This article was downloaded by: [University of Botswana Library] On: 06 March 2012, At: 04:25 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsdw20 Attitudes and opinions of local and national public sector stakeholders towards Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Botswana Naomi N. Moswete a, Brijesh Thapa b & Brian Child c a Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana b Eric Freidheim Tourism Institute, Department of Tourism, Recreation & Sport Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA c Department of Geography, Center for African Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Available online: 19 Jul 2011 To cite this article: Naomi N. Moswete, Brijesh Thapa & Brian Child (2012): Attitudes and opinions of local and national public sector stakeholders towards Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Botswana, International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 19:1, 67-80 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.592551 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology Vol. 19, No. 1, February 2012, 67 80 Attitudes and opinions of local and national public sector stakeholders towards Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, Botswana Naomi N. Moswete a *, Brijesh Thapa b and Brian Child c a Department of Environmental Sciences, University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswana; b Eric Freidheim Tourism Institute, Department of Tourism, Recreation & Sport Management, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; c Department of Geography, Center for African Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA Downloaded by [University of Botswana Library] at 04:25 06 March 2012 Local and national public sector stakeholders are considered to be primary stakeholders and their knowledge and support for conservation initiatives of transfrontier parks are important for sustainable management of resources. Hence, it is critical to assess the attitudes and opinions of a major stakeholder group in order to establish partnerships between protected areas (PAs), adjacent communities and other management agencies. This study employed a qualitative inquiry to identify and assess factors that influence public sector stakeholder support for community-based ecotourism (CBE) development and for conservation of the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP). In-depth semi-structured interviews were used to solicit data from 15 local and national representatives who have worked or resided in the Kgalagadi region for a period of at least 6 months. Findings revealed variations in opinion between local and national representatives in relation to collaboration and partnership initiatives, conservation projects, park management, tourism development and park benefits to local communities. There was overall uncertainty with respect to the designation of the KTP, since it had generated unfavourable conditions for adjacent local people, local authorities and village leaders. Nearly all local representatives indicated an imbalance with regard to resident collaboration and partnership in KTP conservation-related projects, and the general management activities. The contentions included concerns about land ownership and control, human wildlife interactions, perceptions about communication with park authorities, lack of transparency with respect to activities and inequality of park benefits. Two major policy concerns were a low level of community participation in park activities and a lack of collaboration and communication between management and residents. Keywords: public sector; stakeholders; community-based ecotourism; conservation Introduction In Botswana, national parks and game reserves were created to safeguard and maintain wildlife resources, preserve biodiversity, integrate conservation and development activities, foster ecological education and promote park-based tourism to benefit both resources and people (GOB 2003). Botswana has approximately 17% of its total land mass designated as national parks and game reserves, while 22% is protected as wildlife management areas (WMAs) (GOB 2001). The government s commitment to conservation and preservation of the natural and cultural resource base and the promotion of sustainable use of such assets is evident. The protection and preservation of wildlife resources inside and/or on the buffer zones of parks and reserves have largely created the highest population of wildlife in the country. In addition, Botswana has also been ranked high in terms of number and variety of species in Southern Africa (Botswana Tourism Development Program 1999). Botswana has embarked on transfrontier conservation management policies, whereby the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) the first formally declared transboundary protected area (PA) in Southern Africa was established (Peace Parks Foundation 2009). Transfrontier parks (TFPs) are defined as wildlife conservation areas with common international boundaries managed as a single unit by a joint authority that comprises the representatives of the participating countries (Sandwith et al. 2001: 3 4). The objective of creating a TFP is to promote biodiversity conservation, tourism development, poverty alleviation and to enhance local community participation (Sandwith et al. 2001; Eagles et al. 2002; Chengeta et al. 2003; Cornelissen 2005; Suich 2008; Eagles 2009). Furthermore, TFPs are used as a means to reduce conflict or political differences between frontiers (Metcalfe 2003; Jones 2005; Soto 2009; Suich et al. 2009). More specifically, the benefits include: a reduction of poaching and halting illegal trade across boundaries; enhancement of nature-based tourism due to joint marketing, tour operator training and joint agreements on fees; visitor management and possible reintroduction of a large range of species; and promotion of ecosystem management (Sandwith et al. 2001; Suich et al. 2009). However, the creation of TFPs has also alienated adjacent resident communities due to limited resource access and restrictions (Metcalfe 2003; Meskell 2005; Schoon 2008; Soto 2009). In addition, TFPs have faced myriad financial, sociocultural and ecological challenges as managers attempt to strike a balance between conservation, poverty alleviation and community-based tourism development (Barnes 2001; Jones 2005; Spenceley 2008; Soto 2009). *Corresponding author. Emails: nomsamoatshe@yahoo.com; moatshen@mopipi.ub.bw ISSN 1350-4509 print/issn 1745-2627 online 2012 Taylor & Francis http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13504509.2011.592551 http://www.tandfonline.com
68 N.N. Moswete et al. The KTP operates under dual ownership and management of governments between Botswana and South Africa. Transboundary Natural Resources Management (TBNRM) is a fairly new concept in Botswana, with several policies, legislation, acts and regulations that govern TFP initiatives. Key policies include: the Wildlife Conservation Policy of 1986 (preservation in national parks and game reserves); the National Policy on Natural Resources Conservation and Development of 1990; and Tourism and Water Resources policies. In addition, the following acts are included: the Tourism Act (1992), Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act (1992), National Ecotourism Strategy (2003) and the National Conservation Strategy. These government policies share a lot in common, as they all emphasise sustainable use of natural resources; promotion of a viable commercial wildlife industry that will create employment, increase incomes and improve livelihoods of the rural people; conservation of wildlife, protection of traditional rights of local communities, restoration of degraded rangelands and adoption of better management strategies (MFDP 2002; Chengeta et al. 2003). Research on TBNRM initiatives has both strengths and weaknesses. For instance, there is no policy framework to guide management and implementation of activities at KTP. Lack of guidelines has been a major drawback to the advancement of the TFP initiatives. In addition, there is lack of communication amongst the various stakeholders, especially local communities in TBNRM. However, there is recognition of the need to involve local communities in the planning and implementation of projects that occur in their area. This aspect is critical, since lack of participation and involvement of local communities in decision-making and management of the resources in PAs has generally caused conflicts between organisations and local communities (Parry and Campbell 1992; Barnes 2001; Bauer 2003; Meskell 2005; Brandon 2007; Himoonde 2007; Hoehn and Thapa 2009; Nicholas et al. 2009a; Nguyen et al. 2011). It is important that the government has a policy framework that guides implementation and other related management of activities (Parry and Campbell 1992; Barnes 2001; MLG 2005; Moswete et al. 2009). In order to develop an inclusive management strategy and framework for KTP, it is paramount that all relevant stakeholders are consulted. There are many different stakeholders and each group plays a different role with its own values and objectives (Mitchell et al. 1997; Friedman and Miles 2002; Byrd 2007; Nicholas et al. 2009a, 2009b). Therefore, given that the needs of stakeholders are diverse, establishing partnerships between PAs, adjacent communities and other management agencies would benefit all (Eagles et al. 2002; Eagles 2009; Moswete 2009; Nicholas et al. 2009a, 2009b). Within this context, stakeholder theory has been largely used as a technique to identify and assess the importance of key players/actors, people, groups and institutions that may influence the success of an idea or venture (Mitchell et al. 1997; Byrd 2007). Generally, it is used to explain, guide and assess the structure and operation of institutions and organisations. Stakeholder theory is built on the premise that a project can be successful if the various groups or individuals who have investment in an initiative can contribute to its accomplishment (Freeman 1984). Stakeholder theory has been used to increase collaboration between different tourism resource users and institutions, especially on issues relevant to planning, development, resource utilisation and management (Timothy 1998; Medeiros de Araujo and Bramwell 1999; Byrd 2007; Moswete 2009; Nicholas et al. 2009a, 2009b). In the context of Botswana, Mulale (2005) classified stakeholder groups and organisations involved in communitybased natural resource management (CBNRM) initiatives. Accordingly, state agencies were identified as the most salient stakeholders; non-governmental organisations were powerful stakeholders; and the CBNRM organisations were the most dependent and/or demanding stakeholders. Furthermore, the state institutional actors (as primary stakeholders) were found to dominate the CBNRM programme by formulating objectives and strategies or even dictating how management should operate (Mulale 2005). The role of the public sector as a primary stakeholder cannot be understated due to its administrative role in formulating policies, fiscal issues, as well as site management decisions and actions with respect to development, management and conservation of communal resources (Nicholas et al. 2009b). Public sector stakeholder s (local and national) knowledge and support for conservation initiatives of TFPs are essential to the advancement of park-based activities (Spenceley 2008). Policymakers and managers face challenges with respect to which different stakeholders can be involved in conservation, ecotourism development and management of shared resources (Stem et al. 2003; Suich 2008). Currently, conservation managers have begun to understand and recognise the importance of involving communities, especially local authorities in the general management and development of PAs (Brandon 2007; Eagles 2009; Parker and Thapa 2011). Therefore, local and national public sector stakeholder s knowledge and support for conservation initiatives of TFPs are imperative for sustainable management of resources. It is critical to assess attitudes and opinions of this major stakeholder group in order to establish partnerships between PAs, adjacent communities and other management agencies. The policymakers are known to have different interests or stakes that pertain to development in the Kgalagadi region. Interviews with people who have knowledge and expertise on issues of development in the local communities provide an important knowledge base, which may contribute to the review of policies, and may improve planning, management and marketing of community-based ecotourism (CBE) in the KTP. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine public sector (local and national) perspectives for support of both KTP and CBE development.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 69 Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park KTP is the first formally declared TFP in Southern Africa. Others in the region include the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, Shashe Limpopo Transfrontier Park, Lubombo Transfrontier Conservation Area and Maloti- Drakensberg Transfrontier Conservation Area (Peace Parks Foundation 2009). KTP straddles two major landmasses, South Africa and Botswana, and covers approximately 38,000 km 2 of the Kalahari ecosystem (Figure 1). Historically, the park on the Botswana side was called Gemsbok National Park (28,400 km 2 ), while the South African frontier park was named the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park (9591 km 2 ). In 1997, the two national parks were merged into a single co-managed PA (KTP) with the following goals to guarantee essential long-term conservation of wildlife resources in the southern Kalahari, which will help maintain the integrity of the entire Kalahari ecosystem; improve regional ecological management; increase the international profile of KTP as a conservation area, thereby greatly enhancing its potential as a tourist destination; Figure 1. Map of Botswana and the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) (created by G. Koorutwe). Note: KD, Kgalagadi District.
70 N.N. Moswete et al. realise fully the economic potential of the surrounding areas in order to bring economic benefits to both countries, especially to the adjacent communities; and mitigate the undesirable impacts of existing and potential land use conflicts between the park and neighbouring local communities (SANP and DWNP 1997). The overall objective for KTP is the protection and conservation of the flora and fauna resources of the Kgalagadi. There are no communities in existence inside the boundaries of KTP. Since there are no physical demarcations between South Africa and Botswana, there is free movement of wild animals and people throughout the park. The southwest Kgalagadi region is known for its unique, large and relatively pristine ecosystem, with largescale migratory routes for wild ungulates and predatory mammalian carnivores (SANP and DWNP 1997). The region has unique aesthetic beauty, with a harsh semi-arid environment and rare natural features, such as salt pans, fossil river valleys and undulating sand dunes and ridges. The main vegetation types in the park and the Kgalagadi region have been classified as arid to semi-arid savannah shrub in the southwest and bush savannah in other parts of the region. There are variations within the types of vegetation that are linked to soil type, topography and climate. The area is also home to a variety of wildlife and bird species that are biologically essential to the broader region (GOB 2003). In addition, the Kgalagadi region is richly endowed with natural and cultural heritage resources (GOB 2003). Major tourism resources and attractions include unspoiled wilderness, varied and plentiful wildlife and handicrafts of the San/Basarwa (GOB 2003; Moswete et al. 2009). The park s unique ecosystem and its important, rare and endangered animal and plant species attract local, regional and international visitors (SANP and DWNP 1997). In addition, artefacts dating to the early, middle and late Stone Age have been uncovered in the KTP and the surrounding villages and settlements (GOB 2007). Other tourist attractions within the greater Kalahari region include the Jwana Game Table 1. Profile of public sector representatives. Reserve, Ghanzi Trail Blazers (San/Basarwa cultural village and open-air museum), D Kar Museum and cultural heritage site, as well as ostrich and game farms and safari lodges (GOB 2003; Moswete et al. 2009). Methods Data were obtained via in-depth semi-structured interviews from October 2008 to January 2009 among local and national public sector representatives. The methodology for this study was adapted from Nicholas et al. (2009b) based on a study among national and local public sector perspectives of a natural World Heritage Site. Purposive sampling was employed to select a sample of the public sector stakeholder representatives. With purposive sampling, the sample is selected for the convenience of the researcher who uses his/her own judgement in the selection process (Patton 1990). The researcher decides on the participants and/or study sites that can best provide the needed information. There is no overall sampling design that dictates the number of respondents needed (Bernard 2000). The participants are identified, selected and interviewed until information becomes saturated, that is, the same messages and issues recur (Coffey and Atkinson 1996; Bernard 2000; Hatch 2002). The sample was drawn from representatives of local and national organisations who have worked or resided in the Kgalagadi region for a period of at least 6 months. Representatives were selected from existing institutions and organisations that have a stake or are influential in the transboundary area management and ecotourismrelated development issues in Kgalagadi (see Table 1). Each identified organisation and its associated representative were contacted and requested to attend interviews. Participants were contacted via telephone and by visits to their organisations in Kgalagadi and/or Gaborone. Selected representatives included administrators, extension workers, managers, local authorities, village leaders, technical advisors and community-based organisation (CBO) representatives. Collectively, 15 representatives were selected Gender Organisation/Institution Region Representatives Female Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism Gaborone National Male Department of Environmental Affairs Gaborone National Female Department of Wildlife (Parks Division) Gaborone National Female Department of Wildlife (CBNRM Unit) Gaborone National Male Botswana Tourism Board Gaborone National Female Wildlife Department (Sub-District) Kgalagadi Local Male Local authority Kgalagadi Local Male Local authority Kgalagadi Local Male Community Extension Unit (Wildlife Division) Kgalagadi Local Male Xaxe! Development Trust (CBO) Kgalagadi Local Female Khawa Development Trust (CBO) Kgalagadi Local Male Village Development Committee Kgalagadi Local Male Village Farmers Association (CBO) Kgalagadi Local Male Tsabong Land Board Kgalagadi Local Male Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park Two Rivers Kgalagadi Local Note: CBNRM, community-based natural resource management; CBO, community-based organisation.
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 71 Downloaded by [University of Botswana Library] at 04:25 06 March 2012 and interviewed, with 67% (N = 10) from Kgalagadi and 33% (N = 5) from Gaborone. The sample was comprised of 5 females and 10 males; the youngest participant was 24 years old and the oldest was 78. Semi-structured interviews were employed based on the use of an interview guide that consisted of 13 questions (Table 2). The questions measured the public sector stakeholder s knowledge and understanding of ecotourism, CBE, general conservation issues, park-based tourism, residents participation in tourism/recreation, natural resource management and TFP conservation and management issues. Additional questions were added through probing during the interview process (Patton 1990). The participants were interviewed face to face by the lead author. The average duration for an interview was approximately 45 minutes. All audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim. Three types of coding (open, axial and selective) were employed in the data analyses. Coding enables the researcher to organise information into manageable units and to compare information obtained from interview data (Miles and Huberman 1984; Strauss and Corbin 1998). The data were first coded using open codes or labels that identified the data. Portions of data were coded based on recurring themes and were marked by underlining meaning units or units of analysis line by line using different coloured pencils. The created codes were then organised into an index system. The next step was axial coding, which involves studying the data to develop and organise labels, themes or categories (which were open-coded) to further identify possible patterns and linkages between them (Coffey and Atkinson 1996; Strauss and Corbin 1998). Then, similarities were identified and differences between categories were determined based on recurring themes. And finally, selective coding was employed where themes were reorganised into meaningful categories and a summary of results was Table 2. Public sector stakeholder semi-structured interview questions. What do you think of Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) as a transboundary PA? What do you consider to be the three major things that you like about KTP? What do you consider to be the three major things that you dislike about KTP? What are your opinions about the current management of KTP? What is the role of your organisation in CBNRM programmes? What is your knowledge about community-based ecotourism (CBE)? What is the role of your organisation in CBE development? What CBE initiatives or projects are in practice in your area? What are the accrued benefits to residents from CBNRM and CBO initiatives in your area? What benefits does your community accrue from KTP? What is the potential for CBE development in your area? Note: CBNRM, community-based natural resource management; CBO, community-based organisation. written (Miles and Huberman 1984; Hatch 2002). In addition, field memos were used for constant comparison and verification of issues that involved audio-recorded information. Reliability and validity of the findings were assessed by comparing and contrasting data collected via multiple instruments that included peer review, note-taking, memo writing and tape recording of interviews. Results Based on the analysis, five major themes were identified: (1) CBE development, (2) knowledge of TFP, (3) management issues, (4) development challenges, and (5) community benefits. In addition, there were multiple sub-themes within each major theme (Table 3). A summary of key and subthemes within each category will be discussed. CBE development This theme reflected participants knowledge and views about CBE development. Two major sub-themes emerged: knowledge of CBE and potential for CBE. Knowledge of CBE Almost all participants demonstrated a high level of familiarity with CBE. Respondents associated CBE with a form of tourism that deals with wildlife and cultural heritage resources while promoting the use of existing local resources within communities. An official from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) Community Extension and Outreach Unit explained: CBE is about cultural villages and other related activities...like crafts, local foods, camping sites...it is a form of tourism that deals with the use of resources that communities already have...in Kgalagadi, communities have access to ostrich eggshells, which they obtain from ostrich farms and use in making handicrafts. They make items for use and sell um, necklaces, headbands, bracelets, floor mats and bags. Table 3. Key themes Community-based ecotourism development Thematic analysis. Knowledge of transfrontier park Management issues Development challenges Community benefits Sub-themes Knowledge of community-based ecotourism Potential for community-based ecotourism Awareness and significance Collaboration and partnership Policy and co-management Human wildlife interactions Land ownership and control Infrastructure for tourism Cultural heritage tourism Park benefits to local communities Local involvement and participation
72 N.N. Moswete et al. The majority also believed that CBE accrues benefits through the involvement of communities: Community-based ecotourism is important because it takes place in our village...within our environment. It involves everyone. In this way, it is a good form of tourism. It benefits all. Even the poor can participate and benefit. (village chief) Before the advent of ecotourism, local communities did not have much say in whatever tourism activities were going on around them...they just saw foreigners arrive in their village and start taking pictures, buying some items from them. Really, it was haphazard, it was not organised. There were no benefits for all the people in the village. I believe in active community involvement in the tourism sector... So, ecotourism promotes active resident involvement in development. (Botswana Tourism Board representative) All but three participants expressed a high level of understanding of CBE as an activity that promotes conservation of natural resources and is beneficial. A representative of a CBO explained: CBE involves conservation of forest foods such as moretlwa, mahupu, motsotsojane and sengaparile. I know that we need to collect and gather these forest resources in a proper way. There is a need to have permission to collect these resources...as a way to control collection of our forest foods. CBE encourages conservation of our culture, dress...songs and dances. Potential for CBE All participants believed in and emphasised the importance of establishment of CBE enterprises or projects in the villages. Nearly all representatives commented at length on the potential for ecotourism advancement in the region. Participants often reported availability of suitable resources for ecotourism development. A representative of another local CBO noted: There are some people in our village who are so talented. They make handicrafts, wood and bone carving, skin tanning. They make skin mats and clothes. There are known traditional dancers and poets in Khawa. We have lots of wildlife. We have beautiful sand dunes that can be enjoyed by visitors. There is a variety of vegetation like forest foods, Kgengwe which people eat the melon fruit and fry the melon seeds and eat them as snack...there is plenty of sengaparile and mokawa, which you can roast and eat or sell. (CBO representative) There is one unique sand dune that has been identified as a tourist attraction because of its outstanding beauty. The community with the help of VDC has already put a fence around it to avoid it being damaged. Plans are underway to plant Hoodia (Gordonii cactus) inside the fenced area. Hoodia is a protected plant species and is unique. There is a lot of it in Kgalagadi. If taken care of and well marketed and tourists and visitors know about it, we could benefit. (Village Development Committee (VDC) representative) Nearly all participants were articulate in their conversation about the uniqueness of the region as an ecotourism destination, pointing to the availability of natural and cultural resources. Many participants indicated that the area was a unique ecotourism destination where the aesthetic beauty and charm of the natural and cultural landscapes are entwined. Participants discussed the ecotourism wealth in terms of their sentimental attachment and feelings of connection to Kgalagadi. Several respondents noted the cultural heritage and resources of the Kgalagadi region as being in a state of unrealised potential as an ecotourism destination. The national representative from the Ministry of Environment reflected: There is potential for packaging KTP...where you could combine wilderness and culture to capture and further exploit the socio-economic attributes of the park...we wanted to set up a lodge in Masetlheng...We, in fact, started a joint venture partnership with a safari operator who took over and set up a campsite, and it is doing very well. Participants also lamented that the government only promoted and marketed the Okavango Delta at the expense of south western Botswana:...Marketing by the Department of Tourism and the government has focused on the north, and the south has been overlooked. This has led to more tourism awareness among residents in the north than here. In the north, communities understand tourism, know tourists and identify with them...but I believe that the Kgalagadi region has high potential for community-based ecotourism development due to availability of varying ecotourism resources: sand dunes of different sizes, soil colour and shape; landscape, desert features, sand dunes with rock outcrops; salt pans that are rich in wildlife. (Senior officer National wildlife officer) The overwhelming majority of respondents expressed hope that further development of underutilised ecotourism resources could generate job opportunities, and thereby improve the standard of living of the people. Knowledge of the transfrontier park This major theme revealed participants knowledge and perspectives of a TFP. Emergent sub-themes included: awareness and significance, as well as collaboration and partnership. Awareness and significance Nearly all the participants indicated they had heard about the concept of TFPs, especially KTP. Generally, participants were aware that KTP was jointly owned and controlled by the governments of Botswana and South Africa. A few respondents relayed the history of the park s development. The majority of participants indicated awareness of the significance of the park, but emphasised that there should be shared management and benefits between the two countries: I think that the idea of making it a joint park was a good idea. Our park was much bigger than the South African, but the South Africans had more developments on their side of park, so most of the money from tourism was going to
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 73 Downloaded by [University of Botswana Library] at 04:25 06 March 2012 South Africa. Now it is our animals, our park...it was a good idea because now the income from the park is shared between the two countries equally. (Village chief) One CBO official opined that the residents of his village displayed a high level of awareness of the existence of KTP, which brought significant benefits through safari hunting. Conversely, an official representing the Kgalagadi Land Board noted that although there was considerable appreciation of the transfrontier status at government level, the local people appeared to be sceptical. Collaboration and partnership More than a dozen participants indicated that TFPs encourage and promote collaboration. A local CBO official noted that KTP had promoted peace between Botswana and South Africa, while some representatives noted the improved cooperation between the two countries due to the mutual accrual of tourism benefits and conservation. An official from the Wildlife Department Parks Division agreed: Authorities from both countries share ideas, experience, knowledge, expertise. There is free migration of wild animals between the two countries; it is good for wildlife and conservation. Also, money accrued... via gate fees is shared equally by Botswana and South Africa. Additionally, many respondents discussed immigration matters because it was no longer a requirement to present a passport to visit either side of the park. An official from KTP commented: Unlike before, [pause] there is free movement of people. We have border passport control based here at Two Rivers that handles immigration issues. It was intended to help with immigration needs for those who wish to travel outside South Africa via Botswana... or vice versa. One person has been assigned duty as an immigration officer and now resides at the site. Opinions with respect to the current management varied among local and national representatives. Nearly all local representatives indicated an imbalance with regard to residents collaboration and partnership in conservationrelated projects and the general KTP management activities. Accordingly, nearly all participants expressed a need for strengthened stakeholder collaboration and stronger relationships within management, especially with adjacent communities. Some participants discussed effective communication, information sharing and transparency in KTP-related activities, including tourism advancement, creation and availability of jobs and human wildlife conflicts: In most cases, the park staff [pause] KTP management continues to implement the park plan without our knowledge... But, I believe there is a need however for KTP staff to update us on what is going on at this park, particularly the South African side of the park. We don t know. We need to know what problems or challenges they encounter so that we become aware of what is going on there. (Village chief) There was a perception among some that the situation had deteriorated, suggesting that the transfrontier project had lost its direction in relation to cooperation and the promotion of peace. An official from a local CBO asserted: Before, we used to have combined meetings but now they have stopped. We now have no forum to discuss these things. We have not been given that opportunity. In the very first meeting, the South Africans and Namibians were there when we discussed the park. We also discussed about the issues of compensating adjacent communities in case they experience property damage from wildlife. But since then, we have never had any meeting with the park management to discuss the issues about KTP. Management issues Management issues of KTP were discussed under this theme. Three sub-themes were identified: policy and comanagement, human wildlife conflicts and land ownership and control. A key contextual issue was the need for park authorities to adhere to TFP policy, and to ensure equal representation and involvement in all activities by local residents from both countries. Policy and co-management Respondents personal perspectives and experiences with regard to KTP were identified, and a substantial number of participants noted inflexible regulations and policy-related issues: At one time, we were not even allowed to attend a funeral of our colleague [silence], a friend and a relative. The burial took place right here at the park. We were only allowed to stand outside...i mean by the park fence. (Farmers Association representative)...restrictions on our movement in and around our village are too harsh. We are not allowed to search for livestock, riding on our horses or donkeys. We are not allowed to go around our village looking for our domestic animals when accompanied by our dogs...we are not happy with this. Dogs help us. There might be a dangerous animal out there! You know. It could kill you...your goats could be eaten... (CBO representative) The majority of participants expressed disappointment in the management of KTP and the level of benefits that accrue to the local people: I feel that we are not fairly treated... Since this park was turned into a transfrontier all water holes (wells and boreholes) that our forefathers owned [inside KTP] were closed. Yet, more boreholes on the South African side were drilled and improved to attract wildlife from our side of park so that many tourists could go there. They are stealing our animals. Our side of the KTP is big, has more animals. They take our animals and benefit. If the government can dig boreholes, say about 20 30 km on the Botswana side of the park, then wild animals could be attracted to our side of the park as well...(department of Wildlife Community Division officer)
74 N.N. Moswete et al. Some of the public sector representatives indicated an urgent need for a review of the current management plan of KTP. A representative from a local CBO noted: It is high time we have a board of governors with representatives from Botswana and South Africa so that we can deal with these issues and make them fair. At the moment, the board of governors is one-sided. But there is an urgent need to have representatives from both countries. Now, I can see that the South African laws and policies are the only ones used to manage this park. Yet it is a transfrontier [pause], it is shared... Others noted some positive outcomes from the conversion of the park to a transfrontier area. A national official from Environmental Affairs noted: Since the park became a transfrontier, the management has become one. Benefits are shared between the two countries. Because management is one...benefits, profits, development and administration [pause], all are shared by both countries. It is a good idea because the park is big,... covering different habitats...there is free movement of animals and...people within KTP...If Botswana was managing the park all alone it was going to be pricey. Benefits are shared equally and some are used towards the management of the park. Revenue generated by the KTP goes back into conservation projects. Human wildlife interactions In terms of human wildlife conflicts, some interviewees indicated that they were apprehensive about the KTP management plan and its implementation with regard to natural resource use. A substantial number of them expressed concern about the unmerited treatment of residents by management with respect to wildlife and conservation practices at KTP. Several others indicated that they were not content with the lack of clear-cut regulations dealing with human wildlife challenges in the community. Furthermore, a few public sector officials indicated that some parts of KTP were unmarked or had no boundary fencing, and that this has led to human wildlife conflicts, especially in farms situated in close proximity to the fence. Predators such as lions, leopards and wild dogs were reported to be a menace to nearby farms as they escape from KTP into farm areas and villages where they attack and kill livestock. The local officials (mostly village chiefs and political leaders) argued that farmers who were attacked or whose properties were damaged by wild animals were not able to secure immediate help, as wildlife officers dealing with problem animal control were stationed in Tsabong and Hukuntsi, very far from villages and farm areas. Thus, there was common agreement that wildlife policy and regulation and other conservation strategies associated with management of KTP should be reviewed to benefit adjacent communities and wildlife-based resources. A local village chief bemoaned: We are aware that the park fence was constructed to control domestic animals from entering the park, and wild animals from escaping into our villages and farm areas. But some areas of the park are not fenced. The existing fence is not well maintained. So, animals do escape from the park and kill our livestock. The regulation was that if domestic animals enter the park, they should be killed, but farmers are not happy about this. We are not happy when our animals get killed...there is need to review this policy because farmers are not happy. Land ownership and control Land ownership issues were discussed by a substantial number of participants, who indicated that land was a major cause of conflicts between communities and the park authority, especially for villages with cattle posts and farms very close to the park. The Botswana side of unfenced KTP is surrounded by WMAs designed as buffer zones between the park and the community land. However, the designation as WMAs of what local people regard as tribal land has proven to be contentious. In the Kgalagadi district, for example, 39% of tribal land is designated as WMAs (MLG 2005). A dozen respondents articulated their dissatisfaction about land ownership and control of WMAs. There was an indication that the areas of land outside of KTP rightly belonged to the community, but the respondents indicated that only the government has full control of the land designated as WMAs. The Kgalagadi Land Board officer explained: The park is surrounded by WMAs a region between KTP and communal land...wmas have been reserved primarily as wildlife migratory routes, but the communities of Kgalagadi view the area as a threat because it has taken much of their grazing land, cattle post, I mean farmland...in Kgalagadi District alone WMAs cover 39% of the tribal land or communal areas. So, I feel that this is too high, way too much. There is need to increase communal land for residents than have so much land designated as WMAs...Local people should be allowed to have some business developments within KTP and WMAs. This particular issue has created discord among local communities, especially among those whose cattle posts were located on the border with KTP and CBOs with private safari operators. At the time of this study, the land issue had been handed over to the Department of Land Board in Tsabong. Discussions are reportedly ongoing regarding the possible reduction of some parts of WMAs to allow for agricultural activities. But not all participants were in favour of changing the regulations pertaining to WMAs: Now, Middlepits community wants the livestock grazing land to be extended, but Khawa people are against the idea because they benefit from safari hunting through their community-based organisation. This dispute over tribal land has been reported to the Kgalagadi Land Board, but I m not sure what will happen. (Land Board representative) Development challenges All the participants emphasised concerns about the onesided tourism development between the South African side
International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 75 Downloaded by [University of Botswana Library] at 04:25 06 March 2012 of KTP and Botswana. Two major sub-themes were discussed: infrastructure for tourism and cultural heritage tourism development. Infrastructure for tourism Overwhelmingly, responses were linked to the urgent need for infrastructure development in the Botswana side, especially among adjacent villages. All officials expressed the need for the government to provide ecotourism infrastructure, and also to create conditions for private sector investment in ecotourism. A few representatives discussed access road systems in the area, indicating that dirt roads, paths and treks that connect villages were in disrepair. They were sandy, full of potholes and represented a deterrent to tourists and investors. Almost all participants expressed dissatisfaction about the level of development that exists inside KTP. In addition, there was concern over the imbalance of facilities in the KTP as opposed to enhanced tourist facilities (e.g. chalets) available on the South African side. Generally, the respondents agreed that there was a disparity between the two sites with regard to the level of tourism development. The Botswana Tourism Board representative noted: Well-sealed roads and airstrips are needed if tourism is to grow in the area. Tour operators could bring more tourists to the Kgalagadi area if there were better roads and other amenities and services for tourists. Due to the availability of upscale tourism facilities and services on the South African side, nearly all representatives were concerned that revenues generated through tourism would accrue only for the South African government. Almost all local participants expressed their dissatisfaction that the South African park management dominated tourism development and conservation activities. An official from Two Rivers at KTP noted:... when a tourist comes, they prefer coming to enjoy nature at the Botswana side, but would go to South African side for other things like lodging, food, souvenirs, fuel. Even us Batswana (citizens) when we visit the park we use lodging facilities available on the South African side. Some participants even suggested the government should make changes in order for local people to benefit. Many expressed their concern about the sluggish development or negligence on the part of the Botswana government with respect to basic tourism facilities: One of the major disincentives of the private sector in participating in tourism at KTP is lack of supporting physical infrastructure. I believe that the government has to ensure that facilities are provided. If tourism-related facilities and services are in place, investors will be attracted, and tourists will come in large numbers. This is a management issue that for now poses a challenge to the government and for tourism growth at KTP. The South African side of the park seems to be managed better for tourism. We have not developed this area to standards required by different visitors. (National official from DWNP Community Division) The majority of the participants discussed the need for tourism development at KTP, but they did not indicate the type of tourism and level of development needed. Only a handful of respondents noted the importance of sustainable projects, so that the beauty of KTP would not be compromised for the sake of tourism. Only one representative expressed concern about the negative impact of tourism development by hinting that creation of too many trails inside KTP could affect or pose a threat to the park landscape. Cultural heritage tourism With regard to the type of tourism development suitable for Kgalagadi, many participants believed that cultural heritage tourism was a niche for the area. Almost all interviewees deemed that resources for cultural tourism existed and that there was a need to use the resources to promote the tourism industry. For example, such sentiments were shared by two national-level representatives: As government, we need to exploit other resources for CBE that are available in Kgalagadi, not just wildlife...the Kgalagadi culture (language, music, dance, history and heritage) and sand dunes. There are people who would like to go there to see these features...we need to explore our culture. We need to sell the culture. (Botswana Tourism Board representative)...we have natural and unique caves in our area that are not yet thought of as something important for tourism... Inside these caves there is letsoku, traditional green paint...already people in the village use the cave site for taking wedding photos...to attract tourists I think a traditional house could be built there...people could make crafts and display them there so that when tourists come, they could see the caves, see our culture through craft. (National official DWNP Community Division) Similarly, these aforementioned perspectives were in concert at the local level as commented by a local CBO representative: I believe there is a lot we can offer as cultural tourism in this village. We are a farming community, we have karakul sheep. We have our unique folk dances. We have historic buildings around here which have unique stories about how people settled in this area...special forest resources that are unique to our region are plentiful. Community benefits This theme established views and opinions about KTP and adjacent communities. Sub-themes discussed were park benefits to local communities and local involvement and participation in activities. Park benefits to local communities A few participants mentioned that KTP has benefited communities by controlling poaching. One local wildlife officer
76 N.N. Moswete et al. noted the role that South Africa had played in teaching the Batswana (citizens) to manage problem animals, and also that the department had gained a lot of experience through cooperative management. A local chief who initially struggled to identify any community benefits also concluded that park management had reduced poaching and protected livestock: I don t believe that the community benefits from the transfrontier. In fact, I know that there are no benefits...maybe benefits are that we have our Wildlife Department taking care of the KTP. This is beneficial to all of us because poaching illegal hunting is very high in this area. If we did not have the Department of Wildlife staff helping, poaching was going to increase...otherwise our livestock could be killed and eaten by predators (lions...). At Swart pan a lot of our livestock...26 of them, were killed by lions, which escaped from KTP... However, a substantial number of the participants noted that, while KTP was created with a goal of benefiting adjacent communities, the people were getting little in return. Some of the major concerns about KTP and tourism were that the local communities did not benefit directly from the park, as safari hunting enterprises are owned by outsiders and local people work as labourers: There are no benefits that we get from KTP. We are aware that gate fees from KTP belong to the government. But some members of the community have part-time jobs at the park...they get, like 3 to 6 months part-time jobs...in the past before the park became a transfrontier many people... worked at the park. Now, Batswana are not employed as many as they used to be... many young people don t have jobs. We see many of South Africans working at the park...right now there is construction work going on at the park...construction work has started and none of the people from the village is involved... (Village chief) A VDC representative shared a similar view: I have discussed the employment issue with the manager...of KTP but, in vain...you see we live close tothe park, but we are not employed there...people want to work at the park. These people don t have jobs. Those who went there in search of jobs have been sent back and were told that Batswana are not going to be hired. I feel that jobs should be created at KTP. More jobs are needed for our community...more developments are needed on the Botswana side. Some representatives felt that tourism in the area has benefited only certain individuals. A local DWNP representative noted that benefits accrued only to the elites while a local community extension and outreach officer stated that only those who owned tourism-related businesses such as lodging currently stood to benefit. It was noted by some participants that employment prospects from the KTP were minimal and usually part time, resulting in unemployed youths loitering in the area. It was also clear that KTP had not played a significant role in assisting adjacent communities with related developments. Responses highlighted collective views that KTP does not offer any community development programmes. Local involvement and participation An overwhelming majority indicated that local residents were not involved in the management activities of the KTP, indicating that the park had failed in its chief mission as a transfrontier PA with shared ownership and management. A local CBO member stated: The management of KTP is done by our government alone. We, the people living closer to the park, are not involved. I believe it would be helpful if the government, via the DWNP could involve the local people in the day-to-day operation of the park. I feel...you know! We want to be part of the anti-poaching unit so that we could assist the government. It should not just be the DWNP that does everything. We live here, close to KTP. Just 73 km. Wildlife office is in Tsabong. Many people from Zutshwa should be involved to help curb illegal hunting. Another village chief suggested that the South African government was hindering the employment of Batswana: The people are not involved in the management of the park. It is the responsibility of the two governments. Before, many of the people from my village were involved. They worked there. But after the government took over and started managing KTP with South Africa, the South Africa Government does not allow Batswana to work on the South African side of the park. In addition, a significant number of the interviewees indicated the need for changes, emphasising that park authorities should ensure that adjacent communities are recognised and involved. The tribal authority representative argued: We have asked the government to let us have one member of the community to sit in the park board...to represent the community...we can have an idea of what is going on at KTP...so that we could have our views taken into consideration in planning...to make communication better between the community and the park...better...so that people could be represented! Almost all the officials expressed the view that they were not part and parcel of KTP and strongly expressed their concern at never having been invited to participate in KTP planning or decision-making. An official from the Botswana Tourism Board noted: I believe it is all about community empowerment...community empowerment is one of the key points that are being emphasised by the national ecotourism strategy. It is through community involvement in tourism that is more likely to instil a sense of ownership...so...we should try by all means to promote community tourism projects so that they (residents) can also become players in the development of the tourism industry.