Beef marketing

Botswana Meat Commission’s (BMC) near monopsony within Botswana imply that local beef prices are by and large determined by BMC export prices. The export monopsony together with the smallness of the domestic market, a result of a small population and of what Amin (1976) referred to as ‘social disarticulation’, ensures that price decreases on external markets can be passed on to the cattle production sector without reducing abattoir throughput. For the BMC, increasing sales and ensuring product acceptability in the EC market is the main concern. This is best exemplified by the efforts made to maximize sales in Botswana’s best market (EC), the restructuring of the Lobatse abattoir in the mid-1970’s to meet EC production requirements and adherence to EC veterinary standards and regulations regarding cattle movement (Hubbard, 1986). These standards have been met meticulously in spite of their environmental and social costs. This brings into play the question of how autonomous peripheral state policies are from international market forces. Once the cattle sector was integrated and propelled to the status of lead industry, its vital role in the national economy and its dependence upon foreign demand, served to subordinate the state to the market. Hence state policies regarding this sector to some degree are not authentic, but indirectly determined by the market.

In Botswana, cattle are sold through a range of marketing outlets, including the BMC which holds the monopoly of beef exports (69.7%), local butcheries (8.2%), traders (7%), auction (6.7%), or other farmers (8.2%) (Arntzen, 1998). BMC is not a private, profit-

accumulating firm, but, is statutorily instructed to carry on business efficiently and economically and in such a manner as to promote the interests of the livestock industry of Botswana (Hubbard, 1986). Hence the BMC’s investments in processing and product innovations at the Lobatse abattoir have since been geared more and more to the requirements and standards of the export market. The proposal by UK veterinarians for instance, with regard to the maximum veterinarily acceptable level of throughput and alterations to equipment has been adhered to religiously (Hubbard, 1986).

In late 1973, Botswana found herself at a historical peak in her beef export marketing opportunities; a result of a generalized shortage of beef, which had more than doubled in price since 1971. In addition, shortages of beef were forecast to continue (Hubbard, 1986). The existence of such favorable conditions meant that the BMC could pick and choose the best markets. However, since Botswana’s beef had been tied to the EC market through preferential ‘privileges’, the BMC was obliged to continue supplying this market despite the existence of other market opportunities. In a way, the preferential trade agreement served as a constraint for Botswana’s beef to take advantage of the existence of alternative markets, which may have been more lucrative.

Valuation of Cattle

Agro-pastoralism is the prevalent form of agricultural land use on communal lands and consists of small-scale, low-input animal husbandry. It yields a range of direct use values, including milk, live animal sales, meat, draught power, manure, as well as cultural non-use values. Commonly associated with this is low-input, small-scale crop production drawing on draught power from the livestock. Livestock are mostly cattle with some goats, and crops are mostly millet, sorghum and maize/corn. These traditional agricultural land uses are being simplified to beef production monocultures. Below is a discussion of how some cattle use values have been undermined, as production effort is directed to beef production.

Notwithstanding its high livestock population, Botswana imports large quantities of milk and milk products. The common perception is that cattle are primarily kept for meat and milking traditional cows is not systematically undertaken. However, there is evidence indicating the existence of a dairy sector in the past. Abel (1987) noted that in the Mathethe region, milk represented 65% of the energy output and 35% of the cash output of livestock, and was more important than meat. Boitumelo (1993) observed that there have also been some attempts to establish a dairy sector in communal areas close to urban areas since cattle-posts are situated far from villages or towns. The milking of indigenous cows within the communal areas, provides milk supplies for household consumption during the rainy season (Milk consumption in the rural areas is/was usually seasonal.).

Most of the milk was sold in the village areas in the form of local milk products (madila - sour milk - resembles cottage cheese). Often it was not possible to sell milk or sour milk because of distance from villages or towns. In such instances, farmers often made cream. The milk was collected and sold to a farmer who had a cream separator. The cream was collected daily and stored in a cream can. After a week the cream can containing the sour

cream was taken to the nearest railway line to transport to a creamery. At the creamery the acidity of the cream was neutralized, the cream was pasteurized and made into butter. The production of cream earned Botswana half a million Pula of foreign currency in the years 1975 - 78 (Konandreas, et al., 1983).

In some parts of the country, for example, the northeastern part, farmers in the communal areas would in exchange for grazing permission for their lactating cows within the neighboring Tati Company farms allow the farm owner to milk their cows. Today, there is no creamery in Botswana, nor do the farmers still make any cream. The importance of this occupation has declined in most areas, probably due to the more favorable price of beef, thus the recognition that milk deprivation is responsible for poorer calf growth (Konandrreas et al., 1983).

Cattle-Wildlife Conflict

Cattle spread further and further into the western and northern sandveld where they not only had to compete for grazing with wildlife, but also depends increasingly on fragile ecosystems with much lower and more variable carrying capacity (Cooke, 1985). European meat import regulations require that fences be built to stop cattle from contracting foot and mouth disease, which the cattle are said to contract from wild buffalo. The ecological damage due to the beef industry on Botswana's wildlife has been considerable because of the concentration of cattle and wildlife within the fenced areas. According to Albertson (1998), vast areas of wildlife habitats have been degraded in many parts of the country. The main cause is the expansion of the cattle industry.

There is mounting pressure from both local and foreign environmental groups for several developed countries to deny Botswana cattle subsides under terms of trade agreed to under the Lome convention. These subsidies, coupled with strict restrictions/standards on imports, have led to the construction of veterinary fences in Botswana. If the veterinary fences in Botswana remain, then it is likely that several species of wildlife will be damaged, because their migration routes will be disrupted. Scientists invited by the government of Botswana to study Botswana's cattle problems, concluded that "when the interests of wildlife and cattle come into conflict, the wildlife loses" (Albertson, 1998).

Construction of veterinary disease control fences has intensified in the last two years- mostly in response to an outbreak of Contagious Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP) that threatened to invade export-orientated beef commercial ranches. Veterinary control fences, endorsed by the International Organization of Animal Health as "valuable tools in disease control," are primarily intended to safeguard Botswana’s beef export industry. However, the fences in question (erected without environmental, social or economic impact assessments) mostly bisect huge wildlife areas with few or no cattle and, since construction, have caused widespread damage to wildlife populations in many parts of Botswana. Aerial surveys show conclusively, that where veterinary fences have been erected, sharp declines in wildlife numbers follow.

Conclusion

As already pointed out in the text, Botswana's communal grazing land problems are primarily a question of identifying and promoting institutions capable of better regulating communal rangeland use, and enhancing the utility value of cattle by emphasizing other cattle use values than parochially be preoccupied with the export beef drive, which is market driven and precarious. More often than not, livestock producers are criticized for environmental problems that could be avoided with more appropriate institutional, pricing and policy arrangements (Mearns, 1996). In Botswana for instance, besides the privatization drive there is no mention of the need to empower local institutions to help improve the management of the communal rangelands.

Private property is seen as a panacea for improved communal rangeland management and increased productivity based on politicized science. Kloppenburg (1991) has advocated for the reconstruction of an alternative science, an undertaking that will require the recognition and legitimation of alternative sources of knowledge production for agriculture - sources that now have no voice, or speak without authority, or simply are not heard in contemporary agriscientific discourse. He observed that the revival of local knowledge should be an essential part of such reconstruction.

Since the problems associated with cattle production require not only the efforts of the farmers but also appropriate policies and product pricing, the participation of both civil society, state and market actors seem most appropriate. Flora (2001) noted that the state, like the market, is a dynamic, contested sector. Within the state sphere, which sets the rules and conditions for the market and the safety nets for its citizens, the terrain is very contested. In the case of Botswana, state actors have predominantly been the socio-economic elite or are greatly influenced by this group. To this end, the state seems to be devoted to its accumulation function at the expense of its legitimation functions. In the context of Botswana, civil society is still not yet a well-developed sector, and the few existing NGO’s seem not to have taken an interest in the cattle sector, except in their opposition to its expansion into wildlife areas. Thus the fate of this sector appears to lay in the hands of the producers, with little or no resistance from other sectors of society, partly a result of lack of such a forum.

Communities are shaped by three sets of institutions: market, the state, and civil society. These institutions influence the resources available to local people. Increasingly around the world, landowners are not land managers, nor do they live in the community of place. This separation of ownership and management, whether through rental agreements or management contracts, puts more emphasis on financial capital and less on natural and social capital. Though the state should make markets possible it has the additional responsibility of providing for the public welfare (Flora, 2001). Buttel (1998) observed that governments are simultaneously a fundamental force underlying environmental destruction and the principal agent of sustainability reforms. Hence the state in fulfilling its accumulation function should not neglect its legitimation function.

Civil society determines the common good. Groups in society, formal and informal, join together around common interests or values. Through their organized activity they influence the market and the state. When things are judged as moral because they are profitable and the state therefore acts only to increase profitability, at the expense of the other important roles - protecting those in society who cannot protect themselves and protecting the environment. Healthy agroecosystems with multiple community benefits are more likely to be sustainable than agroecosystems, which enhance only one of the capitals (Human, Natural, Financial and Social capital)(Flora, 2001). Grazing systems are usually geared to the production of multiple outputs, although ranching systems are generally geared more narrowly towards meat production. Integrated crop-livestock systems can be environmentally beneficial, as by-products from one production component serve as input to other components (Mearns, 1996).

References

Abel, N., 1987 Carrying capacity, rangeland degradation and livestock development policy for the communal rangelands in Botswana. Presented at a Conference on Botswana's Environment. Kalahari Conservation Society. Gaborone, Botswana.

Abel, N. and Blaikie P. 1989. Land Degradation, Stocking Rates and Conservation Policies in the Communal Rangelands of Botswana and Zimbabwe. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation 1: 101 - 124.

Albertson, A. 1998. Northern Botswana Veterinary Fences: Critical Ecological Impacts. Okavango Peoples Wildlife Trust. Maun. Botswana.

Amin, S., 1976. Unequal Development. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Arntzen, J. W. and Veenendaal, E. M. 1986: A Profile of Environment and Development in Botswana, NIR, University of Botswana, Gaborone, 1-172.

Arntzen, J., 1998. Economic valuation of communal rangelands in Botswana: A case study. CREED working Paper series No.17.

Barkin, David. 1987. The end to food self-sufficiency in Mexico. LatinAmerican Perspectives 14: 271-97.

Baron, M. and Barkin, D. “Innovation in Indigenous Production Systems to Maintain Tradition” in Flora, C. (ed) 2001. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Rural Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Boitumelo, W.S., 1993. "Peri-urban Small-scale Dairy Research Programme in Botswana". In Kategile, J.A. and Mubi, S. (eds). Future of Livestock Industries in East and Southern Africa. ILCA, Ethiopia.

Buttel, F.H., 1998. Some observations on States, world orders, and the politics of sustainability, Organ. Environ., 11, 261.

Campbell, A. and Child, G. 1971. The Impact of Man on the Environment of Botswana. Botswana Notes and Records 3: 91 - 110.

Cooke, H.J., 1985. The struggle against environmental degradation - Botswana's experience. Desertification Bulletin 8, 9 -15.

Darkoh, M., 2000. Desertification in Botswana. RALA Report No. 200.

DeJanvry, A., 1981. The Agrarian Question and Reformism in Latin America. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

de Queiroz. J., 1993. Range Degradation in Botswana: Myth or reality? Pastoral Development Network Paper No. 35b. Overseas Development Institute, London.

Dos Santos, T., 1970. "The structure of Dependence." American Economic Review 60: 231 - 236.

Emery, R., 1980. Development of livestock, agriculture and water supplies in Eastern Botswana before independence: A short history and policy analysis. Rural Development Committee, Center for International Studies, Cornel University. New York.

Flora, C., “Shifting Agroecosystems and Communities” in Flora, C. (ed) 2001. Interactions between Agroecosystems and Rural Communities. CRC Press, Boca Raton, London, New York and Washington D.C.

Hardin, G., 1968. 'Tragedy of the Commons.' Science 162: 1243 -1248.

Hitchcook, R., 1980. 'Tradition, Social Justice and Land Reform in Central Botswana'. Journal of African Law 24 No.1, 1 - 34.

Hubbard M. “Botswana’s Beef Export Industry: the issue of the proposed northern abattoir” in Harvey C. 1981. Papers on the economy of Botswana. Heinemann. London, Nairobi and Ibadan.

Hubbard, M., 1986. Agricultural Exports and economic growth; A study of the Botswana Beef Industry. KPI Limited. London, New York and Sidney.

Jaffee, D., 1998. Levels of socio-economic development theory. Praeger publishers. Westport, Connecticut and London.

Kloppenburg, J. (Jr.) Social Theory and the De/Reconstruction of agricultural science: Local knowledge for an alternative agriculture. Rural Sociology 56 (4), 1991, Pp 519 - 548. Rural Sociological Society.

Konandrreas, P., Anderson, F.,Trail, J., 1983. “Economic trade-off between milk and meat production under various supplementation levels in Botswana” in ILCA Research Report. No. 7 - 12. Addis Ababa. Ethiopia.

Lawry, S., 1983. Land Tenure, Land Policy and Small-holder livestock development in Botswana. Land Tenure Center. University of Wisconsin - Madison. No. 78.

Mazonde, N. “Food Policy and agriculture in Botswana” in Mukandawire, R. and Matlosa, K. (eds) 1993. Food Policy and agriculture in Southern Africa. SAPES Books. Harare. Zimbabwe.

McMichael, P. and Reynolds, L. “Capitalism, Agriculture and World economy” in Leslie Sklair (1994) Capitalism and Development. London and New York. Routledge.

Mearns, R.,1996. When Livestock are Good for the Environment: Benefit-sharing of environmental goods and services. Invited paper for the World Bank/FAO Workshop, “Balancing Livestock and the Environment”. Washington, D.C., an associated event to the Fourth World Bank Conference on Environmentally Sustainable Development.

Mthethwa, J., 1982. Man and cattle in Africa; A study of social change in pastoral societies in Botswana. Verlag breitenbach Publishers. Saarbrucken. Fort Launderdale.

Parsons, N., 1977. 'Economic History of Khama's Country in Botswana 1844 - 1930'. In Palmer, R. and Parsons, N. (eds) 'The Roots of Rural Poverty in Central and Southern africa', Heinemann.

Perkins, J.S., 1991. The impact of borehole dependent cattle grazing on the environment and society of eastern Kalahari sandveld, Central District of Botswana. Ph.D Thesis (unpublished), University of Sheffield.

Picard, L., 1980/1979. 'Bureaucrats, Cattleand Public Policy: Land Tenure Changes in Botswana'. Comparative Political Studies., Vol. 13 No.3.

Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation. Farrar and Rinehart, Inc. New York.

Ricardo, D., 1933. Principles of Political Economy and Taxation. London: Dent(1817).

Ringrose, S., Chanda, R., Musisi, N., and Sefe, F.,1996. Environmental change in the Mid-Boteti area of North-central Botswana: biophysical processes and human perceptions. Environmental management 20 (3), 397 - 410.

Ringrose, S. and Matheson,W. 1987. Desertification in Botswana: Progress towards a Visible Monitoring System. Desertification Control Bulletin 13, 6 - 11.

Roep, D. and Bruin, R. "Regional marginalization, styles of farming and technology development."in Van der Ploeg and Long (eds). Born from Within . Assun: Van Gorcum. Pp. 217 - 227.

Schapera, I., 1943. 'Native Land Tenure in the Bechuanaland Protectorate'. Lovedale.

Van Rensberg, H.J. 1971. Range Ecology in Botswana. FAO Technical Document No.2. UNDP/SF/359 (Bot1), Rome.

Van Vegten, J.A., 1981. Man-made vegetation changes: an example from Botswana's Savanna. Working Paper No.40, NIR., Gaborone.

Wallerstein, I. "The Present State of the Debate on World Inequality," in I. Wallerstein,ed., l975. World Inequality. Montreal: Black Rose Books, 9-28.

White, R., 1993. Livestock Development and Pastoral Production and communal Rangeland in Botswana. Botswana Society, Gaborone, Botswana.

White, R., 1992. Is the Livestock Industry the enemy of the Environment? Paper presented at a conference on the future of Botswana's environment. Kalahari Conservation Society, Gaborone.

Kutlwano MulaleIowa State University107 East HallAmes, IA 50011Phone: (515) 294-2882 Fax: (515) 294-3180

Affiliation: North Central Regional Center for Rural Development

Theme: Engaging Stakeholders in Support of Small Farms