the okavango delta fisheries - acp fish iiacpfish2-eu.org/uploads/projects/id8/management...

ACP Fish II Coordination Unit Service Contract n° CU/PE1/MZ/10/004

Support for Devising of the Aquaculture Development Strategy for Botswana

and the development of outlines for the Fisheries Management Plan of the Okavango Delta

THE OKAVANGO DELTA FISHERIES

MANAGEMENT PLAN REPORT draft

REPORT PREPARED BY: DR. THOMAS ASHLEY SHIPTON INLAND FISHERIES EXPERT SOGES SPA

APRIL 2011

PPrroojjeecctt iimmpplleemmeenntteedd bbyy SSooggeess SS..pp..AA.. ccoonnssoorrttiiuumm

FISHERIES ASSESSMENT REPORT

Support for Devising of the Aquaculture Development Strategy for Botswana and the development of outlines for the Fisheries Management Plan of the Okavango Delta

SOGES

1

Table of Contents

Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................... 4

Executive summary .......................................................................... 5

Part 1: Diagnostic Analysis .............................................................. 8

1 Introduction ................................................................................ 8 1.1 The Okavango Delta ................................................................................ 8 1.2 Characterisation of the fish stocks ............................................................ 9

2 Synoptic review of the fisheries ................................................ 13 2.1 The commercial fishery .......................................................................... 13 2.2 The artisanal fishery ............................................................................... 14 2.3 The recreational fishery .......................................................................... 18

3 Current status of the resources ................................................ 19 3.1 Fishing pressure and effort ..................................................................... 19 3.2 Catch rates ............................................................................................. 21

4 Diagnostic analysis .................................................................. 23 4.1 Legislative Framework........................................................................... 23

4.1.1 The Fish Protection Act (Act 42 of 1975) ................................................. 24 4.1.2 The Fish Protection Regulations (2008) ................................................... 24 4.1.3 Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) Policy ..... 25 4.1.4 The Draft Wildlife Policy ........................................................................... 25 4.1.5 Code of Conduct for responsible fishing in the Okavango Delta .............. 25 4.1.6 Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP, 2008) ................................. 26

4.2 Institutional Framework .......................................................................... 28 4.2.1 National Institutions ................................................................................. 28 4.2.1.1 Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) ................................ 28 4.2.1.2 Staff deployment ...................................................................................... 28 4.2.1.3 Compliance operations ............................................................................ 29 4.2.1.4 Fisheries monitoring ............................................................................... 29 4.2.1.5 Other DWNP Agencies ............................................................................ 31 4.2.2 Local Institutions in the Delta ................................................................... 32 4.2.2.1 The Okavango Research Institute, the University of Botswana ............... 32 4.2.2.2 Okavango Fisheries Management Committee (OFMC) ........................... 32 4.2.2.3 Okavango Fisheries Association (OFA) ................................................... 32 4.2.2.4 Fisher associations and trusts ................................................................. 33 4.2.2.5 Artisanal fishers ....................................................................................... 33 4.2.3 International institutions / Trans-boundary initiatives ................................ 34 4.2.3.1 The Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) .................... 34 4.2.3.2 Kamutjonga Inland Fisheries Institute (KIFI), Namibia ............................. 35

4.3 Additional Management Issues ............................................................... 37 4.3.1 The closed season .................................................................................. 37 4.3.2 The gillnet mesh regulations ................................................................... 37 4.3.3 Effort limitation ........................................................................................ 38 4.3.4 Mosquito nets .......................................................................................... 38 4.3.5 Fishing zones .......................................................................................... 39 4.3.6 Product quality and market access .......................................................... 40

Part II - The Management Plan ...................................................... 43

5 Introduction .............................................................................. 43 5.1 Management objectives and guiding principles ...................................... 43



SOGES

2

5.2 Key issues and strategic actions ............................................................ 45 5.2.1 Institutional Issues ................................................................................... 47 5.2.1.1 Institutional Strengthening ....................................................................... 47 5.2.1.2 Regulatory and planning framework ........................................................ 49 5.2.1.3 Communication, education and public awareness ................................... 50 5.2.2 Bio-physical Issues .................................................................................. 51 5.2.2.1 Natural resource conservation ................................................................. 51 5.2.3 Socio-economic Issues ............................................................................ 52 5.2.3.1 Sustainable use of natural resources ....................................................... 52 5.2.3.2 Livelihoods improvements ....................................................................... 52

5.3 Immediate Interventions ......................................................................... 53

6 References .............................................................................. 55

7 Appendix 1 ............................................................................... 58 Shakawe Stakeholder Workshop ............................................................................. 58 Maun Stakeholder Workshop .................................................................................. 67

8 Appendix 2 ............................................................................... 74 List of Workshop Delegates: Shakawe .................................................................... 74 List of Workshop Delegates: Maun .......................................................................... 77

List of tables, figures and photographs

Table 1: Total number and percentage of gillnets by mesh size .................................. 20

Table 2: Total number of boats and percentage by boat type ...................................... 21

Table 3. Management objectives ................................................................................ 44

Table 4. Key Issues and Strategic Actions .................................................................. 46

Figure 1: The Okavango delta in Botswana ................................................................ 10

Figure 2: Seasonal catch rates - CPUE expressed as number of fish caught per set and annual discharge.................................................................................................. 11

Figure 3: Variations in species diversity as a function of the seasonal flood pulse in the Okavango Delta where letters a – e illustrate months grouped together on the basis of similarity analysis ........................................................................................................ 12

Figure 4: Intra annual variations in catch composition (Mosepele, in press) ................ 12

Figure 5: The main target species that are caught in the Commercial gillnet fishery – Index of Relative importance (IRI) ............................................................................... 14

Figure 6: The main target species that are caught in the artisanal fishery – all fishing gears .......................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 7: The main target species that are caught in the artisanal fishery – Basket fishers ......................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 8: The main target species that are caught in the artisanal fishery – hook and line fishers .................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 9: The main target species that are caught in the artisanal fishery – mosquito net fishers ................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 10: The main target species that are caught in the recreational fishery. ........... 18

Figure 11: Temporal variations in catch rates (no/ set) of fishers catches from the Okavango Delta fishery based on daily catch and effort data 1998-2005 .................... 22



SOGES

3

Figure 12: CPUE in the gillnet fishery 1996-2002 ........................................................ 22



SOGES

4

Abbreviations and Acronyms

ACP African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States CBNRM Community Based Natural Resource Management CBO Community Based Organisations CEDA Citizen Enterprise Development Agency CHAs Controlled Hunting Areas CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort CU Coordination Unit DWNP Department of Wildlife and National Parks EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EU European Union EUS Epizootic Ulcerative Syndrome FA Fisheries Authority FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation FAP Financial Assistance Policy FMPOD Fishery Management Plan for the Okavango Delta FRD Food Resources Department GEF Global Environment Facility KIFI Kamutjonga Inland Fisheries Institute LEA Local Enterprise Authority MCS Monitoring Control and Surveillance MOU Memorandum of Understanding NAPs National Actions Plans NGO Non Government Organisation OBSC Okavango River Basin Steering Committee ODMP Okavango Delta Management Plan OKACOM Okavango River Basin Commission OFA Okavango Fishers Association OFMC Okavango Fisheries Management Committee ORC Okavango Research Centre ORI Okavango Research Institute SADC Southern African Development Community SAPs Strategic Action Plans SAREP Southern African Regional Environmental Programme TDA Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis TLA Tawana Land Board UNDP United Nations Development Program WMAs Wildlife Management Areas



SOGES

5

Executive summary This report has been developed in response to the ACP FISH II Programme‟s requirement to support the development of a Fisheries Management Plan for the Okavango Delta. The report is divided into two sections. The first section provides an assessment of the status and potential of the Okavango fishery, evaluating the effectiveness of current policy and legal and management instruments, and provides a diagnostic analysis of the issues impacting fisheries management in the Delta. The second section comprises the guidelines for the management plan. A management vision and goal is presented, as are the management objectives and guiding principles for the management of the fishery. An indication of key issues and strategic actions that need to be addressed in the management of the Okavango Delta Fisheries is provided. The Okavango fishery is characterised as a multi-species fishery that is exploited by five principal fishing methods, viz., hook and line, gillnet fishermen, baskets, spears and traps. The resource is exploited by three principal fisher groups, the artisanal or subsistence fishers, the commercial, and the recreational fishers. Comparisons between the 1997 and 2005 frame surveys suggest that overall the number of fishers in the Delta has decreased; however, there appear to have been some structural changes to the commercial fishery in terms of an increase in motorised vessels, a reduction in the number of gillnets and a slight reduction in the size of the gillnets used. CPUE data suggests that there has been no significant change in fish abundance over time. Furthermore there have been no significant changes in species diversity, in the mean length of the key commercial species, or the species composition in the fish community of the Delta‟s Panhandle, suggesting that the resource is in a healthy condition, and that the current fishing regime is not adversely affecting the stock status. The country has developed an impressive array of legislative, policy and regulatory tools with which it can manage the Nation‟s natural resources. While the Fish Protection Act of 1975 is now outdated and will likely be replaced with provisions included in the new Wildlife Act, the country does not currently have a Fisheries Policy. A Fisheries Policy that outlines the biological, economic and social objectives for the country‟s fish resources represents a fundamental component of the legislative framework. It is essential that a policy is formulated to guide the future development of regulations, governance structures and management planning processes. Notwithstanding the absence of a fisheries policy, the country has developed a comprehensive set of other policies that can be applied to fisheries development. Principally these include the draft Wildlife Policy, which comprises fish and fisheries as part of “wildlife” and Botswana‟s well developed CBNRM policies. Amongst other issues, these policies provide the framework for an ecosystems approach to resource management, co-management and the devolution of governance responsibilities to the communities, the promotion of CBNRM management systems and the inclusion of the private sector in the sustainable management of the country‟s natural resources. These policy objectives, while not explicitly focusing on fisheries, provide a suitable framework within which to move away from the traditional top-down, regulatory approach to fisheries management, to a more socially relevant and equitable fisheries management paradigm based on the principles of co-management. In this regard, the development of the stakeholder-driven fisheries code of conduct that has been adopted by the various fisher groups is an encouraging development and importantly provides the basis for further developing cooperative fisheries management in the Delta.



SOGES

6

The Fisheries Division in the DWNP is relatively under resourced in terms of the number of personnel that are employed. The primary tasks that are undertaken by the departmental personnel include the permitting of fishers, compliance, collecting and collating catch and effort data from the commercial fishers, experimental surveys, fisheries survey work and extension work. The division is responsible for all levels of fisheries management in the Delta, and receives little assistance from other Divisions within the DWNP such as the Research and Compliance Divisions. Considerable financial and human resources are currently allocated to the monthly research surveys that are not informing management per se, and the rationale for their continuation needs to be assessed in terms of optimising resource allocation within the Division. Staff training is clearly an issue, and while some of the staff at the regional offices have degrees in the biological sciences, there are currently no trained fisheries scientists stationed in the Delta. Staff training at all levels in fisheries management and extension would greatly increase the efficacy of the organisation. It is evident that the Division operates under some financial constraints which limit its ability to carry out its mandate. Most notably the lack of suitable transport to operate effective compliance operations appears to be an issue. In this regard, the potential to develop linkages with NGOs, the Okavango Research Centre and other government departments to assist in compliance and community / fisheries related issues could be considered. The local institutions provide representation for all stakeholders in the fishery. While the Okavango Fisheries Management Committee (OFMC) provides a suitable forum for government agencies to interact with the fisher community, the Okavango Fishermans Association (OFA) provides a forum for all fisher stakeholders to discuss their issues and resolve conflicts, and it provides a formal representative vehicle with which fishers can present their issues to government agencies. To date the association has primarily focused on resolving conflicts between the commercial gillnet and recreational fishers. While representation in the OFA is open to all fisher groups, the artisanal fishers are not well represented. Improving the representation of the artisanal fishers in the OFA or developing a new organisation to represent their interests would significantly empower this group to become more involved in fisheries management processes in the Delta. In recent years the OFA has been financially supported and mentored by the Biokavango project. In terms of the sustainability of the OFA, the closure of this programme is premature, and the organisation is likely to require additional financial and mentorship assistance in the future. The OFA represents the primary vehicle with which to resolve conflicts and promote co-management in the Delta fisheries, and every attempt should be made to support the organisation and ensure its sustainability. In this regard, it should be noted that one of the core operational activities for the Fisheries Division should be stakeholder institution building. The management rationale that is applied to the fishery needs to be updated. In this regard, consideration should be given to the rationale for maintaining some of the management interventions that are currently in place. Changes to the current framework could be considered. Changes should be linked to the social and economic imperatives articulated in the draft Wildlife Policy and the need to align fishery “management” interventions with these goals. This would require a new operational approach for the Fisheries Division which would include stakeholder institution building and facilitation, and the development of partnerships and projects. In terms of the commercial fishers, fish marketing issues remain a serious constraint to their business operations, and the potential to develop local markets based on import substitution, and the provision of premium quality products to the existing lodges in the Delta need to be investigated. Finally, the potential to promote the



SOGES

7

recreational fishing industry in such a way that it empowers the existing fisher groups that are currently marginalised needs to be considered. The management plan that is presented is not a management plan per se, but rather provides an outline that the DWNP: Fisheries Division can use to develop a Fisheries Management Plan for the Delta. The document provides a vision and goal for the management of the fishery, and an indication of the management objectives, guiding principles, and the key issues and strategic actions that are required to successfully manage the fishery. Nine key issues were identified in the planning process, these comprise: Issue 1: Fisher Organisations: There is a need to support fisher organisations (OFA / OFMC) to ensure financial and operational sustainability, and the development of co-management systems. Issue 2: Institutional Capacity: There is a need for enhanced institutional capacity for the DWNP: Fisheries Division to carry out its mandate and to implement the Draft Wildlife and CNBRM Policies in respect of fisheries. Issue 3: Trans-boundary Co-operation: There is a need for improved trans-boundary co-operation and management. Issue 4: Improved fisheries data: There is a need to revise the fisheries data collection and analysis systems which are not optimised for monitoring and informing fisheries decision-making processes. Issue 5: Regulations: There is a need to review the current regulatory framework and make input into the new Wildlife Act. Issue 6: Compliance: There is a need to improve compliance with fisheries and wildlife legislation at all levels. Issue 7: Biological reference points and decision rules: There is a need to develop biological reference points and decision rules for the fisheries in the Okavango Delta. Issue 8: CBNRM initiatives: There is a need to promote community based tourism opportunities linked to the recreational fishery and traditional fishing cultures. Issue 9: Fish processing / marketing: There is a need to improve fish handling, processing and marketing to guarantee the safety and quality of fish products and increase value at all levels. In order to promote consistency with existing management planning processes, the proposed management interventions use the format applied to the Okavango Delta Management Plan, and in some respects, could be viewed as an extension of the fishery components of that document. In terms of policy, the proposed interventions are aligned with the draft wildlife and CNBRM policies.



SOGES

8

Part 1: Diagnostic Analysis 1 Introduction This report has been developed in response to the ACP FISH II programme‟s requirement to support the development of a Fisheries Management Plan for the Okavango Delta. The report provides an assessment of the status and potential of the Okavango fishery, evaluating the effectiveness of current policy, and legal and management instruments, and provides a diagnostic analysis of the issues impacting fisheries management in the Delta. The report is based on a fact-finding mission to Botswana and the Delta that was undertaken between 23rd January and 23rd February 2011, and two stakeholder consultative workshops that were held in Shakawe and Maun on 8th and 15th February respectively (Appendix 1 and 2).

1.1 The Okavango Delta The Okavango Delta is situated at the northern-most edge of the Kalahari Desert in north western Botswana, below the Caprivi Strip in Namibia. The Okavango delta system comprises a complex series of inflowing rivers, swamps, outflowing rivers and sump lakes. The inflowing rivers comprise the Okavango and Cuando rivers that have their headwaters in the Southern Angolan highlands approximately 600-1000km north of Maun. Collectively, these rivers supply between 8 and 15 thousand million cubic meters of water per annum to the Delta. Inflow water is augmented by approximately 5000 million m3 of rainfall. The majority of the water entering the delta is lost to the atmosphere through evapo-transpiration (Giske, 1996), with approximately 2% of the input appearing as output at the distal end of the Delta (Wilson and Dincer, 1976). The swamps comprise the Okavango Delta and the outflowing rivers, the Selinda spillway, and Thamalakane and Botetil rivers. The sump lakes that fill when the delta is full include Lake Ngami and Lake Xao. The system has no connection to the Zambezi system, and thus effectively it has no outflow. The Okavango river enters Botswana at Mohembo (Figure 1) where it is about 90 m wide with depths ranging from 2 to 8 m. This area is known as the panhandle and runs for approximately 100 kms to the south. In the panhandle area there is little extensive floodplain, however the meandering river spills seasonally into a vegetated flood plain up to 16 km wide (Mosepele, 2001). At the downstream limit of the Panhandle (which is not clearly defined) between the villages of Sepopa on the western and Seronga on the eastern margins of the Delta, the Okavango River starts to break out into its primary distributaries, marking the start of the Delta. The annual floods peak in Mohembo between February and April and reach the distal end of the delta in Maun between June and August, five months later (McCarthy, 1992; Giske, 1996).



SOGES

9

1.2 Characterisation of the fish stocks In the past, the Okavango system was connected to the Upper Zambezi drainage basin and its fish fauna can be considered as being part of the Zambezi system, which has some 134 species of fish (Skelton 2001; Ramberg et al. 2006). Of these 86 are found in the Okavango basin and 71 within the Okavango River and Delta below the Popa Rapids of the East Caprivi Strip in Namibia. The Zambezi fauna includes 23 (17%) endemic species, most of which are restricted to the upper Zambezi (Skelton, 2001). There are no endemic species restricted to the Okavango River and Delta below the Popa Rapids. To date, no alien introductions or translocated fish have been reported in the Okavango River and Delta. However, in late 2006, an outbreak of epizootic ulcerative syndrome (EUS) caused by the oomycete (water mould) Aphanomyces invadans, was isolated in fish in the Chobe river (Andrew, et al, in press), and by 2010 the presence of EUS in the Panhandle of the Delta was confirmed. While the disease has its origins in Asia, its appearance in the region is most probably linked to the translocation of fish, possibly for aquaculture or for the ornamental fish trade. Evidently, the appearance of a disease that could only have come from a translocated fish provides a pertinent warning for the potential for alien invasive fauna to become established in the system. Welcomme (1985) asserted that flood plain fish populations undergo inter and intra annual variations that are driven by the hydrological regime. In this regard, Skelton et al. (1985) suggested that the flood regime was the single most important factor that influenced the distribution of fish in the Delta. This assertion was supported by Merron and Bruton (1988) and Merron (1991) who highlighted the critical role that the flood regime plays in the ecology of floodplain fish in the Delta, and Mosepele (2000) who from a fisheries perspective, reported that the longitudinal and lateral fish migrations effected by the variations in the flood regime result in spatio-temporal variations in fish availability.



SOGES

10

Figure 1: The Okavango delta in Botswana (Mosepele, 2011)

The permanent waters of the upper delta, more especially the Okavango Panhandle, support slightly higher fish species diversity and a larger concentration of fishermen than the lower delta. The high flood season in August brings in more fish, when between 6,000 and 12,000 km2

of the Delta is flooded. During the low flood season in December, between 3,000 and 5,000 km2

is flooded. Importantly, the fishing communities that are located along the Okavango Panhandle are less affected by the changing flood levels, as the main stream provides water and associated resources such as fish, reeds and papyrus throughout the year, and it is here that the major fishing effort is found. Nevertheless, Mmopelwa et al (2009) established that there was a negative correlation between the flood regime and fish availability, and that fish availability was based on a „dilution and concentration‟ effect that has been described before for floodplain systems (Welcomme, 2001). Due to this dynamic effect, fish availability / catchability is highest during low floods when fish are „concentrated‟ and lowest during high floods when the fish are dispersed over a wide area and are hence „diluted‟. This assertion has recently been verified by Mosepele (in press) who reviewed catch and effort data, and found that CPUE was lowest



SOGES

11

during the high discharge period of April and May, and peaked in September when discharge rates are at their lowest (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Seasonal catch rates - CPUE expressed as number of fish caught per set and annual discharge (Mosepele in press)

Using cluster analysis, Mosepele (in press) further demonstrated that fish species diversity in gillnet catches are seasonally driven. It was established that in the panhandle, there were five distinct fish community structures based on the seasonal hydrograph (Figure 3), and thus biodiversity in the catches changed markedly over the hydrological cycle (Figure 4). In terms of the fisheries and stock movements, the implications are that fish movements in the delta are intrinsically linked to the hydrological state of the delta, and that lateral fish movements between the main channels, tributaries and floodplains are primarily driven by the flood status. In terms of developing management interventions, cognisance needs to be taken of the highly dynamic nature of the fish movements within the system.



SOGES

12

Figure 3: Variations in species diversity as a function of the seasonal flood pulse in the Okavango Delta where letters a – e illustrate months grouped together on the basis of similarity analysis (Mosepele in press)

Figure 4: Intra annual variations in catch composition (Mosepele, in press)



SOGES

13

2 Synoptic review of the fisheries The Okavango fishery is characterised as a multi-species fishery that is exploited by five principal fishing methods, viz., hook and line, gillnet fishermen, baskets, spears and traps. The resource is exploited by three principal fisher groups: the artisanal or subsistence fishers, the commercial, and the recreational fishers. Typically the artisanal or subsistence fishers use traditional fishing methods such as hook and line, baskets, and to a lesser extent spears and traps, and exploit the resource as a mechanism with which to provide food security to their families. The artisanal fishery is a multi-species fishery characterised by a high diversity of fish that are caught (Section 2.2). In contrast, the commercial fishers primarily use gillnets and, to a lesser extent, hook and lines and powered boats; they sell their catch for profit. These fishers primarily target the large tilapias (Section 2.1). Finally, the recreational fishers that comprise the local and tourist sport fishers use hook and line to primarily target the large tilapias and the tigerfish (Section 2.3). The following section provides a brief description of the three fisheries.

2.1 The commercial fishery The commercial fishery in the Okavango was initiated in the early 1980s with the introduction of gillnets and powered boats (Nengu, 1995). The initial development of the fishery was a government supported intervention. The advent of cattle lung disease in the early 1980s resulted in significant negative impacts to livelihoods in the region, and the development of the commercial fishery was promoted as a mechanism with which to diversify livelihood options. During this early period of the fishery, the government provided grants and credit schemes such as the Agricultural Extension Small Projects Programme (AE10), later replaced by the Financial Assistance Policy (FAP), to encourage fishermen and fisher groups / syndicates to finance their projects and operations (Mmopelwa et al., 2005). During the early years of the fishery, the government provided training on gear technology and post-harvest preservation (Norfico, 1986; Nengu, 1995), and secured a market for the fishermen for dry salted fish that was distributed via the Food Resources Department (FRD) to groups within the region (Skjønsberg and Merafe, 1987). In the early 1990s the market for dry and salted fish collapsed and with the assistance of the Fisheries Division and funding from the Financial Assistance Policy (FAP), the fishers procured freezing equipment and switched from a dry / salted product to frozen products (Mosepele, 2000). The market for frozen product continues to this day with three syndicates currently using freezer facilities to assist in the marketing and distribution of their products (Section 4.2.2.4).

Over the years, estimates of the number of commercial fishermen have varied between 63 to over 600 in the mid 1980s (Norfico, 1986; Anon, 1989; Silitsena and McLeod, 1989) to a core of 41 fishers in the late 1990s / early 2000s (Mosepele, 2001a). More recently, the 2005 frame survey reported that there were 85 commercial fishers in the Delta (Bokhutlo et al, 2007).

The principal species that are caught in the fishery are three-spot tilapia (Oreochromis andersonii), the greenhead tilapia (O.macrochir), the large-mouth speckle-face tilapia (Serranochromis angusticeps), the red-breast tilapia (Tilapia rendalli), the sharp-tooth catfish (Clarias gariepinus), the blunt-tooth catfish (C. ngamensis) and the tigerfish (Hydrocynus vittatus) (Figure 5; Merron and Bruton, 1988; Mosepele 2000, 2001a; Mosepele et al, 2003; Mosepele and Kolding, 2003). As there are cultural taboos associated with the consumption of the Clarias spp. and



SOGES

14

the tigerfish, resulting in low demand for these species, the Oreochromis spp. and the Tilapias spp. are the preferred catch.

Figure 5: The main target species that are caught in the Commercial gillnet fishery – Index of Relative importance (IRI) (Mosepele et al., 2003)

2.2 The artisanal fishery The artisanal fishery employs the greatest number of fishers in the Delta, and of the 2703 fishers that were recorded in the 2005 frame survey, 97% (or 2622) fishers were described as artisanal (Bokhutlo et al, 2007). The artisanal fishers use multiple gears including hook and line, baskets, barrage traps, and until the advent of the 2008 fishing regulations, mosquito nets. Despite the high numbers of fishers involved in the fishery, harvests are low at approximately 270 tons per annum (Mosepele, 2001), equating to approximately 102 kg / fisher / annum.

Mosepele and Ngwenga (2006) characterised the socio-economic status of the artisanal fishers in the Delta and established that 51% of households were headed by a single parent, the majority of whom were female. They further demonstrated that 29% of the fisher households have a child between the ages of 0 to 60 months, and 27% of the households have two children between the ages of 5 and 10 years old. The average household size was seven individuals. The level of formal education in the fisher population was low with 35% reporting that they had received no formal education, and a further 40% indicating that they had only received primary school education. The relatively low level of education is manifested in low employment levels with 88% of individuals indicating that they had no formal employment. Asset levels were low with 48% of households living in traditional houses in poor repair, 81% reporting that they had no toilet facilities, and 92% relying on wood as a fuel



SOGES

15

source. With respect to alternative livelihood options, while 83% of fishers owned arable land, only 38% reported having cattle. A further 82% of the respondents indicated that they did not sell crops, indicating that they were producing for home consumption. Taken as a whole, the subsistence fishers represent a relatively poor and marginalised group in society. The fish resource has important implications on food security. In the Panhandle, Ngwenya and Mosepele (2008) established that over 80% of the artisanal fisher households provide at least half of their subsistence, and about 15% feed themselves completely with fish. Furthermore in terms of income generation, fish provides a means of bartering and accessing goods and services in the informal sector. In their survey, Ngwenya and Mosepele (2008) found that over 39% of subsistence fishers sell fish in the village, 8.6% own a fish stall, and 38% barter their fish for goods and services. In terms of the value of the fish that is traded, Ngwenya and Mosepele (2008) established that the income generated by the sale of fish varied between P3 to < P1,000 a month, and concluded that since returns are relatively low they probably had little impact on household standards of living except by providing a small, likely seasonal, income and a reliable source of protein, especially in hard times, and furthermore that incomes derived from fishing are unlikely to be sufficient to invest in other capital goods such as improved housing or sanitation, or to affect the rates of formal or informal savings. The artisanal fishery is a multi-species fishery with a large number of target species. Moselepe et al (2003) analysed the catches from the fishery, and calculated Indices of Relative Importance (IRI) to describe the species composition of the catches. It was established when all gears were included in the analysis, O. andersoni, and T. rendalli were the major target species by weight, and that in terms of numbers O. andersoni was the most important target species (Figure 6). The Banded tilapia (Tilapia sparmanni) is the most important species in the basket fishery (Figure 7), The three-spot bream (Oreochromis andersonni) is the most important species in the hook and line fishery (Figures 8), and Johnstonni‟s topminnow (Aplocheilichthys johnstoni) is the most important species in mosquito nets (Figure 9).



SOGES

16

Figure 6: The main target species that are caught in the artisanal fishery – all fishing gears (Mosepele et al., 2003)

Figure 7: The main target species that are caught in the artisanal fishery – Basket fishers (Mosepele et al., 2003)



SOGES

17

Figure 8: The main target species that are caught in the artisanal fishery – hook and line fishers (Mosepele et al., 2003)

Figure 9: The main target species that are caught in the artisanal fishery – mosquito net fishers (Mosepele et al., 2003)



SOGES

18

2.3 The recreational fishery In comparison with the commercial fishery, relatively little research has been undertaken to establish the scale in the recreational fishery, catch trends and the impact that the fishery has on the resource, and the economic viability and value of the fishery. While recreational permits are required to access the resource, these can either be bought on an individual basis or by the tourist fishing lodges, which in turn are permitted to let their clients access the fishery. Under the Fish Protection Regulations (1998), the recreational fishers are allowed to keep a maximum of five fish per day, but are not required to submit catch returns to the Fisheries Division. The only fishers that are required to submit catch returns are those fishers that are involved in fishing tournaments. Furthermore, the fishing lodges are also not required to inform the Fisheries Division of the numbers of recreational fishers that they take into the Delta. As there is no legal requirement or incentive for the tourist lodges or individual fishers to record their catch and effort data, this information is currently not recorded. In the absence of this data it is difficult to assess the current status of the fishery. Nevertheless, it is reported that the majority of the fishers in the recreational fishery practice catch and release, and thus the impact on the resource is likely to be negligible. The recreational fishery primarily targets the tigerfish (Hydrocynus vittatus) and the larger breams (Serranochromis robustus, Oreochromis andersonii, Tilapia rendalli, Figure 10 (Mosepele et al 2003).

Figure 10: The main target species that are caught in the recreational fishery (Mosepele, et al., 2003).

The recreational fishing industry is primarily based in the Panhandle where the majority of the tigerfishing occurs in the main channel, with the breams being



SOGES

19

targeted in both the channels and the lagoons. The main fishing season runs from around April to September, with October to September usually being the busiest months. It should be noted that some operators will take fishers out throughout the year, and while the closed season naturally falls during the low season, there will likely be some economic impact on not being able to take fishers onto the water. With respect to the economic value of the fishery, there is no information pertaining to the economic contribution that the fishery makes to the country, either in terms of receipts to the fiscus or the socio–economic contribution that it makes in terms of providing direct employment opportunities in the fishery (e.g. boat drivers, guides etc) or indirect employment opportunities (e.g. lodge employees, tourist service providers etc.). Nevertheless there are at least five fishing lodges in the Panhandle area and one houseboat tour operator that specialises in catering for recreational fishers. In the absence of an economic assessment of the fishery, one of the lodges that primarily caters for the recreational fishers was approached to provide a very broad indication of the value of their operations to the local economy. It was established that during 2010, the company had taken receipts for accommodation (attributed to fishers staying) of approximately P2.4 million, and a further P680, 000 for boat trips to take fishers onto the water. In terms of revenues to the local community, the establishment employs a staff of 35, and pays an annual wage bill in the region of P1 million. Evidently, the business makes a significant contribution to the local economy, and as such the value of the recreational fishery needs to be considered in terms of the wider community benefits that it creates. It is evident that there is growing community interest in the livelihood and economic opportunities offered by the recreational / tourist value chain and to some extent the community is starting to move along these lines. The Ngarange Pilot project that is sponsored by the Biokavango programme provides a good example of a community driven programme that is designed to tap into the tourism / recreational fishing value chain.

3 Current status of the resources

3.1 Fishing pressure and effort While the artisanal fishery generates the highest fishing effort in the Okavango delta, the commercial gillnet fishery generates the highest annual yield (Mosepele et al, 2003). The large number of gear types and fishing behaviors in the fishery suggest that taken as a whole, fishers target different segments of the fish community structure, hence making them complementary. Artisanal fishing gear (fishing baskets, mesh and traps) primarily targets r–selected species. These are a small sized species that have short generation periods and reproduce rapidly making them resilient to fishing pressure. The gillnet fishery, traditional hook and line fishers and the recreational fishery targets k–selected species. These are bigger species that have longer generation periods and are possibly less reliant to fishing pressure. Nevertheless, Merron (1991) noted that Cichlids that are targeted principally by modern gears such as gillnets have been observed to change their life history strategies, making them more resilient to fishing pressure. As the artisanal fishery targets species with life history strategies that allow for high fishing pressure, the fishery is expected to have minimal impact on not only fish biomass, but also on fish biodiversity (Mosepele et al 2003). This being the case, the following analysis on fishing effort primarily focuses on the commercial fishers as they are the ones that are targeting the k-selected species whose population numbers and biomass are more likely to be negatively affected by fishing pressure. Unfortunately there is no data available to characterize the fishing effort in the recreational fishery.



SOGES

20

The 1997 and 2005 frame surveys estimated that there were 3243 and 2703 fishers in the Okavango fishery respectively (Mosepele, 2001; Bokhutlo et al., 2007), representing a 17% decline in fishers during this period. While the decline in fisher numbers could be attributed to any number of factors, it is interesting to note that the number of commercial fishers would appear to have doubled over this period. The 1997 frame survey reported a total of 44 commercial fishers, a figure that rose to 85 in the 2005 census. In the 1997 census, a commercial fisher was classified as a gillnet fisher with an established fishing business, in the 2005 frame survey, the definition of a commercial fisher was expanded to include any fisher that caught fish solely for sale using any kind of fishing method. The revised definition would have included hook and line fishers that fish solely for sale, and could have contributed to the increase in the number of recorded commercial fishers (Bokhutlo et al., 2007). In this regard it is also interesting to note that the number of gillnets in the fishery decreased from 1410 to 1314, a reduction of 7% (Table 1). While the reduction in the number of gillnets in the fishery would suggest that there is reduction of effort in this fishery, it is interesting to note that the mesh size of the gillnets has also decreased. In 1997, 19% of the nets were in the 125-150mm mesh size, a figure that had dropped to 4.5% by 2005, indicating that some of the fishers were targeting slightly smaller fish. Table 1: Total number and percentage of gillnets by mesh size

1997 1 2005 2

Mesh size 3

Total number

Percentage Total number

Percentage

50 - 63 46 3.3 62 4.7 75 116 8.2 77 5.9

100 465 33 716 54.5 115 515 36.5 400 30.4 125 257 18.2 59 4.5 150 11 0.8 0 0

Total

1410

1314

1 1997 Frame survey data (Mosepele, 2001)

2 2005 Frame survey data (Bokhutlo et al, 2007)

3 mm stretched mesh

With respect to the number of boats in the fishery, they increased from 589 in 1997 to 975 in 2005 representing an increase of 65%. The increase in boat numbers was primarily attributed to a doubling of the number of dugout canoes from 376 to 779, and a doubling of the number of aluminium boats from 45 to 80. The number of fibreglass boats fell from 168 to just 29. Unfortunately the data does not distinguish between those boats that are used in the recreational, commercial or artisanal fisheries. The number of engines increased from 45 to 75, suggesting that the number of motorized vessels in the fishery is increasing, possibly suggesting that the commercial fishers are increasing the scope of their fishing activities.



SOGES

21

Table 2: Total number of boats and percentage by boat type

1997 1

2005 2

Boat type Total number

Percentage Total number

Percentage

Dugout canoe 376 63.8 779 80.0

Fibreglass canoe

Not specified 0

87 8.9

Fibreglass boat 168 28.5 29 3.0

Aluminium boat 45 7.6 80 8.2

Total

589

975

Engines (#) 45 75 1

1997 Frame survey data (Mosepele, 2001) 2

2005 Frame survey data (Bokhutlo et al, 2007)

3.2 Catch rates Mosepele (In press) analysed CPUE data from fisher records from the commercial gillnet fishery and established that between 1998 and 2005 there has been no reduction in CPUE in the fishery (Figure 11). While the analysis was based on the numbers of fish caught per gillnet and not on fish weight per se, it suggests that catch rates have not been negatively affected by the net fishery. Similar data has been presented by Kgathi et al (2005), who demonstrated that CPUE data, presented as tons/fisherman/annum had remained stable between 1996-2002 (Figure 12), also suggesting that there has been no significant decline in the stock abundance. Nevertheless, the DWNP catch data from their experimental gillnet surveys suggests that since 2006, there has been a significant decrease in CPUE across their sample sites. However, in the absence of increased fishing pressure, and taking into consideration that these years correspond to an increase in discharge rates, the drop in CPUE is most likely attributable to the dilution effect outlined in Section 1.1 (Merron 2001, Mosepele in press), and not overfishing.



SOGES

22

Figure 11: Temporal variations in catch rates (no/ set) of fishers catches from the Okavango Delta fishery based on daily catch and effort data 1998-2005

Figure 12: CPUE in the gillnet fishery 1996-2002 (Kagathi et al., 2005)



SOGES

23

While stability in the CPUE data over time suggests that there has been no significant change in the fish abundance over time, and that the fish stocks are not being “fished down”, Mosepele (In press) further reported that there have been no significant changes in species diversity, in the mean length of the key commercial species, or in the species composition in the fish community of the Delta‟s Panhandle. It should be noted that while Mosepele‟s analysis focused on the fish stocks in the Panhandle, catch data pertaining to the fish stocks in the Southern part of the Delta and the recently filled Lake Ngami are either unavailable, or the data has not been assessed. Nevertheless, as there are fewer fishers and fishing pressures are reportedly lower in the southern part of the Delta (Mr Nkile, DWNP, pers. com.), it is reasonable to suggest that the fish stocks in these areas are also likely to be in a good condition. Furthermore, Lake Ngami is a large shallow lake that accommodates much of the overspill from the Delta. As a shallow temporary system, it is likely to be highly productive, and can in all likelihood withstand significant fishing pressure.

Diagnostic Comparisons between the 1997 and 2005 frame surveys suggest that overall the number of fishers in the Delta has decreased; however, there appear to have been some structural changes to the commercial fishery in terms of an increase in motorised vessels, a reduction in the number of gillnets and a slight reduction in the size of the gillnets used. Nevertheless, CPUE data suggests that there has been no significant change in fish abundance over time. Furthermore there have been no significant changes in species diversity, in the mean length of the key commercial species, or in the species composition in the fish community of the Delta‟s Panhandle, suggesting that the resource is in a healthy condition, and that the current fishing regime is not adversely affecting the stock status.

4 Diagnostic analysis

4.1 Legislative Framework While Botswana has developed an impressive array of legislative, policy and regulatory tools with which to manage the country‟s natural resources, the fisheries sector has to date received rather limited attention. Currently, fisheries is legislated under the outdated Fish Protection Act (Act 42 of 1975), and regulated under the Fish Protection Regulations (2008). To date, no fisheries policy has been developed, and thus the biological, economic and social objectives for the country‟s fish resources remain undefined. In this regard it is essential that a policy is formulated to guide the future development of regulations, governance structures and management planning processes. While permitting regulations have been in place since 1998, the fishery essentially remains an open access, common pool resource. In the absence of a set of clearly defined user rights, some stakeholders have been marginalised. Marginalisation has manifested itself as losses to property rights, the denial of access and the de facto privatisation of the resource, or as conflict. For example, in the southern part of the Delta, Moseple (2006) cites the weak legal framework in the Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) and the Controlled Hunting Areas (CHAs) as being problematic as the tourist operators claim exclusive rights to the fish resources within their concessions. The tour operators base their arguments for exclusive access to the resources on the tourism policy (Government of Botswana, 1990), which confers de jure rights within the concessions (DWNP, 2000), except in situations where citizens have de facto rights. In contrast, in the Panhandle, the lack



SOGES

24

of clearly defined user rights has lead to conflict between the recreational fishers and the commercial gillnet fishers (Nengu, 1995; Bills, 1996; Ramberg and van der Waal, 1997) who view themselves as competing for the same resource, blaming one another for restricting access, and the depletion of the resources. The following section provides a brief synoptic review of the most important legislation that relates to fisheries governance in the country.

4.1.1 The Fish Protection Act (Act 42 of 1975) The Fish Protection Act (Act 42 of 1975) provides the overarching legislative framework within which fisheries operate and are managed in the country. Concomitant with many other countries‟ fisheries legislation, it is geared more towards control than development. The Act makes provision for the Minister to make regulations, and thus the Minister is empowered to set the fishing seasons, licensing and registration conditions, and fee structures, and regulate the trade of fish. Gear types can be controlled and the movement of fish into and within the country‟s borders regulated. In addition, exemptions to any of the regulations may be granted at the Minister‟s discretion. The Act prohibits the use of poisonous or explosive substances in the fishery, and provides powers of entry, seizure and arrest. In terms of compliance, the Act allows for fines not exceeding P500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months, or both. Setting upper limits on fine structures is problematic in this type of legislation as over time, inflationary pressures tend to devalue their deterrent effect. While a fine of P500 may have proved effective in 1975, in 2011, the fine equates to the sale of just 25kg of fish (@P20 /kg). The fish regulations of 2008 are restricted by these upper limits, and provide little deterrence to offenders, making effective compliance problematic (Mr Nkile, DWNP Maun, pers. com.).

4.1.2 The Fish Protection Regulations (2008) The Fisheries Regulations (2008) are the first set of regulations that have been developed to regulate the fisheries in Botswana, and prior to their promulgation in 2008, the fisheries were effectively unregulated. The regulations provide the framework for licensing the fisheries. Licences are required by the commercial gillnet fishers, the recreational fishers, recreational fishing tournament operators, and gillnet importers and distributers. The artisanal fishers do not require licences. The drafting of regulations were the result of a consultative process between the fisher communities and amongst other conditions, provide for the prohibition of certain fishing practices (e.g. night fishing, seining, the use of mosquito nets), a closed season, restricting fish movements, and the collection of catch data. While an analysis of the management issues that accrue to these regulations is provided in Section 4.3, it is important to note that the current regulations effectively maintain the fishery as an open access fishery. In terms of licensing, there are no restrictions on the number of entrants into the commercial or recreational fisheries, nor do the regulations explicitly allow for the control of effort.



SOGES

25

4.1.3 Community Based Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) Policy The CBNRM policy aims to actively engage communities in natural resource conservation by providing them with a framework that enables them to earn tangible benefits from sustainable natural resource management. The policy establishes the institutional, regulatory and participatory framework within which natural user rights can be devolved to communities, and provides guidance on CBNRM implementation. While fisheries are not explicitly mentioned in the policy, the policy provides useful insight into how communities could access and manage their local resources. In terms of fisheries management, the policy provides for Community Based Organisations (CBO) to be provided with rights to control access and enforce exclusion, and allows for 15 year community natural resource management leases to be granted to communities, with natural resource user rights being granted to communities within defined lease areas. While government would ultimately be responsible for regulating resource use and may set quotas on resource use, they have the responsibility of providing support to communities (e.g. mentoring and extension services). Evidently, in terms of fisheries management, the policy fosters co-management, and would technically enable fisher communities to set up CBOs to manage the fish resources in a given area, be that for commercial, artisanal or recreational purposes.

4.1.4 The Draft Wildlife Policy The draft wildlife policy is designed to provide the framework for conservation, sustainable resource use and the management of wildlife and biodiversity resources in the country. The policy focuses on generating development benefits for communities, and maintaining the country‟s biodiversity. In terms of the country‟s wildlife resources, the policy advocates for land uses and categories to be distinguished, defined and gazetted. In terms of the country‟s aquatic resources, these are identified as: 1) Important Fish Areas: those being key habitats for fish that require protection and management; 2) Transfrontier Conservation Areas: for the management of natural resources that straddle international boundaries – this would include the wider Okavango River system; and 3) Wetland ecosystems: those areas with potential for aquatic species conservation, fishing/aquaculture and recreation. The policy compliments the CBNRM policy in that it advocates the development of CBNRM systems and the co-management of resources, and the promotion of economic instruments for nature based tourism. The policy will be implemented through a participatory, decentralised institutional framework with some responsibilities being devolved to the private sector and communities.

4.1.5 Code of Conduct for responsible fishing in the Okavango Delta The code of conduct was developed by the Okavango Fisheries Management Committee (OFMC, Section 4.2.2.2). In many respects the development of the code was a landmark agreement that has reduced conflict between the commercial and recreational fishers, and provides a good example of co-management and conflict resolution. The code of conduct comprises 10 actions that have been collectively agreed upon to reduce conflicts between fisher groups. The code includes restrictions on fishing in the vicinity of the tourist lodges, no-wake zones, rights of way, prohibiting unsociable practices such as littering, camp fires and the use of alcohol on the water, marking nets, the submission of catch returns and compliance with the fisheries regulations of 2008. The code is not legally binding, and thus it is at present not possible to legally enforce the code.



SOGES

26

4.1.6 Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP, 2008)

The Okavango Delta Management Plan has been developed to promote integrated resource management throughout the delta. The ultimate goal of the plan is the sustainable use of the Delta‟s natural resources, aligning interventions with national development goals as articulated through the District Development Plans and National Development Plans as well as Vision 2016. The plan was designed to align sector policies, legislation, and strategies such that the long-term ecological functioning of the Delta was ensured. The plan takes a holistic approach to managing the Delta‟s natural resources; thus while some of the key strategic actions and issues identified in the plan address key fisheries issues, many others are cross-cutting in nature. It is important that the current project takes into consideration the objectives of the ODMP and integrates them into the fisheries management planning process. In this regard, the fisheries management plan that is being developed in this programme was originally designed to be one the main deliverables of the ODMP. However, the Fish Stock Assessment Report was incomplete during the timeframe in which the ODMP was being developed, and thus the development of the fisheries management plan had to be delayed. In this regard, the three key fisheries issues, strategic actions, and proposed activities that are identified in the plan and the current outcomes relate to: 1. An inadequacy of the base line data on fish stocks in the system. The proposed activity is for the DWNP to develop and implement a fish stock monitoring programme. To date the objective of setting up a programme has been achieved, is ongoing, and Mr Mosepele (ORC) will shortly be publishing a stock assessment on the fisheries resources in the Delta. It should be noted that the DWNP‟s long-term monitoring programme of the delta fisheries needs to be reviewed as a component of the Fisheries Management Plan (Section 4.2.1.4). 2. Manpower capacity of the fisheries division needs to be improved. The proposed action was for the DWNP to improve the manpower capacity in the Fisheries Division by 2012. To date, there has been some work done to improve training at the Fisheries Division, however, training levels remain problematic, and the issues need to be addressed further in the Fisheries Management Plan. 3. The long-standing problem of fisheries conflicts needs to be resolved. The proposed activity is for the DWNP to put in place fishery conflict resolution mechanisms. In many respects this objective has been achieved by the support that has been provided to the Okavango Fishers Association (OFA) and the Okavango Fisheries Management Committee (OFMC). However, continued support will need to be provided to these organisations, and particularly the OFA, to ensure long-term sustainability. Such support mechanisms need to be outlined in the Fisheries Management Plan. Other key strategic actions that were identified in the management plan that are not directly related to the Fisheries Division or fisheries per se but are cross-cutting in nature include: 1. The management of channel blockages to sustain communities’ access to livelihood activities. Interventions in this area would open up fishing grounds to fishers as lagoons would become accessible.



SOGES

27

2. Traditional access rights to natural resources in concession areas need to be upheld. Interventions in this area would assist fishers to access fish resources that are reportedly being denied them by some tourist operators in the southern part of the Delta. 3. The human/wildlife conflicts continue to be a problem. DWNP needs to assess and mitigate the human/wildlife conflicts. Interventions in this area could reduce the conflict between fishers and crocodiles that currently damage their nets. 4. There is a need to build the capacity of communities for delivering management and promoting the sustainable use of natural resources. The continued support to the OFA and OFMC has started to address these issues. Continued institutional support is required to promote co-management of the fisheries resources. In terms of alignment, it is clearly essential that the fisheries management plan that is developed aligns itself with the goals of the ODMP.

Diagnostic

Botswana has developed an impressive array of legislative, policy and regulatory tools with which it can manage the Nation‟s natural resources. While the Fish Protection Act of 1975 is now outdated and will likely be replaced with provisions included in the new Wildlife Act, the country does not currently have a Fisheries Policy. The draft Wildlife policy should be used to guide the development of a new Fisheries Policy. It is essential that a policy is formulated that will guide the future development of regulations, governance structures and management planning processes. Notwithstanding the absence of a fisheries policy, the country has developed a comprehensive set of other policies that inform fisheries development. Principally these include the Wildlife and the CBNRM policies. Amongst other issues, these policies provide the framework for an ecosystems approach to resource management, co-management and the devolution of governance responsibilities to the communities, the promotion of CBNRM management systems, and the inclusion of the private sector in the sustainable management of the country‟s natural resources. These policy objectives, while not explicitly focusing on fisheries, provide a suitable framework within which to move away from the traditional top-down, regulatory approach to fisheries management, to a more socially relevant and equitable fisheries management paradigm based on the principles of co-management. In this regard, the development of the stakeholder-driven fisheries code of conduct that has been adopted by the various fisher groups is an encouraging development, and importantly provides the basis for further developing cooperative fisheries management in the Delta.



SOGES

28

4.2 Institutional Framework

4.2.1 National Institutions

4.2.1.1 Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) The Fisheries Division of the Department of Wildlife and National Parks in the Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism is the government agency that is responsible for fisheries management in the country. The Division‟s head office is in Gaborone, with regional offices that have management responsibility for the Delta based in Maun and Shakawe. Maun The Maun office of the DWNP: Fisheries Division is a regional fisheries office that is responsible for the Districts in the North West of the country. The office has a staff complement of eight, comprising three wildlife biologists (one on study leave), one technical assistant, and four senior wildlife scouts who are responsible for undertaking fisheries extension work and compliance. One of the officers is currently on study leave to study for a Masters Degree in Fisheries Science. The Maun office is equipped with one computer, and one working boat, and an unspecified number of additional boats in various states of repair. The Maun office is responsible for supervising the operations at the Shakawe office, collating the fisheries data that is collected from the fishers and the monthly fish resource monitoring programme. Shakawe The Shakawe office of the DWNP: Fisheries Division is the local fisheries office that is responsible for the Okavango District. The office has a staff complement of four based at Shakawe and six field staff. Two of the staff at the Shakawe office have received tertiary education in the biological sciences. The staff complement based at Shakawe comprises a Senior Wildlife Warden, Wildlife Officer, Wildlife Warden and a wildlife scout. Field-based personnel comprise an assistant wildlife warden based at Seronga, and five field assistants based at Seronga, Ngarange, Sepopa, Etsha 13 and Kauhwi. The field assistants are equipped with boats and small 25hp engines, and with the exception of one boat, all are currently in working order. In contrast, the main office at Shakawe has one 25hp boat that is operable, and one 60hp boat that is currently inoperable.

4.2.1.2 Staff deployment The primary tasks that are undertaken by the departmental personnel include the permitting of fishers, compliance, extension, collecting and collating catch and effort data from the commercial fishers, and fisheries survey and extension work. From discussions with the senior staff at the Maun and Shakawe offices (Mr Nkile, DWNP, pers com.) it is apparent that much of the responsibility for the primary interaction with the fishing communities in the upper panhandle area falls to the field assistants who are based in the major fishing villages. Prior to deployment, the field assistants are supposed to undertake a two year fisheries vocational course at Maun; however in practice, many have not been trained, or have received minimal training (Mr S. Nengu, DWNP, pers. com.) The field assistants are primarily tasked with the collection of the catch records from the fishers, extension work that involves educating the community about the fishing regulations, teaching basic fishing techniques, repairing fishing equipment, and basic fish hygiene and processing.



SOGES

29

Since the advent of the 2008 fishing regulations they have also had to assume responsibility for compliance activities in their respective areas. Providing both extension services to fishers and being responsible for enforcing compliance with the fishing regulations clearly puts these people in an unenviable position, and it is difficult for them to execute their mandate - a position that is complicated by the isolation of their postings. It has been reported that many of the field assistants are not being effective (Mr Nkile, DWNP pers, com.), and in this regard, they are currently being moved out of the villages, and will in future be based in Shakawe, Seronga and Maun. While the redeployment will inevitably impact the level of extension and compliance activities in the Panhandle area, there is also a clear need to review the rationale behind deploying people in the field as both extension and compliance personnel.

4.2.1.3 Compliance operations Currently, undertaking regular compliance operations is problematic for the Fisheries Division. The main office in Maun has one working boat that can be used for compliance, while the office in Shakawe has one operational boat and a further 5 boats that are operated by the field assistants in the panhandle. The 60hp compliance boat that is based at Shakawe has not been operational for over a year. It is reasonable to suggest that compliance activities in the Panhandle are better resourced than those in the Southern part of the Delta; however, it would appear that the boats that are deployed generally use 25hp outboard motors. While these may be effective in monitoring the subsistence and commercial fishers, they are unlikely to be effective in monitoring the recreational / tourist lodges that generally have more powerful boats.

4.2.1.4 Fisheries monitoring The DWNP is the responsible organ of state that is mandated to monitor the fisheries. Fisheries monitoring is currently undertaken at three levels, viz, catch returns, frame surveys and monthly fish surveys. Creel surveys are supposed to be undertaken on a monthly basis; however, these are not being done due to logistical and staffing problems. Catch returns Monitoring catch returns is the primary mechanism with which the DWNP monitors the catch in the Delta. In this regard, the Second Schedule of the Fish Protection Regulations (2008) requires all commercial fishers to submit monthly catch records (recorded daily). The Eleventh Schedule that relates to the provision of a permit for a recreational competition also requires the submission of catch returns. A recreational lodge fishing permit issued under Schedule Eight does not require catch returns to be submitted. The reason that the recreational fishers / lodges do not have to submit catch returns appears to be an anomaly, and means that, with the exception of the recreational fishing competitions, the DWNP is not collecting any data from this fishery. Equally, as the subsistence fishers do not require licences, catch data from this fishery is also not being collected. While catch returns provide useful data for fisheries managers to assess fishing pressure, it is important that the information is reliably recorded. In this regard it has been reported that there are logistical difficulties in collecting the catch returns, that they are often submitted late to the fishery officers, or that the forms are often incomplete, or lacking accurate data. Interestingly, the integrity of this data has recently been put into question by Mosepele (in press) who, in his stock assessment



SOGES

30

of the Delta‟s resources, discarded the weight records that had been submitted in the catch returns as they were deemed to be unreliable, and only used the total numbers of fish caught to calculate catch rates. In light of the poor quality of the data that is being collected from the catch returns and the level of effort that the DWNP is placing on collecting this data, it would be advisable for the Department to re-assess and possibly modify the data collection system. Frame Surveys Frame surveys can be used to provide an indication of the available effort in a fishery. Amongst others, the parameters that are usually surveyed and quantified would include the demographics and number of participants in the fishery, vessel and gear types, their use, and the spatial distribution of fishing effort, landing sites, and marketing and distribution networks. Over time they are useful in terms of monitoring changes in the fishery. The last frame survey of the delta fisheries was undertaken in 2005, and there is little long term information that characterises the number of fishers and fishing gears in use. Mosepele and Ngwenya (2010) reviewed various sources that provided different estimates of the total number of fishers in the fisheries from the mid 1970s to the late 1990s; however, as disparate studies they will have used different survey techniques, thus comparisons are problematic and no reliable long-term data exists. Consideration should be given to reviewing the issue of frame surveys by the DWNP and possibly undertaking regular standardised frame surveys (e.g. annual, biennial, every five years) to enable the DWNP to accurately assess the levels of participation and effort in the fisheries. This would enable the Department to monitor changes in the fishery, and update their management regimes accordingly. Monthly fish surveys Since 1999, the DWNP has undertaken monthly fish surveys in the Upper Panhandle. Four sites have been selected for these surveys, viz, Seronga, Ngarange, Guma and Qaro. In the lower part of the Delta, an additional four sites have been selected; these comprise Chanoga, Motopi, Makalamabedi and Lake Ngami. Data collection requires the deployment of four fisheries officers / field assistants from Maun (Mr Nkile, DWNP, Maun pers. com.), and another four from Shakawe. Multi-panel research gillnets (12 - 150mm mesh) that are designed to catch a range of species and size classes are deployed overnight for a period of up to 12 hrs. The data recorded includes mesh size, CPUE, species, length / weight and gonad state. The data is recorded on a PASGAER system1, and quarterly reports are produced. While the data provides basic biological information and potentially useful information on the status of the fishery, there is minimal capacity at the Department to interrogate the data and integrate the findings into management decision-making processes. In practice, the capacity to analyse this data lies with the researchers at the Okavango Research Institute, and while this data is made available to them (Mosopele, ORI, pers. com.), the data is not being used for management per se, but rather research, which may or may not feed into the management decision-making processes. Concomitant with all National Departments, DWNP has finite resources and the monthly survey requires the allocation of significant human and financial effort. In light of the fact that the data is not being used for management purposes, it would be

1 PASGEAR 2 is a customised data base package primarily intended for experimental or artisanal

fishery data. It is a tool that neatly and quickly lets you store and analyse fishery data from various

survey designs



SOGES

31

appropriate to review and assess the rationale for continuing the survey in its current form, and in particular the need to undertake the sampling on a monthly basis. In terms of assessing the future needs, it should be noted that long-term monitoring data of this nature is useful in terms of characterising long-term changes in the fishery, and thus while it may be appropriate to change the sampling period (e.g. quarterly, half or annual period), it would be unwise to terminate the survey in its entirety.

4.2.1.5 Other DWNP Agencies Law Enforcement Unit (DWNP) In addition to the compliance activities that are undertaken by the Fisheries Division, there is also a regional DWNP law enforcement unit that is designed to address compliance issues for all the DWNP. It would appear that the major focus of this unit is to address terrestrial compliance issues and thus, while the unit may address fisheries compliance issues as and when they arise, they do not actively involve themselves in fisheries compliance operations (Mr S. Nengu, pers. com.) and evidently, the responsibility for fisheries compliance falls to the Fisheries Division. Research Division (DWNP) The research division is mandated to undertake and coordinate research for the DWNP. Unfortunately the focus of the research division would appear to be on terrestrial issues and they have no fisheries research capacity. At present the division is not assisting the Fisheries Division to carry out their mandate, and effectively the responsibility for research and monitoring of the fish stocks falls to the Fisheries Division.

Diagnostic

The Fisheries Division in the DWNP is relatively under resourced in terms of the number of personnel that are employed. The primary tasks that are undertaken by the departmental personnel include the permitting of fishers, compliance, extension, collecting and collating catch and effort data from the commercial fishers, fisheries survey work, and extension work. The division is responsible for all levels of fisheries management in the Delta and gets little assistance from other Divisions within the DWNP such as the Research and Compliance Divisions. Considerable financial and human resources are currently allocated to the monthly research surveys that are not informing management per se, and the rationale for their continuation needs to be assessed in terms of optimising resource allocation within the department. Staff training is clearly an issue and, while some of the staff at the regional offices have degrees in the biological sciences, there are currently no trained fisheries scientists stationed in the Delta. Staff training at all levels of fisheries management and extension would greatly increase the efficacy of the organisation. It is evident that the Division operates under some financial constraints which limit its ability to carry out its mandate. Most notably the lack of suitable transport to operate effective compliance operations appears to be an issue. Furthermore, the Division is not equipped to facilitate the community development mandate that is envisaged in the draft Wildlife Policy.



SOGES

32

4.2.2 Local Institutions in the Delta 4.2.2.1 The Okavango Research Institute, the University of Botswana The Okavango Research Institute, formerly the Harry Oppenheimer Research Centre, based at the University of Botswana, Maun, has significant research capabilities that could potentially be co-opted by the Fisheries Division to assist them in managing their research needs. Demonstrably, Mr Keta Mosepele who has worked for the Fisheries Division in the past, and is now a respected authority on the fish resources in the Delta would be central to establishing such a cooperative approach. While Mr Mosepele has recently completed the stock assessment of the delta resources for the Fisheries Division and periodically analyses the results from the Division‟s sampling programme, there is no formal Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) or formal linkages between the two organisations.

4.2.2.2 Okavango Fisheries Management Committee (OFMC) The Okavango Fisheries Management committee was set up in 1996 to provide a forum to assist in the management of the fisheries resources in the delta and to reduce conflict between the various stakeholders. In the 2000s, interest in the committee waned and it was not until 2008 and with the support of the Biokavango project that the committee was reconvened. The committee is chaired by the ORI and the secretariat is the Fisheries Division with representation from the Department of Tourism, Department of Water Affairs, the Land Board, and the Okavango Fisheries Association (OFA), and representation from the fishing camps and tourist lodges. In 2010, the committee negotiated the Code of Conduct of Responsible Fishing in the Okavango Delta. The committee meets on a quarterly basis. The next meeting is scheduled for late February 2011.

4.2.2.3 Okavango Fisheries Association (OFA) The Okavango Fisheries Association was formed in 1999 as a body with which to represent the interests of the commercial fishers. At inception it had over 150 members. In 2007, and with the assistance of the Biokavango project, the organisation‟s constitution was revised and the scope of the organisation expanded to include all stakeholders in the fishing industry. The revised constitution now mandates the OFA to act as an umbrella organisation for the various fisher groups (commercial, recreational and artisanal) in the Delta. The OFA is a legally registered entity with a constitution that elects office bearers on an annual basis. The stated objectives of the organisation are:

1. To provide a representative forum through which the collective voice of the concerns and problems of the members can be articulated to government and other concerned parties

2. To liaise with other institutions that are stakeholders of the fish resources of the Okavango Delta, and represent the users and the opinions of the members

3. To cooperate with the government in the management of the fish resources for the benefit of the members

4. To act as a medium through which disputes can be resolved amicably



SOGES

33

5. To ensure that the fish resource is utilised sustainably by advising members to adhere to the fish protection regulations

While membership is certainly open to all of the stakeholders, the major representation in the OFA comprises the commercial gillnet fishers, either as individuals or as fisher groups that are based at the village level. Evidently there is significantly less representation from either the recreational or subsistence fisher groups. Since 2007, funding and mentorship for the association has been provided by the Biokavango project, however with the closure of the fisheries component of the project in June 2010, funding has ceased. The association is now self-funding with contributions being made by the membership. At their last meeting in August 2010, it was reported that some of the fisher groups / members are failing to pay their dues (Mr Nkile, DWNP, Maun, pers. com), and that at that time the association had no operational funds. The annual membership fee is currently P50.

4.2.2.4 Fisher associations and trusts Many fishers have organised themselves into fisher groups or trusts. These are geographically spread around the panhandle and are located in the larger fishing communities. The four main associations are the Boiteko Fish Resources Trust (Samochima), the Chechoara Fishing Project (Mohembo), the Itekeng Community Trust (Ngarange), and the Tubu Multi-purpose Cooperative (Tubu). Initially some of these associations were set up with FAP grants, assistance from NGOs and more recently some have received assistance from the Biokavango programme to upgrade their facilities. Typically, the facilities include buildings to house scaling tables, weighing equipment, storage space for the fishing gear, chest freezers or, in the case of the Boiteko Fish Resources Trust, a small freezer room. The associations and trusts comprise groups of 10-15 fishers who pay a levy (normally 10% of their catch value) to the group. The monies are used to operate the freezer facilities, to pay staff and for equipment repair and depreciation. The fisher associations have representation in the Okavango Fishing Association. The Associations are experiencing some problems in terms of product quality, marketing and managing the finances of their operations. These issues are addressed in more detail in Section 4.3.

4.2.2.5 Artisanal fishers The artisanal fishers are not well represented in the Okavango Fisheries Association, and to date, they have not formed an association or organisation that could be used to represent their interests. Thus despite their traditional exploitation of the fishing resources of the delta, their interests are not well represented on the Okavango Fisheries Management Committee (OFMC). In the absence of a formal representative body that can elucidate and represent their interests, it will be difficult to include this group of fishers into either co-management or other collective decision making management processes that the DWNP or the OFMC may recommend.



SOGES

34

Diagnostic The local institutions provide representation for all stakeholders in the fishery. While the Okavango Fisheries Management Committee (OFMC) provides a suitable forum for government agencies to interact with the fisher community, the Okavango Fishermans Association (OFA) provides a forum for all fisher stakeholders to discuss their issues and resolve conflicts, and it provides a formal representative vehicle with which fishers can present their issues to government agencies. To date the association has primarily focused on resolving conflicts between the commercial gillnet and recreational fishers. While representation in the OFA is open to all fisher groups, the artisanal fishers are not well represented. Improving the representation of the artisanal fishers in the OFA or developing a new organisation to represent their interests would significantly empower this group to become more involved in fisheries management processes in the Delta. In recent years the OFA has been financially supported and mentored by the Biokavango project. In terms of the sustainability of the OFA, the closure of this programme is premature, and the organisation is likely to require additional financial and mentorship assistance in the future. The OFA represents the primary vehicle with which to resolve conflicts and promote co-management in the Delta fisheries, and every attempt should be made to support the organisation and ensure its sustainability. The Okavango Research Centre (University of Botswana) has significant research capabilities that could be co-opted by the Fisheries Division to assist them in managing their research needs. In this regard, it would be appropriate to develop formal cooperative linkages between the two organisations.

4.2.3 International institutions / Trans-boundary initiatives

4.2.3.1 The Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM) OKACOM was established in 1994 by Angola, Namibia and Botswana to promote a coordinated approach to the sustainable management of the Okavango river basin. The commission comprises delegations from each of the three member states who are senior government ministerial officials. The organisation provides a forum for the commissioners to discuss and resolve transboundary issues that affect the river basin. The organisation is based on the principles of equitable resource allocation, sustainable utilisation, sound environmental management and the sharing of benefits. The Okavango River Basin Steering Committee (OBSC) appointed by the commission in 1995, is the technical advisory body to the commission, and provides technical support to the various permanent or temporary subsidiary committees or task forces; currently these task forces include an institutional task force, a biodiversity taskforce and a hydrology taskforce. Finally, the OCAKOM Secretariat provides administrative and financial services to the organisation. OKACOM operates a number of programmes in the Delta. From a fisheries perspective, the most important programme is the Environmental Protection and Sustainable Management of the Okavango River Project. This is a GEF / UNDP / FAO funded initiative that has developed a Transboundary Diagnostic Analysis (TDA) and formulated Strategic Action Plans for the River System. The original project funding cycle has recently finished, and in future the project will be funded by the



SOGES

35

USAid SAREP programme – a US$23million programme – that will be run through OKACOM. The programme is currently in the process of developing National Action Plans (NAPs) that will be informed by the Strategic Action Plans (SAPs). Despite the biological and socioeconomic value of the fisheries to the system, at present the Fisheries Division has no representation in the NAP development process. This is an oversight that if possible should be rectified. From a fisheries management perspective, OKACOM provides a compelling vehicle with which to effectively address transboundary issues. While issues such as fish movements between the riparian countries, fish conservation and ensuring equitable access to the fish resources are obvious issues that need to be addressed, there are a number of more pressing issues that need to be addressed in the short term. Principally these comprise the introduction of fish disease to the system and the introduction of alien species – possibly for aquaculture purposes. The recent introduction of EUS to the system provides a graphic example of how fish introductions can have system-wide implications (Andrew et al, in press). The introduction of alien species for aquaculture is also of serious concern. While Namibia and Botswana have decided to focus their aquaculture activities on indigenous species (Dr Klingelhoeffer , KIFI, Namibia; Mr S. Nengu, DWNP, Botswana pers. comms), it would appear that Angola has authorised the introduction of the Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) for fish farming purposes in Central Angola. Due to its high growth rate and good production characteristics, O. niloticus is often the culture species of choice for many farmers. However, it is highly invasive and once in a system it almost always either outcompetes the indigenous Oreochromines or hybridises with them. The results are significant losses to biodiversity and irreversible structural changes to the fish populations and the fisheries. Clearly, the introduction of an alien tilapia species into the Okavango river system in Angola will have very serious impactions for the downstream fisheries in Namibia and Botswana. Whether Angola has an explicit policy to allow the introduction of alien fish species into its catchments or it is simply allowing farmers to move these species between catchments needs to be assessed. In terms of the Okavango River System, at the very least, it would be appropriate to develop a harmonised policy on the introduction of alien species to the system.

4.2.3.2 Kamutjonga Inland Fisheries Institute (KIFI), Namibia The Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources in Namibia has identified inland aquaculture and fisheries as a developmental priority and, approximately 30km north of the Mohembo border post, the government is developing the Kamutjonga Inland Fisheries Institute (KIFI). To date, the government has invested in the region N$70 million at the site. The main developments include diagnostic laboratories, aquaculture research facilities including both pond and recirculating tank based systems, office space for scientists and students, an educational centre and library, conference facilities and accommodation for staff and visiting scientists. The development represents a major investment in the Namibian freshwater aquaculture and fisheries sectors, and by its scale alone is significant in terms of potentially providing a platform that can be used to promote collaborative research in the Okavango river system. In this regard, the DWNP and KIFI have undertaken collaborative work in the past, for example, in early 2007, and with the assistance of the FAO a joint survey between the DWNP (Botswana) and the Directorate of Aquaculture and Inland Fisheries (Namibia) was undertaken to establish the presence of the EUS disease in the Okavango system.



SOGES

36

In terms of promoting bilateral ties between the two countries to promote cooperation in the fisheries sector, the 4th Session of the Namibia – Botswana joint commission of cooperation held in Walvis Bay in October 2008 mandated the Directorate of Aquaculture and Inland fisheries (Namibia) and the DWNP: Fisheries Division (Botswana) to discuss issues of collaboration. Agenda items included: 1. Developing a Benefit programme for inland fisheries 2. The harmonisation of fisheries legislation and enforcement 3. ZACPLAN 4: Cooperation under the Zambezi Chobe River Basin Plan (The four corner project) 5. Data analysis and the standardisation of research methodology in shared river systems (e.g. combined frame surveys, livelihood studies etc.) Unfortunately, to date the two government departments have failed to meet to discuss these projects and other transboundary issues. However, it is anticipated that in the near future an appropriate meeting will be held in Maun to start the process (Dr E. Klingelhoeffer, KIFI, pers. com.). Notwithstanding the current progress, it is important to note that the initial diplomatic groundwork has been laid and that a bilateral agreement is currently being developed. Crucially, this provides the mandate for the respective government agencies that are responsible for fisheries and aquaculture management (Directorate of Aquaculture and Inland fisheries, Namibia, and the DWNP: Fisheries Division, Botswana) to liaise directly with each other and circumvent diplomatic or ministerial channels.

Diagnostic OKACOM provides an ideal vehicle with which to resolve transboundary fisheries issues, and to move towards the development of an ecosystems approach to fisheries management in the Okavango river system. To date the Fisheries Division has not established links with this organisation. OKACOM is currently in the process of developing their National Action Plans (NAPs) that, guided by the Strategic Action Plan (SAP) that has been developed, will provide the blueprint for Botswana‟s multilateral approach to the management of the Delta. It would be advisable for the Fisheries Division to be represented at the OKACOM forum and provide input into the NAP. The bilateral agreement between the government of Botswana and Namibia to pursue their joint interests in managing the inland fisheries resources and the Delta resources is a very positive step in terms of developing a unified fisheries management regime for the Okavango river system. Efforts should be made to formalise the bilateral agreement that is currently under development. The absence of a bilateral agreement between Angola and Botswana or a multi-lateral agreement between the three riparian states remains problematic. In order to truly manage the transboundary fisheries issues in the system, it is an imperative that Angola is included in future management structures and decision making processes.



SOGES

37

4.3 Additional Management Issues 4.3.1 The closed season Section 11 of the Fish Protection Regulations (2008) stipulates that the open season for fishing is between 1st March and 31st December, and that the fisheries are closed for the months of January and February. The economic and biological rationale for closing the fisheries during this period needs to be assessed. From an economic perspective, the closure will inherently affect all fishing sectors. With respect to the commercial fishing seasons, Ngwenya and Mosepele (2008) reported that 12% of the commercial fishers viewed the flood period as the most important period for fishing (normally during the months of December / January, peaking in April), and historical CPUE figures from periods when the fishery was open in January and February suggest that CPUE in the artisanal, commercial gillnet and recreational fisheries during January and February are similar to other periods during the year, the exception being between July and September when CPUE is generally greatest (Mosepele et al. 2003). More recently, Mosepele et al. (in press) found that CPUE in the gillnet fishery in January and February was higher than in April / May, and similar to that recorded in June and July. Interestingly, data from the 1997 frame survey (prior to the imposition of the closed season) suggests that fishing effort in the gillnet, hook and line and basket fishery during January and February was similar to that recorded between March and July (Mosepele et al. 2003), suggesting that traditionally, these fishers fished during the closed season. While January to February is traditionally the period in which many fishers are preparing their fields, the historical evidence suggests that were they allowed to fish, some individuals would be accessing the resource. With respect to the biological rationale for imposing a closed season, closed seasons are usually used as a management tool to protect fish stocks during the fish breeding season. Mosepele et al. (in prep) used a multiple linear regression analysis to demonstrate a significant (p< 0.05) linear relationship between peak spawning (gonad maturity) and mean monthly discharge, and while other environmental cues were more important in determining the breeding season for some species, the general trend suggests that mean monthly discharge is the major driver of monthly spawning behaviour in the Delta. Mean monthly discharge normally peaks in April, and thus, taking the Mosepele et al. (in prep) analysis into consideration, the main breeding season for most species in the Delta would be around March / April. This being the case, the biological rationale for instituting a closed season in January and February falls into question, as the logical timing of a closed season that was designed to conserve the breeding season would be during March / April. Nevertheless, it should be noted that closed seasons are regularly used as a fisheries management tools to limit effort in a fishery, and in this respect they act as a “safety valve” that can be used to buffer the effects of overfishing. As a management tool they are used routinely across the region, and from a governance perspective, the closed season in the Okavango is generally accepted by the stakeholders. These issues need to be taken into account when consideration is given to revising the closed season.

4.3.2 The gillnet mesh regulations At present there are no limitations on the mesh sizes that are allowed in the fishery, and while the most recent frame survey reveals that the mesh sizes that are being used have reduced slightly over time (Section 3.1), it is up to the fishers‟ discretion to



SOGES

38

decide on the size of fish that they choose to target. The dominance of large mesh sizes in the fishery attest to the fact that the fishers are currently targeting the larger breams. At present, the smaller species are not being fished. Regulating mesh sizes is one mechanism that could be used to encourage fishers to exploit the smaller species. To maintain the fish population structures, effort should target all species and fish sizes. In terms of using mesh size limitations to encourage fishers to start exploiting the smaller species, cognisance must be taken of the marketing limitations that the fishers already experience in selling their current catches. To date there are no formal markets for the smaller species that are fished by the artisanal fishers, and encouraging the commercial fishers to start fishing the smaller species would require the development of new markets. Limiting mesh sizes could also provide a mechanism with which to protect the largest trophy fish for exploitation by the recreational fishery. Clearly any interventions in this regard would need to be negotiated between the two user groups.

4.3.3 Effort limitation The fishery currently operates as an open access fishery in which any national who is 18 years or older may apply for a commercial or recreational fishing permit. The subsistence fishers do not require permits. At present, the fish stocks are not being over-exploited, suggesting that the level of effort in the fishery remains sustainable. However, this may not always be the case, and there is always the possibility that in future, effort levels could increase and become unsustainable. For example, improvements to marketing channels may make commercial fishing an economically more attractive proposition, encouraging more people to move into the sector; a resurgence of cattle lung disease may force people to move back into the fishery. This being the case, the management paradigm that is developed should consider effort limitation strategies that could be introduced in the event that the resource shows signs of becoming depleted. In this regard it should be noted that effort limitation (the number of fishers in the fishery, gear restrictions etc) are easier to enforce than introducing quotas, and hence effort as opposed to quota restrictions should be considered.

4.3.4 Mosquito nets The use of mosquito nets in the delta is banned under Section 20(d) of the Fish Protection Regulations (2008). Traditionally, the banning of small mesh gears such as mosquito nets is designed to protect juvenile fish and recruitment into a fishery. However, in dynamic multi-species fisheries that use different gear types to target the different tropic levels at different temporal and spatial levels, the use of small mesh nets may be an acceptable mechanism with which to harvest a resource that would otherwise not be utilised. Evidently, the artisanal fishers of the delta have developed fishing strategies that are based on different gear technologies (e.g. basket, hook and line, mosquito nets) and the availability of these gears to harvest the resources represents an important strategy that is used to optimize fish harvesting. Mosquito net fishing is primarily an activity that is undertaken by female subsistence fishers, and thus the regulation disproportionally targets this group of fishers. Ngwenya and Mosepele (2008) reported that over 80% of the artisanal fishing households derive at least half of their subsistence from fish, and about 15% rely entirely on the fish resource. Subsistence fishing also provides households with a resource with which to barter and sell excess catch, and crucially, provides a mechanism with which to ensure food security during times of food scarcity. Indeed, during times of food shortages, Ngwenya and Mosepele (2008) reported that increasing fishing effort was ranked as the most important strategy that these households used to ensure food security during times of food shortage.



SOGES

39

While Jul-Larsen et al. (2003) suggested that multi-species fisheries can only be optimally exploited when multiple gear types are used, Mosepele et al. (2003) suggested that in terms of maintaining biodiversity, a multi-gear fishery is the best approach to effectively utilize the delta‟s fishery resources. This approach was confirmed by Ngwenya and Mosepele (2008) who found that the different fishing methods targeted different species. In this regard, it was established that mosquito fishing nets harvest the smallest fish with the most common species in the catch being A. johnstonni. Other fishing gears, such as baskets, barrage traps, and hook and lines target increasingly larger fish with the most common species being T. sparrmanii, C. gariepinus and O. andersonii respectively. It should be noted that the use of mosquito nets has health implications in that the nets that are distributed to prevent the spread of malaria are reportedly being used to fish (Mr K. Nkile, pers. com, DWNP), thus any reintroduction of small mesh fishing needs to address this issue. As use of small mesh nets appears to be a sustainable fishing practice that does not significantly impact the resource, the impact of banning the practice merely reduces livelihood options of a group of fishers that are already economically marginalised, and criminalises those fishers that continue to fish. This inevitably leads to conflicts with the compliance authorities, and an inefficient use of both compliance and the fishery resources. As subsistence fishing represents a major livelihood strategy for the local communities that live within the Delta‟s periphery, especially during periods of food scarcity, the impact of this regulation needs to be carefully assessed.

4.3.5 Fishing zones While the development of the code of conduct for responsible fishing in the delta has done much to diffuse tensions between fisher groups, some conflicts evidently remain. The conflicts that remain are primarily between the commercial gillnet fishers and the recreational fishers. In many respects, recreational and commercial fishing activities are incompatible as both groups target the larger tilapias, the former as trophy fish and the latter as food fish. Naturally both fisher groups blame the other for perceived declines in the stock. Introducing fishing zones and restricting fishing in certain areas to certain user groups is a method that could potentially resolve such conflicts. In terms of the recreational fishers, the availability of pristine areas that exclude the commercial fishers would likely improve the “recreational fishing experience”, potentially conserve trophy fish for the clients and enhance their businesses operations. In terms of the commercial fishers, the workshop discussions indicated that the commercial fishers would likely view any restrictions on their fishing grounds as undesirable. Furthermore, the recreational fishers while wanting areas to be set aside for stock replenishment were concerned that zoning would effectively exclude them from fishing in areas along the Panhandle, and that this would negatively affect their business interests. Indeed, the successful implementation of zones would likely require that the commercial fishers or the wider community perceive some benefit from their introduction. Such benefits could be in the form of communities or the commercial fishers becoming empowered to benefit from the recreational fishing industry in terms of employment opportunities, for example as fishing guides. Other issues that would need to be considered when establishing zones would be the spatial distribution of the zones, most notably in the Panhandle area where the recreational and commercial fishers are concentrated, and the compliance issues, co-management arrangements and ability of the DWNP to police the zones.



SOGES

40

In terms of establishing zones as legal entities, the only zone that has been introduced into the Delta to date has been promulgated under the Fish Protection Regulations (2008). In April 2010, the DWNP set aside the Matsematala Lagoon and a distance of 1km up and downstream of the lagoon as a no-fishing zone. The zone will be used to monitor fish stocks and provide information on fish dynamics in an area that is not fished. With respect to zoning fishing activities, while the Fishing Regulations (2008) allows for the demarcation of zones, community buy-in and a public acceptance of the zones will be critical for their successful implementation, and in this regard, the draft wildlife and CBNRM policies provide suitable frameworks that would enable communities to decide which areas they would like to see zoned, and for what purposes.

4.3.6 Product quality and market access Product quality and marketing issues represent major constraints to the commercial gillnet fishers. Mmopelwa et al, (2005) demonstrated that while these fishers could operate commercially viable businesses, their business operations are severely constrained by problems related to market access, and the poor quality of some of their products. Mmopelwa and Ngwenya (2008) undertook a detailed marketing study of the commercial and semi-commercial fishers of the upper panhandle area and identified a number of marketing constraints; these included a lack of buyers, distance to urban markets and high transaction costs, inadequate access to credit, poor business management skills and poor fish preservation and product quality. It is important to note that all these issues were repeatedly raised by the fishermen during the workshops in Shakawe and Maun, and collectively they appear to be a major constraint to the commercial viability of the gillnet fishers. Evidently, it is not the resource that is the issue; it is the market, market access and the ability to respond to consumers‟ product requirements. At the outset it should be noted that in the past the fishing associations and trusts have been subsidised by various governmental and donor programmes such that many of them have facilities for basic processing (gutting, scaling) and freezers to store fish (Section 4.2.2.4). In the past they have also been provided with basic business planning / fish hygiene skills. However, arguably, the fishers are struggling to operate the associations and trusts in an economically sustainable manner. Discussions with fisher association and trust members suggest that the levies the fishers are paying to the syndicates are too low to cover operational and depreciation costs and thus, once capital equipment breaks down or needs replacing, there are insufficient funds available to service or replace equipment. These issues are compounded by the problematic market conditions, making questionable the long term economic viability of the groups. The marketing chain in the Panhandle is very short and primarily comprises fishers selling directly to consumers and occasionally retailers who will move the fish to the urban markets in the South. The local population is small, thus limiting the number of local buyers. In the past, buyers used to come up from Maun to purchase fish, however with the recent high floods, fisher activity and production in the southern part of the Delta and Lake Ngami has increased, and traders are no longer needing to travel to the panhandle to buy their supplies, further restricting sales in the Panhandle area (Mr J. Drotsky, Drotsky‟s Cabins, pers com). The remoteness of the Panhandle, in particular the fishing villages on the East Bank of the River such as Ngarange, and the distances to the urban markets remain problematic. From the workshop discussions it is evident that the fishers view their lack of transportation as a major constraint to trade and, in this regard, they view their



SOGES

41

difficulties in accessing capital for developing transport networks as a major constraint to developing their markets. In this regard, they lack the asset base to qualify for loans from the commercial banks / lending agencies and, while they have been provided with freezers and processing facilities, the concern that is repeatedly expressed is that they have no transport facilities to move their products to market. In this regard, it should be noted that the levels of production are relatively low. For example in 2007, the Mohembo fishers produced 8.7 tons of fish (Mmopelwa and Ngwenya, 2008), and while catches vary seasonally, this equates to an average of 870kg per month. Assuming that the four fishing associations produce the same volumes of fish, the monthly volume of fish available from marketing would be in the region of 3.5 tons. Such low volumes would result in high transaction costs in terms of transporting fish to distant markets and makes it questionable whether setting up a cold chain to the markets in Francistown and Gaborone would be economically viable. A further marketing challenge is the product quality. In this regard, the fishers have minimal training in fish hygiene and preparation and while approximately 20% of fishers carry ice on their boats, the majority does not. While it is true that many of the gillnet fishermen transport their catches in the early morning when temperatures are relatively low, the hook and line fishers typically take longer to bring in their catches. This can lead to fish spoilage. In terms of product quality, some of the local lodges complain that the quality of the fish that is frozen is not good and they rather elect to import fish products from South Africa, typically bream products imported from China, or South African hake. In terms of improving market access, the high transaction costs combined with the relatively low volumes of fish coming from the fishery makes penetrating the urban markets difficult and, while the local markets are small, one segment of the market that is not being adequately addressed is the tourist lodges. Currently there are 77 lodges in the Delta, the majority of which import their fish from South Africa (Mr Johan Jaarveld pers. com.). The lodges import fish based on cost, quality and supply. In this regard, they reportedly do not buy fish from the local fishermen as the quality is often poor and the supplies irregular. Should the quality and supply issues be resolved, the local fishers could access this market and solve many of their marketing issues. To do so mentorship will be required in improving their product quality through improved post harvest treatment of the fish, processing and storage. In addition, the fishers need to improve their basic business skills and endeavour to operate the fisheries groups as profitable enterprises. It is probably unreasonable to expect them to have the skills to negotiate complex marketing deals and thus they would likely need to be assisted by a private sector partner in developing marketing channels to the tourist lodges.



SOGES

42

Diagnostic The management rationale that is applied to the fishery needs to be updated. In this regard, consideration should be given to the rationale for maintaining some of the management interventions that are currently in place. Changes to the current framework could be considered. Issues of concern would include the closed season, the banning of mosquito nets, the gillnet regulations and the possible introduction of effort control regulations and fishing zones. In terms of the commercial fishers, fish marketing issues remain a serious constraint to their business operations, and the potential to develop local markets based on import substitution, and the provision of premium quality products to the existing lodges in the Delta needs to be investigated. Finally, the potential to promote the recreational fishing industry in such a way that it empowers the existing fisher groups that are currently marginalised needs to be considered.



SOGES

43

Part II - The Management Plan

5 Introduction The management plan that is presented below is not a management plan per se, but rather provides the guidelines of a plan that the DWNP: Fisheries Division can use to develop their Fisheries Management Plan. The document provides an indication of the management objectives, guiding principles and key issues and strategic actions that are required to successfully manage the fishery. In order to promote consistency with existing management planning processes, the document uses the format applied to the Okavango Delta Management Plan, and in some respects, should be viewed as an extension of the fishery components of that document. In terms of policy, the proposed interventions are aligned with the draft wildlife and CNBRM policies. The guidelines were developed in close collaboration with the DWNP: Fisheries Division and stakeholders, and was validated at a national validation workshop in Gaborone on 28th April 2011. The vision and goal for the management of the fishery focus on promoting good governance and sustainability in the fishery, maintaining ecosystem function, and maximising the economic efficiency of the fishery for all Batswana:

Vision To promote the sustainable utilization of fisheries resources, managed through good governance, and the creation of prosperous fishing communities and other stakeholders (tourism)

Goal To promote sustainable fishing practices to maximise the economic efficiency of the fishery, and contribute to sustainable livelihoods, and the preservation of ecosystem function

5.1 Management objectives and guiding principles In order to achieve the vision and goal of the plan, a series of management objectives have been developed to guide the development of the management plan (Table 3). The management objectives have comprised institutional, bio-physical and socio-economic objectives.



SOGES

44

Table 3. Management objectives

Institutional

To enhance institutional capacity to manage the fishery

To build capacity of local fishers to realise the economic opportunities offered by the fishery

To promote the trans-boundary management of the fishery

Bio-Physical

To optimise sustainable fish production in commercial fishing areas

To maintain reserve areas for trophy recreational fishing

To maintain pristine no-take areas in protected areas (game reserves and National Parks)

To maintain no-take reserve areas in representative habitats as refuge areas for fish and for research purposes

To minimize impacts of fishing on the environment

To conserve biodiversity

To maintain ecological processes and integrity

Socio-economic

To maximise the contribution of the fisheries to the economy (Fish production / Tourism)

To maximise the net income of commercial and artisanal fishers, and fishing tourism based enterprises

To promote equitable representation and access

To maximise food security

To maintain traditional fishing cultures

To enhance visitors‟ experience and perception of the Okavango Delta

In addition to the management objectives, a series of guiding principles have been developed. The guiding principles represent the over-arching principles that underpin the development of the plan. These comprise: 1. Good governance will be established at all levels within the fisheries sector. 2. Environmental protection within the delta will be a high priority, and a holistic ecosystems approach to management will be adopted. 3. A precautionary approach to making management decision-making processes will be adopted. 4. The principles of co-management based on existing institutional frameworks will be adopted. 5. Accountability and the adoption of the user pays principle is an integral part of the management paradigm. 6. Clear and measurable mechanisms will be established to enhance contribution of fisheries to poverty reduction and food security. 7. Clear and measurable mechanisms will be established to address inequities experienced by women, youth and the poor.



SOGES

45

5.2 Key issues and strategic actions Taking the management objectives and guiding principles into consideration a series of key issues and strategic actions have been developed. The key issues represent the focus areas that need to be addressed in terms of the management of the fishery, and the strategic actions outline those processes that need to be undertaken to realise the key issues (Table 4). The key issues and strategic actions are described in detail in section 5.2.1.



SOGES

46

Table 4. Key Issues and Strategic Actions

Theme Key Issues / Interventions Strategic Actions and timeframes

Institutional

Institutional Strengthening

1 Fisher Organisations: There is a need to support fisher organisations (OFA / OFMC) to ensure financial and operational sustainability, and the development of co-management systems

1. DWNP to facilitate a needs assessment (budgets / training / mentorship) to support the OFA (6 months)

2. Possibility of operating fisher training programmes through the OFA (1 year)

2 Institutional capacity: There is a need for enhanced institutional capacity for the DWNP: Fisheries Division to carry out its mandate and to implement the Draft Wildlife and CNBRM Policies in respect of fisheries

1. The development of an Operational Plan for DWNP: Fishery Division (6 months)

2. Review of staffing and equipment of DWNP: Fishery Division to carry out Wildlife and CBNRM Policy mandates (6 months)

3. Institutional linkages to other organizations formed to: a. Support the socio-economic development aspects

linked to tourism, processing, marketing, capacity building – Department of Tourism (6 months)

b. Research support - Okavango Research Institute (ORI) and other organisations (6 months)

3 Trans-boundary Co-operation: There is a need for improved trans-boundary co-operation and management

1. The DNWP to approach and attain representation at the Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM), and approach the USAid SAREP programme in terms of developing trans-boundary fisheries partnerships and programmes. (6 months)

2. Under the auspices of the 4th Session of the Namibia –

Botswana joint commission of co-operation, consolidate bilateral ties with Namibia through the Kamutjonga Inland Fisheries Institute (KIFI), Namibia (6 months)

3. Potential trans-boundary programmes that could be developed (1-5 years): a. Harmonisation of fisheries legislation and policies b. Data analysis and the standardisation of research

methodology in shared river systems (e.g. combined frame surveys, livelihood studies)

c. Develop trans-boundary ecosystems approach to the management of the fisheries resources

d. Promote joint compliance activities e. Development of a Benefit Programme for Inland



SOGES

47

fisheries f. Promote joint aquaculture research and fishery training

at KIFI

Regulatory and planning framework

4 Improved fisheries data: There is a need to revise fisheries data collection systems and analysis systems which are not optimised for monitoring and informing fisheries decision-making processes

1. Review and define fisheries monitoring requirements and align with management needs to develop and monitor biological reference points (1 year)

2. Restructure the departmental monitoring programme (catch, creel and frame surveys) and align with fisheries monitoring requirements (1 year)

3. Reassess commercial catch record keeping, introduce monitoring in the recreational fishery, and incorporate indigenous knowledge systems into the data collection frameworks (1 year)

4. Improve data capture and storage systems (1 year) 5. Build technical capacity to interrogate data and

formalise relationships with established research institutions that can provide guidance (e.g. Okavango Research Institute) (1-3 years)

6. Data must be collected in a transparent manner, and the results of the fisheries analysis distributed to all stakeholders (1 year)

5 Regulations: There is a need to review the current regulatory framework and make input into the new Wildlife Act

1. DWNP staff need to revise the Fish Protection Regulations (2008) (1 year)

2. DWNP staff need to review the Fish Protection Act (1975) and develop fisheries related recommendations for inclusion in the new Wildlife Act (6 months)

3. The efficacy of the regulatory framework needs to be monitored and evaluated on a regular basis, and where necessary, appropriate changes made. The culture of adaptive management needs to be instilled in the Fisheries Division staff (on-going)

Communication, education and public awareness

6 Compliance: There is a need to improve compliance with fisheries and wildlife legislation at all levels

1. Review and enhance patrol programmes (1 - 2 years) 2. Expand monitoring and intelligence gathering (boats,

air) (1 – 2 years) 3. Prioritise target areas for maximum impact and ensure

that they are provided with sufficient resources (1 year) 4. Increase penalties in fisheries regulations and sensitise

the Judiciary to impose sanctions that create effective



SOGES

48

deterrents (1 – 2 years) 5. Promote compliance collaboration within the DWNP (6

months) 6. Compliance awareness raising programmes need to be

developed for local and national government officers (1 year)

7. Promote self regulation through fisher education and compliance with the Code of Conduct for responsible fishing in the Okavango Delta (on-going)

Bio-physical

Natural resource conservation

7 Decision rules: There is a need to develop biological reference points and decision rules for the fisheries in the Okavango Delta

1. The DWNP in collaboration with the Okavango Research Institute need to identify potential biological reference points and decision rules, and present these to the Okavango Fisheries Management Committee (OFMC) for consideration and ratification by all stakeholders (1 year)

Restoration of ecosystem No interventions required

Socio-economic

Sustainable use of natural resources

8 CBNRM initiatives: There is a need to promote community based tourism opportunities linked to the recreational fishery and traditional fishing cultures

1. Support community based pilot projects in partnership with tourism development organizations and NGOs e.g. Botswana Tourism Organization (1-5 years)

2. Facilitate governance arrangements in communities wishing to set aside areas for recreational fishing (1-5 years)

3. Facilitate training of recreational fishing guides (1-5 years)

4. Arrange mentorship partnerships with commercial fishing tour operators (1-5 year)

Livelihoods improvement

9 Fish processing / marketing: There is a need to improve fish handling, processing and marketing to guarantee the safety and quality of fish products and increase value at all levels

1. Undertake a marketing and value chain study and establish a business case for supplying fish to the tourist lodges (product volumes, prices, costs – business case) (6 months)

2. Provide training for fishers and associations: post harvest handling, cold chains, processing, business management skills (1 year)

ACP FISH II Programme: Fisheries Management Plan for the Okavango Delta – Diagnostic Report

SOGES

47

5.2.1 Institutional Issues

5.2.1.1 Institutional Strengthening Key Issue 1: Fisher Organisations There is a need to support fisher organisations (OFA / OFMC) to ensure financial and operational sustainability, and the development of co-management systems In recent years there has been significant progress in developing the local stakeholder institutions that are required to promote the co-management of the fishery, and develop the participatory, decentralised institutional framework that is articulated by the Draft Wildlife Policy. The Okavango Fisheries Management Committee (OFMC) provides a suitable forum for government agencies to interact with the fisher community, and the Okavango Fishermans Association (OFA) provides a forum for all fisher stakeholders to discuss their issues and resolve conflicts. Importantly, the OFA also provides a formal representative vehicle with which fishers can present their issues to government agencies. Since 2007, these institutions have been supported by the Biokavango project, however, with the closure of the programme in June 2010, financial and mentoring support has ceased. These institutions should be viewed as integral to the successful co-management of the fishery resources and the successful development of the CBNRM programmes that are advocated in this management plan. To date, these organisations have been supported by short term, project based assistance, and in this regard, the OFA has now become financially unviable. In the absence of both technical mentorship and financial assistance both these institutions are likely to weaken, and ultimately lose relevance. Strategic Actions:

1. DWNP to facilitate a needs assessment (budgets / training / mentorship) to support the OFA / OFMC.

2. The possibility to operate fisher training programmes through the OFA should be considered.

Issue 2: Institutional Capacity There is a need for enhanced institutional capacity for the DWNP: Fisheries Division to carry out its mandate and to implement the Draft Wildlife and CNBRM Policies in respect of fisheries The Fisheries Division in the DWNP is relatively under resourced in terms of the number of personnel that are employed. The primary tasks that are undertaken by the departmental personnel include the permitting of fishers, compliance, collecting and collating catch and effort data from the commercial fishers, fisheries survey work, and extension work. The division is responsible for all levels of fisheries management in the Delta and gets little assistance from other Divisions within the DWNP such as the Research and Compliance Divisions. The Okavango Research Institute (University of Botswana) has significant research capabilities that could be co-opted by the Fisheries Division to assist them in managing their research needs, and in this regard, it would be appropriate to develop formal co-operative linkages between the two organisations. Considerable financial and human resources are currently allocated to the monthly research surveys that are not informing management per se, and the rationale for their continuation needs to be assessed in terms of optimising resource allocation within the


SOGES

48

department. Staff training is clearly an issue, and there are currently no trained fisheries scientists stationed in the Delta. Staff training at all levels of fisheries management and extension would greatly increase the efficacy of the organisation. It is evident that the Division operates under some financial constraints which limit its ability to carry out its mandate. Furthermore, the Division is not equipped to facilitate the community development mandate that is envisaged in the Draft Wildlife and CBNRM policies. The development of the CBNRM programmes based on cultural fishing practices and the recreational fishery activities that is advocated in this management plan will require co-operative links to be developed with the Department of Tourism. Strategic Actions:

1. The development of an Operational Plan for DWNP: Fishery Division 2. Review of staffing and equipment of DWNP: Fishery Division to carry out

Wildlife and CBNRM Policy mandates 3. Institutional linkages to other organizations formed to:

a. Support the socio-economic development aspects linked to tourism, processing, marketing, capacity building – Department of Tourism

b. Research support - Okavango Research Institute (ORI) Issue 3: Trans-boundary Co-operation There is a need for improving trans-boundary co-operation and management The Okavango system is a trans-boundary system that is shared between Angola, Namibia and Botswana. Fisheries management issues such as fish movements between the riparian countries, fish conservation, ensuring equitable access to the fish resources, and controlling the introduction of diseases and alien species are all issues that need to be addressed at a regional level. In terms of fisheries management, there is at present minimal trans-boundary co-operation between the riparian states. With respect to current management frameworks, OKACOM provides an ideal vehicle with which to resolve trans-boundary fisheries issues, and to move towards the development of an ecosystems approach to fisheries management in the Okavango river system. To date the Fisheries Division has not established links with this organisation. Neither has it formalised relationships with the USAid SAREP Programme (Southern Africa Regional Environmental Programme) which, while working with OKACOM and other stakeholders, is mandated to improve trans-boundary natural resource management in the Okavango system. In the political arena, the 4th bilateral agreement between the governments of Botswana and Namibia to pursue their joint interests in managing the inland fisheries resources and the Delta resources is a very positive step in terms of developing a unified fisheries management regime for the Okavango river system. Efforts should be made to formalise this agreement. This will require establishing linkages between the DWNP: Fisheries Division and the Kamutjonga Inland Fisheries Institute (KIFI), Namibia. The absence of a bilateral agreement between Angola and Botswana or a multi-lateral agreement between the three riparian states remains problematic. In order to truly manage the trans-boundary fisheries issues in the system, it is imperative that Angola is included in future management structures and decision making processes.


SOGES

49

Strategic Actions:

1. The DNWP to approach and attain representation at the Okavango River Basin Water Commission (OKACOM), and approach the USAid SAREP programme in terms of developing trans-boundary fisheries partnerships and programmes.

2. Under the auspices of the 4th Session of the Namibia – Botswana joint commission of co-operation, consolidate bilateral ties with Namibia through the Kamutjonga Inland Fisheries Institute (KIFI), Namibia.

3. Potential trans-boundary programmes that could be developed: a. Harmonisation of fisheries legislation and policies b. Data analysis and the standardisation of research methodology in

shared river systems (e.g. combined frame surveys, livelihood studies) c. Development of trans-boundary ecosystems approach to the

management of the fisheries resources d. Promotion of joint compliance activities e. Development of a Benefit Programme for Inland fisheries f. Promotion of joint aquaculture research and fishery training at KIFI

5.2.1.2 Regulatory and planning framework Issue 4: Improved fisheries data

There is a need to revise the fisheries data collection and analysis systems which are not optimised for monitoring and informing fisheries decision-making processes Management decision-making processes need to be informed by good quality long term data sets that are analysed appropriately. While considerable financial and human resources are currently being allocated to the collection and collation of fisheries data, little is being used in terms of informing management decision-making processes. Monthly research surveys are being performed that are not informing management per se, and the rationale for their continuation needs to be assessed in terms of optimising resource allocation within the department. While catch data is being collected from the commercial fishers, the quality of the data is poor and of limited value. At present there is no meaningful data collection from the recreational fishing sector. Frame and creel surveys are undertaken on an irregular basis and are not standardised; thus it is difficult to accurately assess the levels of participation and effort in the fisheries over time. The data capture and storage systems that are currently in use are inadequate, and there is a lack of technical capacity within the division to analysis and interrogate the collated data. Strategic Actions:

1. Review and define fisheries monitoring requirements and align with management needs to develop and monitor biological reference points.

2. Restructure the departmental monitoring programme (catch, creel and frame surveys) and align with fisheries monitoring requirements.

3. Reassess commercial catch record keeping, introduce monitoring in the recreational fishery, and incorporate indigenous knowledge systems into the data collection frameworks.

4. Improve data capture and storage systems. 5. Build technical capacity to interrogate data and formalise relationships with

established research institutions that can provide guidance (e.g. Okavango Research Institute and other suitable organisations).


SOGES

50

6. Data must be collected in a transparent manner, and the results of the fisheries analysis distributed to all stakeholders

Issue 5: Regulations There is a need to review the current regulatory framework and make input into the new Wildlife Act The Fish Protection Act of 1975 is outdated and needs to be repealed. Fisheries related provisions need to be included in the new Wildlife Act. While the country does not have a fisheries policy per se, the draft Wildlife and CBNRM policies provide a suitable substitute that can be used to guide the future development of fisheries regulations, governance structures and management planning processes. Amongst other issues, these policies provide the framework for an ecosystems approach to resource management, co-management and the devolution of governance responsibilities to the communities, the promotion of CBNRM management systems, and the inclusion of the private sector in the sustainable management of the country‟s natural resources. These policy objectives, while not explicitly focusing on fisheries, provide a suitable framework within which to move away from the traditional top-down, regulatory approach to fisheries management, to a more socially relevant and equitable fisheries management paradigm based on the principles of co-management. The fish protection Regulations (2008) are outdated and need to be revised. The revision process needs to take cognisance of the draft wildlife and CBNRM policies. Strategic Actions:

1. DWNP staff need to revise the Fish Protection Regulations (2008) 2. DWNP staff need to review the Fish Protection Act (1975) and develop fisheries

related recommendations for inclusion in the new Wildlife Act 3. The efficacy of the regulatory framework needs to be monitored and evaluated

on a regular basis, and where necessary, appropriate changes made. The culture of adaptive management needs to be instilled in the Fisheries Division staff.

5.2.1.3 Communication, education and public awareness Issue 6: Compliance

There is a need to improve compliance with fisheries and wildlife legislation at all levels The successful implementation of the fisheries management plan requires stakeholders to comply with agreed rules and regulations. Currently, the DWNP: Fisheries Division‟s compliance operations provide insufficient coverage to adequately monitor the resources. Patrol programmes need to be reviewed and enhanced intelligence gathering is required. While boat based resources are limited and require enhancing, potential compliance resources, such as air surveillance operations using the existing tourist / supply flights over the delta remain underutilised. Current deterrents are outdated, ineffective and need to be revised, and the judiciary needs to sensitised to impose suitable sanctions on transgressors. Compliance awareness and the promotion of self regulation needs to be instilled at all stakeholder levels.


SOGES

51

Strategic Actions:

1. Review and enhance patrol programmes 2. Expand monitoring and intelligence gathering (boats, air) 3. Prioritise target areas for maximum impact and ensure that they are provided

with sufficient resources 4. Increase penalties in fisheries regulations and sensitise the Judiciary to impose

sanctions that create effective deterrents 5. Promote compliance collaboration within the DWNP 6. Compliance awareness raising programmes need to be developed for local and

national government officers 7. Promote self regulation through fisher education and compliance with the Code

of Conduct for responsible fishing in the Okavango Delta.

5.2.2 Bio-physical Issues 5.2.2.1 Natural resource conservation Issue 7: Biological reference points and decision rules There is a need to develop biological reference points and decision rules for the fisheries in the Okavango Delta While the major focus of the management plan is to maximise the socio-economic benefit of the fisheries resources, this can only be achieved if the resource is managed in a biologically sustainable manner. From a biological perspective, management objectives need to be defined and biological reference points ascribed to those objectives. For example, maintaining CPUE in the fishery could be defined as a management objective, and suitable biological reference points describing particular CPUE values ascribed. Biological reference points may either be defined as targets or limits. In order to manage the resources in terms of targets and limits, the management plan must endeavour to: 1) move the stock closer to the target levels, and 2) provide for regular assessments to ensure that the management framework is working and provide a warning that changes need to be made. Decision rules are designed to respond to particular indicators and should trigger well in advance of their implementation. Decision rules dictate the conditions under which the resource can be exploited, and importantly, identify those actions that are required once the biological reference points suggest that there are sustainability problems in the fishery. Thus, decision rules may comprise management control measures that are usually defined as:

a. input controls - the control of fishing effort through licensing or controlling the numbers and types of boats, fishing gear etc.

b. output controls - the control of the amount of fish caught through setting catch quotas, total allowable catches etc.

c. technical controls – limitations in where, when and how fish may be caught through closed seasons, areas or gear types etc.


SOGES

52

Strategic Actions: 1. The DWNP in collaboration with the Okavango Research Institute need to identify potential biological reference points and decision rules, and present these to the Okavango Fisheries Management Committee (OFMC) for consideration and ratification by all stakeholders.

5.2.3 Socio-economic Issues 5.2.3.1 Sustainable use of natural resources Issue 8: CBNRM initiatives

There is a need to promote community based tourism opportunities linked to the recreational fishery and traditional fishing cultures

The potential to develop community based tourism operations based on the recreational fishery and traditional fishing culture practices are economic opportunities that communities have yet to meaningfully exploit. To date, the recreational fishery largely remains the exclusive domain of the established fishing camps and tour operators, and the local communities have as yet to capitalise on the sector‟s potential. There are clear opportunities to develop fish guiding activities, zoning areas exclusively for recreational fishing within CBNRM arrangements, promoting mentorship and joint ventures with the existing private sector / NGOs, and cultural tourism activities based on the traditional fishing practices used by the subsistence fishers. While the draft wildlife and the CBNRM policies provide the framework for the development of community based tourism opportunities, fisheries represents a new CBNRM activity, and in this regard, considerable resources will need to be allocated to the development of programmes. The DWNP is not resourced to develop tourism based activities per se, and thus support will be required from other government departments and parastatals (Department of Tourism, Botswana Tourism Organisation).

1. Support community based pilot projects in partnership with tourism development organizations and NGOs e.g. Botswana Tourism Organization 2. Facilitate governance arrangements in communities wishing to set aside areas for recreational fishing 3. Facilitate training of recreational fishing guides 4. Arrange mentorship partnerships with commercial fishing tour operators

5.2.3.2 Livelihoods improvements Issue 9: Fish processing / marketing

There is a need to improve fish handling, processing and marketing to guarantee the safety and quality of fish products and increase value at all levels

Product quality and marketing issues represent major constraints to the commercial gillnet fishers. Despite attempts to improve product quality through the provision of basic freezer / processing facilities, post harvest losses and product quality remain problematic. Low product volumes combined with a limited indigenous local market, poor marketing networks, large distances to the urban markets, and high transaction costs make marketing the products problematic. These problems are exacerbated by the fisher‟s poor business planning skills, access to finance to support marketing


SOGES

53

activities, and the precarious financial stability of the fisher associations and groups that undertake collective processing and marketing. In terms of opportunities, the 77 tourist lodges in the delta import their fish products from South Africa / China as the quality and supply of the local product does not meet their specifications. Import substitution with locally available product is a development option that needs to be considered. While the post harvest processing remains problematic, the indigenous tilapia species in the Delta combined with their size suggests that should the post handling and processing quality issues be resolved, a premium product could be produced. Tourists would likely approve of supporting the local fisher communities through eating locally caught fish as opposed to imported frozen product, and if appropriately branded as “delta fish”, they may even pay a premium price. To realise the potential, it will be necessary to undertake a value chain analysis to determine price points, product volumes, and potential marketing channels and develop a business case. In this regard, setting up marketing channels and negotiating contracts with suppliers and customers is a complex operation that the fishers will likely find extremely difficult to undertake, and thus consideration should be given to encouraging a private sector partner to address this component of the value chain. Strategic Actions:

1. Undertake a marketing and value chain study and establish a business case for supplying fish to the tourist lodges (product volumes, prices, costs – business case)

2. Provide training for fishers and associations: post harvest handling, cold chains, processing, business management skills

5.3 Immediate Interventions The key issues and strategic actions outlined in Section 5.2 provide the DWNP: Fisheries Division with the basis for the development of the Fisheries Management Plan for the Okavango Delta. Finalising the management plan and making it fully operational will likely take some time to complete. In the interim, there are a number of immediate interventions that could be undertaken to resolve some of the issues highlighted in this document. These interventions could either be funded by the Department, or alternatively approaches could be made to appropriate international donor programmes. This would require developing project proposals, possibly with the help of consultants, and sourcing the funding. Notably, the recent establishment of the USAid SAREP programme (Southern African Regional Environmental Programme), operated under the auspices of OKACOM, and focusing on the Okavango system provides a potential partner / funder that should be approached. In view of the key issues that have been identified for inclusion in the management plan, the following provides a list of the key interventions that could be translated into short term actions. 1. Transboundary co-operation: The political groundwork to develop transboundary programmes with Namibia has been undertaken, and there is now a clear mandate for the respective fisheries divisions in Nambia and Botswana to meet and discuss transboundary issues. Such meetings should be made priority for the respective government departments. In addition, the SAREP programme is focusing on


SOGES

54

transboundary issues and would likely be in a position to facilitate the inclusion of Angola into projects / programmes. 2. The development of biological reference points and decision rules: the long term sustainability of the fishery requires the development of biological reference points and decision rules. The DWNP: Fisheries Division does not currently have the technical resources to develop these reference points / decision rules. However, these skills do reside at the Okavango Research Institute (ORI). An MOU between the two institutions should be made a priority, this should allow departmental funding to be allocated to the ORI to develop the appropriate management decision making rules. These rules should be developed in partnership with the DWNP-Fisheries Division and ratified by the OFMC. 3. An operational plan needs to be developed for the DWNP: Fisheries Division. An internal audit needs to be undertaken at the Fisheries Division, and an operational plan developed. Where appropriate resources should be reassigned to more productive areas – for example, a review of the staffing activities, research, compliance, extension programmes needs to be undertaken, and changes to resource allocations made accordingly. Ideally, this could be outsourced to a consultant that is familiar with the institutional requirements of these types of institutions. A development in this area would likely require the development of proposal and the sourcing of funding. 4. Support existing initiatives such as the OFMC, the OFA, and the Ngarange tourism and fishing cooperative: It is essential that the DWNP: Fisheries Division actively supports the existing co-management frameworks such as the OFMC and the OFA and the pilot CBNRM programmes that are already under development, and does not let them expire as a result of a lack of support / funding. The Fisheries Division needs to facilitate a needs assessment for these organisations, formally provide support, and actively lobby for developmental finance. Assistance for this process could be sought from government or donor budgets (such as the SAREP programme). 5. Support for fish processing / marketing: The fishers in the delta need immediate Assistance to improve their fish handling, processing and marketing. The potential to market their fish as a high value product to the tourist lodges needs to be established. This will require a value chain analysis to determine the marketing potential, market requirements (e.g volumes, price, product types / quality), and develop the appropriate marketing / logistics frameworks. Should the rationale for a development be established, the complexity of developing an appropriate cold chain / processing and marketing operation suggests that a private sector partner should be approached to assist the fishers to process and sell their product. 6. Regulatory review: The fish protection regulations of 2008 are outdated and need to be revised as a matter of urgency. In this regard, a number of issues need to be addressed. These include, but are not restricted to, the development of a programme for identifying and tagging nets, revising the rules for submitting catch returns in the commercial fishery, and starting to collect catch returns from the recreational fishery. There is also a need for the DWNP: Fisheries Division to make input into the draft Wildlife Policy and the new Wildlife Act. It should be noted that the current consultancy (ACP-FISH II SOGES) provided a regulatory review of the current legislative frameworks in Botswana, and this should be used as the basis for the regulatory review. In terms of changing the regulatory dispensation, to ensure the buy-in from the fishing communities, this should be undertaken through a stakeholder process – as this is likely to be a relatively complex and possibly fraught process, consideration should be given to mediate this process through a third party.


SOGES

55

6 References Andrew, T.G., Huchzermeyer, K,D.A., Bernard Mbeha, B., Nengu, S, N. (In press) An epizootic ulcerative syndrome threatens Zambezi system fish fauna in Southern Africa. In press. Anon (1989) SADCC Country Situation Report: Regional Fisheries Survey – Botswana. Manuscript. JLB Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa. 9 pp. Bills, R. (1996) Fish Stock Assessment of the Okavango River. Investigational Report, No. 56. Grahamstown, South Africa: JLB. Smith Institute of Ichthyology. Bokhutlo, T., Kootsositse, M.V.,Mosepele, K. (2007) Okavango Delta fishery frame survey draft report. Okavango Delta Management Plan. Giske, A. (1996). Modeling surface outflow from the Okavango. Botswana Notes and Records, (28):165-192. Government of Botswana (1990) Tourism policy. Gaborone: Government Printer. Jul-Larsen, E., Kolding, J., Overa, R., Nielsen, R. & Zwieten, P.A.M. (2003) Management, Co-management or No Management? Major Dilemmas in Southern African Freshwater Fisheries. Part 1: Synthesis Report. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 426 ⁄ 1. FAO. Rome. Kgathi, D.L., Mmopela, G., Mosepele, K. (2005) Natural resources assessment in the Okavango Delta, Botswana: Case studies of some key resources. Natural Resources Forum, 29, 70-81 Ramberg, L. and van der Waal, B.C.W. (Eds) (1997) Fisheries Management in the Okavango Delta, AWorkshop Organized by the Fisheries Section, Ministry of Agriculture. 27-30 January 1997, Maun. Ramberg, L., P. Wolski and M. Krab, 2006. Water balance and infiltration in a seasonal floodplain the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Wetlands 26(3), 677-690. Skjønsberg, E. and Merafe, Y. (1987) The Okavango fisheries. Socio-economic Study. A report commissioned by the Ministry of Agriculture, Botswana and the Ministry of Development Cooperation, Norway. Merron, G.S. and M.N. Bruton (1988) The Ecology and Management of the Fishes of the Okavango Delta, Botswana, with Special Reference to the Role of the Seasonal Floods. J.L.B. Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa. Investigational Report No. 29. 291 pp.

Merron G.S. 1991. The ecology and management of the fishes of the Okavango delta, Botswana, with particular reference to the role of the seasonal floods. Rhodes University, PhD thesis. 171 pp. McCarthy, T.S. (1992). Physical and biological processes controlling the Okavango Delta – A review of recent research. Botswana Notes and Records, (24): 57-86. Mopelwa, G.M., Raletsatsi, S., Mosepele. K. (2005) Cost Benefit Analysis of Commercial Fishing in Shakawe, Ngamiland. Botswana Notes & Records, 37,11-21.


SOGES

56

Mmopelwa, G., Mosepele, K., Mosepele, B., Moleele, N., Ngwenya, B. (2009) Environmental variability and the fishery dynamics of the Okavango delta, Botswana: the case of subsistence fishing. Afr. J. Ecol., 47 (1), 119–127 Mosepele, K. (2000) Preliminary Length Based Stock Assessment of the Main Exploited Stocks of the Okavango Delta Fishery. Mphil Thesis, Department of Fisheries and Marine Biology, University of Bergen, Norway.139 pp. Mosepele, K. (2001a) Preliminary Description of the Okavango Delta Fishery. Fisheries Section, Ministry of Agriculture, Botswana. 132 pp. Mosepele, K. and J. Kolding (2003) Fish Stock Assessment in the Okavango Delta, Botswana – Preliminary Results from a Length Based Analysis, pp 363–390. In: Bernard, T., Mosepele, K. and L. Ramberg (Editors). Environmental Monitoring of Tropical and Subtropical Wetlands. University of Botswana, Maun and University of Florida, Gainesville, FLA. Mosepele, K., Mmopelwa, T.G. and B. Mosepele (2003) Characterization and Monitoring of the Okavango Delta Artisanal Fishery, pp 391–413. In: Bernard, T., Mosepele, K. and L. Ramberg (Editors). Environmental Monitoring of Tropical and Subtropical Wetlands. University of Botswana, Maun and University of Florida, Gainesville, FLA. Mosepele, K. Ngwenya, B.N. (2006) Artisanal fishing and food security in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. In: World Sustainable Development Outlook, 2006. Ed A. Ahmed. Science and Technology Research Brighton. Inderscience Ltd, UK. Mosepele, K, Kolding, J., Bokhutlo, T, and Wolski, P (in prep.) Fisheries dynamics in a fluctuating environment: The seasonal flood pulse – a major driver of change in the Okavango Delta‟s fishery? Nengu, S.M. (1995) Status of fisheries in wetlands. In: H. H. Masundire, K. N. Eyeson, and S. F. Mphuchane (eds) Wetlands Management in Botswana: Proceedings of a conference held in Kasane, 14-16 November 1994. Wetland Coordinating Committee, Botswana. Ngwenya, B.N., Mosepele, K. (2008) Socio-Economic Survey of Subsistence Fishing in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Okavango Report Series No. 6. Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Centre, University of Botswana ISBN 978-99912-463-4-5. p50. Norfico (1986) Botswana Fisheries: Fishing Gear and technology – A report from a consultancy in gear technology in Botswana in the period August-October 1986. Report to the Republic of Botswana, Ministry of Agriculture. Norwegian Agency for International Development. p. 100. Skelton, P.H., 2001. A complete guide to the freshwater fishes of southern Africa, Southern Book Publishers (PTY) LTD, Halfway House, 395 pp. Skelton, P.H., Bruton, M.N., Merron, G.S. and van der Waal, B.C.W. (1985). The fishes of the Okavango drainage system in Angola, South West Africa (now Namibia) and Botswana: Taxonomy and distribution. Ichthyological Bulletin. J.L.B Smith Institute of Ichthyology, Grahamstown, South Africa, No. 50. 21p.


SOGES

57

Tweddle D., Bills R., van de Waal B., Skelton P., Kolding J., and Nengu S. 2003. Fish Diversity and Fisheries in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. In: Alonso L.E. and Nordin L. (editors). 2003. A rapid biological assessment of the aquatic ecosystems of the Okavango Delta, Botswana: High Water Survey. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment 27. Conservation International, Washington, DC. Welcomme, R.L. (1985). River fisheries. FAO Fishery resources and environment division. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 262. 310p. Welcomme, R.L. (2001) Inland Fisheries; Ecology and Management. Blackwell Science, Oxford. Wilson, B. H. and Dincer, T. (1976). An introduction to the hydrology and hydrography of the Okavango Delta, p. 33-47. In: Proceedings of the symposium on the Okavango Delta and its future utilization. National Museum, Gaborone, Botswana.


SOGES

58

7 Appendix 1

Fisheries Management Plan for the Okavango

Shakawe Stakeholder Workshop

8th February 2011, Drotsky‟s Cabins, Shakawe

Minutes of the meeting Welcome remarks – Nkosi Mbanbo Nkosi Mbanbo welcomed everyone to the workshop. He gave a short resume of the history of the fishing in the Delta and the issues of the past, and described how the Delta was a jewel of a resource that belonged to the people of Botswana, and that it needed to be managed sustainably. He indicated that the current project provided an opportunity to move forward with the management of the fisheries and said that everyone should feel free to make input. Chairman of the Okavango Fisheries Association (OFA): Mr Mjwake Mr Mjwake started by providing a brief history of the association, and its mandate and purpose. He described some of the problems that the commercial fishers had experienced in the past, most notably the conflicts with other resource users and that conflict resolution had been the primary reason to establish the OFA. He indicated that in the past the Biokavango project had provided operational funding and that with the closure of this project, there were no funds to continue running the association. He highlighted financial and marketing constraints that the fishers were currently experiencing, and suggested that a component of the current project funds could be used to fund the OFA. He highlighted the need for funding for transport, and office operational costs, and that in the absence of funding it was unlikely that the OFA would operate effectively, let alone grow. With respect to the challenges that the fishers are currently experiencing, he identified the following issues: 1. Crocodiles: crocodiles continue to destroy nets, and the DWNP provides no compensation. This he felt was unfair as the DWNP compensated terrestrial farmers when wild animals impact on their livelihoods. 2. Marketing issues and access to markets: markets are distant and at present they only have one person driving from Gaborone to collect their fish. Due to the difficulties in marketing their fish to commercial buyers, many fishermen have to resort to bartering their fish for lower prices. To resolve this issue, they need to be provided with assistance to develop their markets and to transport the fish to Gabarone and other centres. He indicated that they had transported fish in the past, but that now the profits from the three trips that they had made had been exhausted, and thus they required further assistance. ACP-Fish II – Dr Leone Tarabusi Dr Tarabusi welcomed and thanked everyone for attending the workshop. He provided a brief outline of the ACP Fish II programme, the EU funding paradigm, and his role as the regional coordinator. He explained how the DWNP had identified a need to develop a fisheries management plan for the Okavango Delta, and that in response, the ACP Fish II programme had decided that they would fund this project.


SOGES

59

DWNP – Director of Fisheries: Mr Shaft Nengu Mr Nengu welcomed everyone to the workshop and thanked them for attending. He briefly discussed some of the issues relating to the development of the management plan. He went on to inform the delegates that some of the fish in the Okavango were diseased with epizootic ulcerative syndrome (EUS), a new disease in the system that originated from Asia. He said that samples of diseased fish had been sent to Thailand, and that the results had tested positive for EUS. He warned the delegates that the disease may recur this year, and that people should not eat those fish that appear to be diseased. As it has not been established how far the disease has spread within the system, care should be taken when moving fishing equipment from one area to another as this may spread the disease. He indicated that this workshop was designed to provide an opportunity for people to give their views on how to manage the fisheries resources in the Delta. He stressed that all the resources, including the fish, needed to be managed in a sustainable manner and for the benefit of all Botswana. He reported that the current project is a continuation of the Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP), of which fisheries was a component, and that while a fisheries management plan had been planned as a component of the ODMP, the ODMP planning process had come to an end before a fisheries management plan could be compiled. This was due to a lack of funds and the need for a stock assessment that could be used to inform the development of the plan. To address the fisheries component of the ODMP, the ACP Fish II programme had agreed to provide funds, and an opportunity to complete the management plan. The ACP Fish II Programme had agreed to fund the Okavango Delta Management Plan, an aquaculture development plan. These plans will be followed by a stock assessment that will be funded in a second phase of the ACP Fish II project. He stressed that the purpose of today‟s workshop was to elicit people‟s views on the management of the fishery. After the workshop in Shakawe, there will be a second similar workshop in Maun. The consultants will then develop a draft management plan that will be workshopped a second time, and further comments will be incorporated into the document. The final plan will be validated at a national workshop. The result of this work will be the development of a final fisheries management plan that will guide fisheries management in the Delta. He stressed that the plan will not belong the Government, but will belong to the people, the artisanal, commercial and recreational fishers, and it is being developed for their benefit and the wider public good. Soges - Presentation to contextualise Fisheries Management in the Okavango Delta: Prof. Peter Britz Prof. Britz introduced himself and thanked all for attending. He started by introducing the project and stressing that the fisheries management plan belonged to all the stakeholders and the community, and that all the knowledge that was needed to develop the plan was already in the room and in the wider community. He stressed that a management plan is not just a piece of paper, but a way to utilise the fishery on a daily basis. As a warning, he then went on to describe the effects of not taking ownership of the resources in the delta, of not having a good fisheries management plan / policy, and negative effects that can occur when fisheries resources are overexploited. He provided examples of poor management leading to the declining catches and losses of income. He provided a synoptic review of fisheries co-management, and how this can help manage the resource. In this regard, the Biokavango project developed very good community based organisations such as the OFA, and these now need to be built onto and supported, such that the co-management of the fishery could become a reality in the Delta. He stressed that


SOGES

60

fisheries systems are always in flux and that things are always changing, and that in this regard, people need to be flexible in their approach to management. Open meeting Paulus Semao – Samochima fisherman Mr Semao expressed concerns about the impact of fishing competitions on the resource – in particular he stressed the impact on the resource in terms of injured fish, disease transmission, and disrupting sand banks. He also asked about the possibility of promoting aquaculture in the area. Response: Director of Fisheries - Mr S. Nengu Mr Nengu started by explaining that the delta fishery is not protected as it is managed as an open access fishery. People bring boats from outside the Delta, and this could introduce exotic species / diseases that could endanger the delta. In addition, the people who bring their own boats are not guided. The banning of boats from outside the delta could be considered, and thus tourists coming to the delta would have to use local boats. In addition, the people who are bringing their boats to the delta are not familiar with the code of conduct, and therefore do not follow the code. In this regard, some park their boats on the sandbanks, disturb birds during the breeding season, and leave litter. People need to be guided by trained river guides and, in this regard, the open access nature of the delta needs to be reviewed. Furthermore, camping should not be allowed in all areas, but restricted to lodges and tourists should follow the Code of Conduct. The idea would be to make the tourists use the lodges and in so doing, avoid conflicts and minimise impacts. With respect to blockages in the channels, some of the lagoons are inaccessible as their access channels are blocked. This restricts fishing activities to the main channel. If the blocked channels could be opened, new areas would be made available for fishing. This would reduce competition for space in the main channel. He stressed that many lagoons that are not used could be opened up and accessed by both the commercial fishers and the recreational fishers / tourist lodges. He stated that areas in the main channel could be set aside to be used for research. He stressed that the presence of EUS demonstrates how fragile the system is, and so it may be necessary to restrict people from coming to the Delta with their own fishing gear, as this may introduce novel diseases to the system. Chairperson of the Itekeng Trust, Ngarange - Mr Seitlhobogeng Sekgoa Mr Sekgoa suggested that there was a need to establish an educational fishing trust. He said that to take ownership of the resource, fishers must benefit from it and help manage it as government cannot manage it alone. He stated that the current project was good as it takes into consideration the views of the community and ensures that people will benefit from the resources. In terms of moving forward, due to socio-economic considerations, people have been using the resources at a subsistence level, however now we should be focusing on developing capture fisheries and sport fishing. Lagoons should be set aside specifically for sport fishing and in those lagoons there should be no commercial fishing. Thus every time tourists come they will catch a fish. A catch and release policy should be implemented. Exploitation should be restricted in the lagoon, this will ensure sustainability. He finished by stating that the community can benefit from introducing a catch and release policy, however, training to assist in developing the sport fishery will be required and this could possibly be provided.


SOGES

61

Mr Lloyd Wilmot - operates a tour operation in lower delta Mr Wilmot started by saying that fishing competitions come once or twice a year and while they may bring some ecological problems, they are economically necessary as they bring in much needed funds to the area. In terms of providing guides during the competition, the competition fishermen do not want guides, and don‟t need them as they are experienced fishermen. Allowing boats to come into the Delta from outside is a major problem as there is the potential for the introduction of the salvinia weed. In this regard, there needs to be tighter controls on spraying boats and engines as they enter the area as they may contain spores that will lead to the introduction of the weed. He stated that the current controls on boats coming into the Delta need to be tightened, and the spraying of these boats to kill potentially invasive organisms needs to be improved. A distinction needs to be made between the eastern and western Okavango - in the eastern Okavango the salvinia weed is present, and at present all Okavango registered boats can move between the two areas of the delta. So there is a clear need to separate the boats from the east and the west, possibly by licensing the two areas separately. He went on to say that a ban on netting in Samochima lagoon should be implemented as it is a prime lagoon in the area. It has been fished since 1966, and it is a prime breeding location. It is central to three lodges and the houseboats to the north, and it therefore needs to be protected from the commercial fishermen. He suggested that a ban on netting would be appropriate but that other fishing activities should be allowed. Banning commercial netting would mean that the lodges / recreational fishers would have a local area in which they could catch trophy fish, and that this area would be close to where they were staying. Another advantage of banning netting in the lagoon would be that it would stop poaching in the area. It would also boost the local tourist lodges as catches would improve and enhance fishing. Furthermore, stocks would increase over time enabling fish to move into adjacent areas, improving the fishing in these areas. Response: Samochima fisherman syndicate: Mr Keitumetse Twaemango Mr Twaemango responded to Mr Wilmot by saying that when Wilmot came to the area, there was coexistence with the fishers and their use of the resources. The fish still breed, and everyone has a right to access the resource. With his canoe he can net fish and feed his family. So banning nets will affect his fishing activities and negatively affect his socio-economic status. Mohembo fisherman: Mr Kwate Tselakgolo Mr Tselakgolo asked for clarification of conservation issues. He stated that when people talk of conservation, they accuse the commercial fishermen as the ones that are responsible for not conserving the resource, and that they do not know how to conserve the resource. He stated that the commercial fishermen are the ones that made the delta what it is today, and are not the group that threatens it. In his view, the workshop should rather focus on issues that had previously been taken up by the Biokavango project. These issues include lack of office funding for the OFA, and assisting the fishers to improve their businesses. He concluded that restricting fishers from fishing in designated areas was not an important issue. Samochima fisher: Mr Paulo Semao Mr Semao started by saying that he had originally been in the Samochima fishing syndicate, and that since 2001, has operated on his own. He suggested that government should fund youth development as the youth are able bodied and could fish, but are not capacitated to do so. If they could be capacitated, they could supply


SOGES

62

government institutions and other markets with fish. However, to do so they would need financial assistance. Seronga fisherman: Mr Dibebe Maselaga Mr Maselaga asked whether there was funding to develop fish farms, and suggested that government set up a demonstration farm close to Samochima. The demonstration farm would enable people to be taught fish farming. At present, he said that it was too difficult for people to start a farm on their own. In terms of hook and line fishing in the recreational fishery, he suggested that this fishing method is endangering the lives of fish, and may end by killing fish. In this regard, fishermen have caught fish with hooks in their mouths, and this is not good for the fish. Mohambo fisherman: Mr Kachire Xoro Mr Xoro stated that according to the majority of fishers, the community has already agreed on an area of fishing grounds that has been set aside, so the community cannot set aside another lagoon as this is not in the interests of the majority. He went on to say that he was under the impression that the current project money was to be used to assist the fishers, but now saw that it was being used to run workshops. He said that the community should focus on developing aquaculture as this will reduce conflict in the fishery. To develop aquaculture, there will be a need to provide training. He finished by saying that fishermen are natural conservationists, as they have protected the resource from foreigners. Response: Director of Fisheries - Mr S. Nengu Mr Nengu provided clarity with respect to the funding of the current project. He said that when a request was made to fund the project, it was made for a specific activity. Contracts have been signed, and so funding cannot be diverted into other things. Concerning fish farming those who are advocating for demonstration farms should know that the government has already developed a demonstration farm, and that if they want to pursue this activity, they should contact DWNP who can provide training. However, before being trained, they need to be registered by the DWNP. Shakawe Fisherman Association Sub-Committee member: Mr Seranda Dibebe Mr Dibebe commended the government on their efforts to bring the Biokavango project that has helped the local people. Biokavango promised to build an office at Shakawe but did not. He stated that they would like a fish farming demonstration centre. He stated that he was in favour of fishing competitions, as they could also participate and win prizes. In his opinion, fishing competitions do not kill fish, and in his mind, sport fishing is more important than commercial, and that its development can benefit more people than can the development of commercial fishing. Samochima Fishing Association: Mr Kakuru Disho Mr Disho said that the Biokavango project had tried to resolve the conflicts in Samochima lagoon, and had done so successfully. Now that Biokavango was leaving, people are once more advocating the banning of nets and this will bring renewed conflict. Once the water level goes down the fish breed everywhere, and they can give Mr Lloyd the blocked lagoons as fish sanctuaries. If fisheries management is to succeed, the OFA must be supported as this is the representative management organisation that can manage the fishery, and that if the OFA fails, the management of the fishery will fail. OFA has no source of funding at present. He finished by saying that fishers have been fishing in the Samochima lagoon since 1801, and he is surprised that people are now wanting to ban the activity.


SOGES

63

The Chief: Nkosi Mbanbo Nkosi Mbanbo urged the participants to listen and to work with the consultants and to see what benefits the project could bring the community. He noted that since there are few markets for the fish and the quality of the fish sold is poor, it was necessary to discuss critical issues such as transport and markets. He noted that in 1801 the population was small, and there was no threat to the fish resources. However now that the population was larger, there may be problems with the level of harvesting. He urged the participants to make sure that the stocks of fish were preserved for future generations. Vice chairman of the Samochima Fishers Association: Mr Dumesang Modisaotsile Mr Modisaotsile told the delegates that he thought that the funds for the project had been sought to develop fish farming. There was a lot of interest in developing fish farming in the villages as it was thought that it would reduce conflict in the fishery if people could produce their own fish. He urged the consultants to tell those that funded this project that the community wanted to start fish farming in the area. He also brought up the issue of market access for the fish. He described how in December 2010, 200kg of fish had rotted in a freezer that had broken down, describing the problem as a waste of resources. He also complained that the OFA required a P50 annual fee which he described as a burden on the fishermen. He indicated that there were insufficient funds to operate the OFA, and as such the OFA will require additional funding to make it sustainable. He finished by reiterating the point that other delegates had made that banning nets on Samochima lagoon would result in conflict. Ngarange Fishers sub-committee: Mr Boston Moyaroke Mr Moyaroke noted that at present boats could not access Ngarange and Kgaolathogo lagoons as a result of channel blockages. He reported that many lagoons are blocked, and this is hindering both commercial fishing and tourist activities. On the issue of foreign boats, he reported that some of the boats caused problems as they did not conform to the code of conduct, and furthermore, that this needed to be brought to the attention of the DWNP. Seronga fisherman: Mr John Dipateletso Mr Dipateletso noted that the problem that fishers face in the panhandle relates to market access. He said that there are plenty of fishermen but that resources were being wasted as they cannot deliver the fish to markets. He contested that if the fishermen could not find markets for their products, they should seek alternative income generating activities. Drotsky‟s Cabins: Mr Jan Drotsky Mr Drotsky started by suggesting that the market conditions for the panhandle fishers was likely to deteriorate in the future as the market in Maun will increasingly be supplied by fish from the south of the Delta – where the waters are high and are likely to remain so for quite some time. He also suggested that the quality of fish at the Samochima Fishers Association is a problem as there is no ice on the boats, conditions on shore are unhygienic, and the fish are badly handled post harvest. At present there is no processing plant, however, there is a possibility of selling high quality fillets to the camps in the Delta. He contested that the main marketing problem related to the poor quality of the product. He went on to note that the basket


SOGES

64

fishing women target species different to those of the commercial fishers, and that these fish have a market in the villages. He finished by saying that these women also need support to help them to market their fish. The Chief: Nkosi Mbanbo In support of Mr Drotsky‟s comments, the chief suggested that as the fishermen were now complaining about the market conditions, and that poor market access had led to stock losses, the fishermen should consider requesting a project that would assist the OFA to improve the fish markets and marketing activities in the delta. In this regard, capacity building at the OFA would be needed, and market channels developed such that fish from the Delta could be sold to consumers such as the government agencies. However, to do this the OFA would need trucks / transport so that they could improve their market access. Lunch (1-2pm) Samochima fisher: Mr Paulo Semau Mr Semau complained that the community had not been consulted about how the funds to develop the fisheries management plan had been allocated. Response: Director of Fisheries - Mr S. Nengu Mr Nengu clarified the position in terms of funding by the ACP Fish II programme, and the process that had led to the funding of the project. Chairperson for Itekeng trust, Ngarange: Mr Seitlhobogeng Sekgoa Mr Sekgoa encouraged the fishermen to keep proper records of their catches, as these records could be used to monitor the resource. Shakawe Lodge: Mrs Pryce Mrs Pryce suggested that the DWNP should undertake an annual stock assessment to monitor the status of the fish stocks, and these assessments could be used to manage the stocks. Response: Director of Fisheries - Mr S. Nengu Mr Nengu indicated that there was a stock assessment that could and would be used for management purposes. He emphasised that catch records are important indicators in the fishery, and that fishers needed to submit their catch returns to the DWNP officers for inclusion in the quarterly fishing status reports. Seronga fisher: Mr Maila Mmusi Mr Mmusi told the delegates that he has been told that fish can be farmed, but that they did not know how to do it. He suggested that the government set up a demonstration farm. DWNP Etsha 13 Station: Mr Mmopi Kakavetsis Mr Kakavetsis told the delegates that a stock assessment of the fish stocks had been completed, and that the Department now needed the recommendations from the


SOGES

65

stock assessment to inform the community. He noted that there are many different fish species that are abundant in the panhandle, and that currently, many of these species are not harvested. He suggested that some of these species could be targeted and canned. He stressed that the commercialisation of fish should not only focus on the tilapias. Diversification in the fishing effort in the Panhandle is required, and research will be needed to assist in this process. He also noted that there was a need for the DWNP staff capacity building. Fisheries staff currently lacks training, and it was noted that there is currently no official training in fisheries management in Botswana. The issue of the DWNP only having access to small engines was raised and it was noted that 25hp outboard engines were too small for compliance purposes - tourists have 200 hp engines and can‟t be caught by patrols. It was also noted that monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) operations needed to be increased during the closed season. Etsha 13 fisherman: Mr Moronga Katsotso Mr Katsotso expressed the view that if there were funds for fishing programmes, the funds should benefit the commercial fishers. Nxamasere fisher: Mr Senabe Lefatshe Mr Lefatshe made an appeal for funding to resolve the marketing issues that they are currently experiencing. Drotsky‟s Cabins: Mr Jan Drostky Mr Drotsky noted that when the commercial fishery had been established, the fishermen had been given grants. As they had initially been funded, they now want more and more funds to continue and expand business. He noted that their businesses were not being run sustainably, and that asking for further funding was not how business works – they need to borrow money from the bank and make viable businesses. DWNP Seronga station: Mr Mweeze Mr Mweeze complained about fishers using their boats at night as this was the time when most of the animals are awake and also mobile. He also suggested that the tourist lodges did not like to hear outboard engines at night, and that the practice was incompatible with their operations. Shakawe fisherman: Mr Seranda Dibebe Mr Dibebe reported that accessing bank funds was very difficult for the fishers as a lot of documentation was required, and the banks do not consider fishing to be a viable business. Mohambo fisherman: Kachire Xoro Mr Xoro declared that restricting night movements on the water would be difficult as many fishers fish far from their homes, and sometimes they will stop fishing at 7.30pm and have to travel three hours back to their villages. Thus, they may return home in the night. Chairman of the Okavango Fisheries Association (OFA): Mr Mjwake Mr Mjwake suggested that foreign tourists should be accompanied into the delta by local guides. In terms of prohibiting the use of boats at night, his contention was that


SOGES

66

it was the tourists that are the ones that travel most at night. He further suggested that it was the tourists who have in the past set fire to the delta. The tourists camp in the delta at night, return to the lodges and fly out with no one knowing what they have been doing in the Delta. He suggested that the tourists should stay at the lodge campsites and not camp in the delta. He added that the fishermen would like to see a reduction in the size of engines that are allowed in the delta. It was his opinion that big engines cause the papyrus to break loose, the broken papyrus travels downstream and blocks the downstream channels. A reduction in engine sizes will reduce the amount of papyrus that breaks loose and alleviate the problem of blocked lagoons. Workshop closing: 3pm Mr Shaft Nengu (Director of fisheries, DWNP) thanked the delegates for attending the workshop and for their input into the process. Closing remarks from the chairman of the Okavango Fisheries Association (OFA): Mr Mjwake Mr Mjwake thanked the DWNP for organising the forum and before the close said that he would like to highlight the following: When the Biokavango project arrived he expected that by the time it had finished, there would be something to show for their efforts. Now that the project is closing he feels that the OFA is being discarded, and that he and the association have been used as a tool to suit the needs of the project. He had expected that the Biokavango project would have built capacity in the association and membership. This has not happened. He suggested that when other projects come, they should focus on working closely with OFA. He said that the Biokavango project had taken them to a south eastern district to see community trusts, and that those trusts employ people and that those people are empowered. While the government had funded those trusts, when the OFA went to ask the government for funding, they had not been successful. The OFA wants to see progress and they expect something meaningful to come from the day‟s deliberations. In this regard, they would like feedback on the progress of the programme. He said that the conflicts between the tourist lodges and fishermen are now over and so now it was time to conserve the resources and talk to each other to resolve the issues of the fishery. Even if stakeholders disagree, it does not necessarily mean that they are not cooperating. He would like to see the commercial fishers come together with the lodge owners and police the delta as one, and not pit one against the other. Finally, the Norwegians came and made promises that they did not keep. This project must not make the same mistake, there should be no false promises and it must work with the OFA so that something worthwhile comes of it.


SOGES

67

Fisheries Management Plan for the Okavango and the development of an Aquaculture Strategy for Botswana

Maun Stakeholder Workshop

15th February 2011, Maun River Lodge, Maun

Minutes of the meeting Prayer Welcome remarks: Regional Wildlife officer, Mr Othomile Mr Othomile opened the workshop by welcoming the local chiefs, dignitaries and the delegates to the workshop. Introduction - Nkosi Nkakobang Nkosi Nkakobang introduced himself and explained why some of the chiefs could not be present. He introduced those chiefs that were present. Following the introduction of the Chiefs, the workshop delegates individually introduced themselves to the group. Okavango Fisheries Association sub-committee Maun: Mr Mosweu Mr Mosweu spoke on behalf of the chairman of the OFA. He highlighted the main fisheries issues that were affecting them in the southern part of the Delta. Principal amongst these issues was market access. He reported that while the fishermen were currently catching a lot of fish in the southern part of the delta, they couldn‟t market the fish effectively, and this was resulting in loss of income as some fish were spoiling and had to be thrown away. He also noted that gillnets are expensive, and that the fishermen were having difficulties affording replacement nets. DWNP: Mr Shaft Nengu Mr Nengu welcomed everyone to the workshop and provided a brief overview of the ACP Fish II programme, funding structure, and the objectives of the programme. He introduced the fisheries management and the aquaculture projects, and the consultants, and outlined the purpose of the workshop. He conveyed to the participants that the main purpose of the workshop was to address the fisheries management issues in the Delta, and that there were to be two further workshops to discuss the aquaculture development strategy issues. Soges - Presentation to contextualise Fisheries Management in the Okavango Delta: Prof. Peter Britz Prof. Britz introduced himself and thanked all for attending. He started by contextualising the project and explaining what was meant by a fisheries management plan. He stressed that a management plan was required to maintain the Okavango Delta in its current form, to reduce threats to biodiversity, and manage the fish stocks for prosperity. As a warning, he then went on to describe the effects of not taking ownership of the resources in the delta, of not having a good fisheries management plan / policy, and the negative effects that can occur when fisheries resources are overexploited. He provided examples from Gabon and Malawi where poor management had led to declining catches and losses of income. He provided a synoptic review of fisheries co-management, and how such an approach can help


SOGES

68

manage the resources of the Delta. In this regard, he said that the Biokavango project developed very good community-based organisations such as the OFA, and these now needed to be built on to and supported, such that the co-management of the fishery could become a reality in the Delta. He stressed that fisheries systems are always in flux and that things are always changing and that, in this regard, people need to be flexible in their approach to management. He finished by stressing the need for good science that can feed into evidence-based management decision making processes. Tea Fish Stock Assessment: Mr Keta Mosepele Mr Mosepele provided an overview of the fishery and outlined the fishing activities and target species of the user groups, viz. the artisanal, commercial and recreational fishery. He provide an overview of the current levels of exploitation in the fishery and concluded that there had been no significant decrease in the mean length of the major commercial species over time; that there had been no significant decrease in species diversity over time; that there had been no significant difference in the relative abundance of species (as measure by CPUE) over time; and that there were long lag times between fishery production and discharge. He concluded that the fish populations in the Delta were in a good state and that under the current management paradigm, the resource was not over-exploited. He concluded by stressing that there remained much to learn about the fisheries resources, and stressed the need to enhance and diversify the fisheries research that is currently being performed in the Delta Aquaculture Presentation: Dr. Tom Shipton Dr. Shipton provided a synoptic review of aquaculture development in Southern Africa, its potential and its success stories, and where it had failed in the past. He provided a brief historical overview of the sector starting in the 1950s and described the various attempts that had been made to stimulate the sector. Despite the initial promises, he reported that in many cases the sector had not thrived and realised its potential. He presented the current thinking within the industry that is focused on moving aquaculture away from small scale village interventions that are designed to promote food security, to the promotion of commercial aquaculture. He provided examples of regional success stories that had been based on sound economic and business planning process. He finished by suggesting that should the Botswana government decide to promote an aquaculture sector, it would have to expend considerable resources in terms of providing an enabling environment for private sector investment. He provided a synoptic review of the types of government interventions that would be required. Open Discussion Maun Fisherman: Mr Serurubele Nyame Mr Nyame started by saying that this was not the first meeting that they had had to discuss the fisheries management issues in the Delta, and that he was not sure if anything useful would come out of these deliberations. He also expressed his concerns that the current process would result in regulations that will restrict his fishing rights.


SOGES

69

Response: SOGES: Prof. Peter Britz Prof. Britz thanked Mr Nyame for his comments and said that it was good that the consultants were being held to account and assured the workshop that by the end of May there would be a Management Plan presented to them. He stressed that the workshop provided an opportunity to identify projects in the management plan that could be funded to resolve some of the fishers‟ issues. Maun Buisnessman: Mr Mosweu Mr Mosweu wanted to know why the fishers dispose of the catfish. He noted that the gillnets are not species specific, and the catfish left in the nets decompose fast. He expressed concern over the wasted resource and further enquired whether these types of conservation issues were best resolved under the wildlife department of the old Department of Agriculture that used to be responsible for fisheries management. Response: Mr Shaft Nengu (DWNP) Mr Nengu responded by saying that when fisheries management was the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, there were no regulations to conserve fish; however, now that the department falls under the remit of the Department of National Parks and Wildlife there are regulations to conserve the fish. Under the Department of Agriculture, the fishery was an open access fishery, but now there is a permit system, so currently there is more regulation. Maun Fisherman: Mr Liti Mr Liti started by saying that there are many problems in the fisheries, fish marketing and sales systems. In terms of funding, he reported that the CEDA funding mechanism is not conducive to funding the fishing industry as the industry is perceived to be high risk and therefore CEDA is reticent to provide loans. The staff at CEDA also has little knowledge of the fishing sector and how it operates. Mr Liti suggested that they would rather fund terrestrial agriculture as this was a sector that they were familiar with and understood. He stated that the local markets and shops are not selling local fish, but rather imported fish from South Africa. He also complained that it was difficult to comply with government tenders to supply the government with fish products. He suggests that government introduces programmes to increase fish consumption in institutions such as schools. Such interventions would develop markets for their products and stimulate demand for aquaculture. Fisherman: Mr Gaboloatwe Motopi Mr Motopi confirmed that markets remain an issue as the local people do not consume significant quantities of fish. The poor market conditions led to low revenues in the fishery. He suggested that the government should assist in developing markets both locally and internationally (principally South Africa). He reported that the major problem in terms of market access was that the fishing grounds are far from the markets and they don‟t have chilling or processing equipment - so the fish become spoiled and lose value. He finished by saying that there is no future in the fishing industry as long as the marketing and processing issues remain unresolved. Maun Buisnessman: Mr Chaka Mr Chaka suggested that the importance of eating fish and the associated health benefits should be explained to the population, and that this would increase consumption rates and increase markets. He reported that he doesn‟t buy from the


SOGES

70

fishers as he is not sure of the product quality. There are no inspection / sanitary systems in place. He also stated that it is difficult to start fish farming ventures as the land acquisition process is problematic, and it is difficult to secure land for development. Nxaraga Chief: Mr Gaolatlhe Mr Gaolatlhe suggested that poor fisheries management would lead to a reduction in resources. He suggested that the government should provide quotas to fish the resources. If quotas were introduced, he wanted to know how much quota the government would authorise. Maun businessman: Mr Mokunki Mr Mokunki indicated that he would like to see the development of aquaculture in the country as, in his opinion, it would reduce the pressure on the fish resources of the Delta. Wilderness Safaris: Mr Simon Dures Mr Dures expressed concerns over the future management of the fishery. He noted that very little research had been undertaken on the fish resources of the southern part of the Delta, and suggested that this should be rectified. He also cautioned that the management plan that is developed should be flexible and be able to respond to future changes in the fish resources of the Delta. Crocodile Researcher: Mr Vincent Shacks Mr Shacks expressed concerns about a management plan being developed using the existing fisheries data. He suggested that the data from the panhandle is limited. He suggested that the management plan should include research and monitoring components and be flexible such that changes to the management regime can be made as and when new information becomes available. In terms of marketing, he wanted to know how the development of the markets will impact the resource. His concern was that better market access will manifest as more fishers entering the fishery. In terms of aquaculture development, he suggested that the DWNP produce development guidelines. Lunch 12.30-1.00 Nxaraga Chief: Mr Gaolatlhe Mr Gaolatlhe expressed concerns about illegal fishing and poaching and how this affected the conservation of the resource. He reported that people were fishing during the closed season and that there was overfishing in the delta. Fisherman: Mr Motswagole Mokgwathi-Boro Mr Mokgwathi-Boro reported that there was a lot of talk about fish farming, but that the government was not telling the people how they could access land for farming. The land board has a policy of not giving out land near to the river and hence there are no suitable aquaculture sites available. He suggested that if the government wants to promote fish farming, they should allow them access to land near to the river. He finished by enquiring how close to a river should a fish farm be sited.


SOGES

71

Maun fisherman: Losikaa Molefhi Mr Molefhi noted that there were diseases in the fish in the Delta and wanted to know if the consultants had ever come across fish diseases in other countries. Maun Fisherman: Mr Mosweu Mr Mosweu contested that the fish resources will never become depleted. He complained that the Government does not fund fish farming enterprises and thus the fishermen would have to fund any developments themselves. This, he reported, was not possible. Soges: Prof. Peter Britz Prof. Britz clarified the purpose of the meeting by saying that we were there to discuss the management plan. He summarised the issues that had so far been brought up. Marketing and processing were clearly major concerns that required attention. In this regard, fish quality, post harvest losses and the use of freezers required serious attention. He noted that there is a need to start monitoring catches in the south of the Delta, as most of the monitoring is currently being undertaken in the north. There are also issues of fishing effort and the sustainability of the resource that needed consideration. The management plan should respond to these issues. He suggested that the research capacity in the DWNP needs to be enhanced, and that this could be done through the signing of an MOU between the DWNP and the University of Botswana: Okavango Delta Research Institution. There is also a need for people to have a better understanding of the fishery, and in this respect there needs to be improvements in terms of communicating research outcomes to the fishing communities. In terms of aquaculture, there are concerns about guidelines, EIAs etc. and there are issues in terms of transboundary stocks, alien fish being farmed in Angola and the introduction of diseases. All these issues will need to be addressed in the management plan. Issues of access to land and financing aquaculture need to be addressed. He stressed that aquaculture is very difficult to establish as an economic entity. A small to medium scale intervention in the delta would likely be unviable, so the government needs to consider whether this would be a worthwhile investment, and indeed whether they should be investing resources in the sector. He cautioned against aquaculture development at this stage and suggested that government should perhaps put their funding towards assisting in resolving the issues in the fishery. He noted that Namibia is currently investing heavily in aquaculture development in the Caprivi and, in this regard, it may be better to wait and see how their research programmes work out and, if they are successful, possibly channel finance into the sector at a later stage when they have developed the support facilities that could assist in the development of the Botswana sector. At this stage he suggested that it may be premature to support an aquaculture sector in Botswana. In terms of fishing effort and quotas, he said that in marine fisheries quotas are often used, but that it was not clear that quotas are the correct management tool in the Delta. Fish populations are dynamic, reproduce rapidly and move within the Delta. He gave the example of the amount of fishing coming out of Lake Ngamai now that it was filled, and that this could rapidly change if the waters receded. The amount of fish in the system is variable and stocks would probably quickly recover from heavy fishing pressure. So a quota applied in one year may not be useful in the next. From a management perspective, it is important to know how much fish is being fished, and the size of the fish. In this regard, adaptive management is required in which monthly samples are recoded - if there are indicators of change in the data, then there is a need to look at limiting effort. Limiting effort may require the labelling /


SOGES

72

marking of nets so that a better understanding of who is fishing where, and where it is being fished is generated. In addition to the number of fish, there is a need to focus on the socio-economic side of the fishery to establish how to get the best economic value out of the fishery. He talked about the recreational fishery and the need to zone areas, and to work together with the recreational fishers as guides etc. This would improve people‟s financial status. In this regard, training would be required to help fishers enter the recreational fishing industry, but it is an economic decision that the communities must make – do they want to close off areas to promote recreational fishing? OKACOM: Ms Monica Morrison. Ms Morrison noted that the EUS disease and the potential for invasive species to enter the system are important issues that need to be addressed in the management plan. There are a lot of upstream issues that need to be addressed and she stressed that economic activities need to be harmonised between the three countries. A National Action Plan (NAP) is currently being developed, and this will result in the development for a Strategic Action Plan for the Okavango system. She stressed that fisheries issues needed to be include in these planning documents. Maun Fisherman: Mr Serurubele Mr Serurubele acknowledged that poorer fishers would have problems starting fish farms, so any monies that are available should be channelled into helping the fishers to market their fish. He was concerned about how the fishers could realise profits from the recreational fishing. He stated that recreational fishing is an activity of the tour operators and he found it hard to see how the fishers could become involved in the sector. The local fishermen have no entry points into the recreational fishing sector. He said that he was not in favour of the zoning of the recreational fishers, and suggested that, were zones to be adopted, he would not comply with them. His contention was that zoning cannot work when the commercial and recreational fishers target the same resource. Tour and safari operator: Johan Jaarsveld Mr Jaarsveld reported that there are 77 lodges in the Delta and environs. Currently these lodges are getting their fish from South Africa. He stressed that the tourists do not want to eat fish that is not well prepared and that the reason for importing the fish was because the quality was good and better than the local offerings. He stressed that there is demand from the tourists but the quality of the local product needs to be improved. He suggested that the lodges would buy from the fishers as long as the quality is high. Thus there is already a good market in the Delta for the fish. In terms of the fishers not being important to the tourists, they have indigenous knowledge that can be used to the benefit of the tourists. He suggested that they could be employed by the tourists in a similar way to the makoro polers who provide tourist rides into the Delta. Maun fisherman: Losikaa Molefhi Mr Molefhi responded to Mr Jaarsveld saying that tour operators were polluting the river system with their waste waters and that this was affecting the quality of their fish, and that the tourists probably don‟t want to eat the fish as they come from a dirty environment. Response: Mr Shaft Nengu (DWNP) Mr Nengu suggested that a market survey could be proposed in the management plan.


SOGES

73

Crocodile Researcher: Mr Vincent Shacks Mr Shacks suggested that research priorities should be highlighted in the management plan, and that those issues that inform management should be given priority. He also suggested that fishing competitions should be used to monitor / mark / tag fish, and that these events could form the basis for the long term monitoring of the stocks. Maun businessman: Mr Mokunki Mr Mokunki suggested that the delegates forget the conflicts of the past. He noted that the fishers can‟t sell directly to the lodges from their boats as there are by-laws that dictate that the fish must be processed in a suitable processing establishment. He suggested that assistance should be given to the fishers to develop these establishments. Maun Fisherman: Mr Mokgathi Mr Mokgathi asked for government assistance to help the fishers sell their fish to the tourist lodges. He indicated that the fishers needed access to freezer storage facilities and training in post harvest processing. He suggested that the funds for this could be provided by the Fisheries Division. Soges: Prof. Peter Britz Prof. Britz thanked everyone and in particular Mr Keta Mosepele for attending the workshop. He also thanked the DWNP for organising the venue, their translation services and the distributing of the invitations. To summarise, he suggested that there needs to be a marketing section in the management plan, and that the idea of accessing the local tourist market is a good one, and that this should be included into the management plan. Moving forward he said that the project would take into consideration the comments that had been made today, and that the team would return next month to present the management plan. This would provide the participants with a chance to comment on the management plan. Nxaraga Chief: Mr Gaolatlhe Mr Gaolatlhe thanked everyone for attending the workshop. He summarised that the main issue that had been raised during the day was market access and that, in his view, the DWNP could offer the most assistance in this regard. He finished by saying that he was in support of everything that was discussed and officially closed the workshop. The session closed at 3.45pm


SOGES

74

8 Appendix 2

List of Workshop Delegates: Shakawe


SOGES

75


SOGES

76


SOGES

77

List of Workshop Delegates: Maun


SOGES

78


SOGES

79

the okavango delta fisheries - acp fish iiacpfish2-eu.org/uploads/projects/id8/management...

Documents