Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Physics and Chemistry of the Earth

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /pce

Indigenous knowledge and land use policy: Implications for livelihoodsof flood recession farming communities in the Okavango Delta, Botswana

Sekgowa Motsumi b,⇑, Lapologang Magole a,1, Donald Kgathi a,1

a Okavango Research Institute, University of Botswana, Private Bag 285, Maun, Botswanab Department of Environmental Affairs, P.O. Box 35, Maun, Botswana

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 28 September 2012

Keywords:Indigenous knowledgeLand use planning and policyLivelihoodsSustainable molapo farming

1474-7065/$ - see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. Ahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2012.09.013

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +267 6801237; fax: +E-mail addresses: ssmotsumi@gmail.com (S. M

(L. Magole), dlkgathi@orc.ub.bw (D. Kgathi).1 Tel.: +267 6861833; fax: +267 6864139.

a b s t r a c t

Flood recession farming commonly known as molapo farming in the Okavango Delta is an important landuse and livelihood activity for poor and vulnerable communities living on its fringes. Molapo farming ismainly practised by subsistence farmers. The study on the system was conducted in the villages of Sho-robe and Tubu in the Okavango Delta in Ngamiland District, Botswana. The objective of the study was tofind out if indigenous knowledge (IK) still has a role in molapo farming and if current land use policy sup-ports or stifle the practice and the attendant IK. Indigenous knowledge systems (IKSs) within molapofarming were studied using focused group discussions, Participatory Rural Appraisals (PRAs) and openended interviews. Policy content and process analysis was done through document perusal and stake-holder analysis. The study found that in Tubu more than 50% of molapo farms are owned by women mak-ing molapo farming an important livelihood activity for marginalised groups. The Ngamiland land useplan acknowledges the importance of stakeholder participation and IK in land management. Howeverthe use of IK is not evident in the plan and subsequent recommendations. Molapo farming is considereda potential threat to the ecological functioning of the Delta, through use of inputs such as fertilizers andpesticides. Consequently farmers have been discouraged from practicing molapo farming on floodplains.However according to the farmers, ploughing in floodplains minimizes cutting of trees and renders use offertilizer unnecessary due to annual deposition of nutrients through flood waters. We conclude thatalthough IK still plays an important role in molapo farming there exists no policy environment to usethe knowledge and support the practice. We recommend that sustainable molapo farming requires theuse of IK within an Integrated Land Use Planning process.

� 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Agriculture is a very important contributor to rural develop-ment and indigenous knowledge (IK) is generally recognised as akey factor in increasing agricultural productivity (Olatokun andAyanbode, 2008). Flood recession farming has been a key factorin livelihoods of rural poor communities residing along river sys-tems in Africa for centuries. This farming system relies on themoisture from receding floods in river systems. In the NgamilandDistrict of Botswana flood recession farming commonly referredto as molapo farming, is practiced within the fringes of the Okavan-go Delta (Bendsen, 2002). As well as being important for floodrecession farming the Okavango Delta and its resources is themainstay of most economic activities and rural livelihoods inNgamiland District of Botswana (Mbaiwa, 2002; Kgathi et al.,

ll rights reserved.

267 6862503.otsumi), lmagole@orc.ub.bw

2004; DEA, 2008). In the Senegal River, though income from irri-gated crops exceeded that of flood recession farming, annual costsof inputs, pest and disease attacks made flood recession farmingmore reliable (Saanark, 2003).

Flood recession farming also plays a major role in coping withenvironmental risks and shocks by rural poor (Wilk and Kgathi,2007; Saanark, 2003). Despite the importance of flood recessionfarming for rural livelihoods, this farming system is subjected tothe negative impacts of major developments such as dams or floodregulation structures (Saanark, 2003) and uncertain policy and reg-ulatory frameworks (Chimbari et al., 2009). Moreover, variability inflooding with periods of high and low floods in the Okavango Deltacan make molapo farming unreliable (Vanderpost, 2009). Molapofarming in the Okavango Delta has been practiced historicallyand it can therefore be argued that due to its long term practice,this farming system has resulted in development of knowledgeamong the people practising it. In this article this knowledge is re-ferred to as indigenous knowledge (IK). IK is manifested in farmingsystems through farming methods such as shifting cultivation,slash and burn and crop mixing (Ogen, 2006); breeding of food

186 S. Motsumi et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195

crops, domestication of seeds and selection of seeds for next sea-son’s planting (Olatokun and Ayanbode, 2008). It is thereforeapparent that IK is an important factor in agricultural production.

Agricultural production can generally be categorised intothree main aspects, Firstly, it is the actual act of planting/ploughing of crops which include land preparation, choice ofcrops in any given season, method of planting and availabilityof inputs. Secondly it relates to crop husbandry practices suchas pest management, disease control and control of weeds.Thirdly and finally it relates to aspects of safe keeping and stor-age of harvest, seed selection and storage for the subsequentfarming seasons. These are all important elements that underpinlivelihoods of rural farmers and IK is embedded in all of them.The above mentioned aspects of agricultural production areinfluenced either positively or negatively by policy and regula-tory processes. Negative influence is believed to have occurredin policy processes where the framing of the problem and thesolutions proposed to address the problem would generally bedevoid of farmer’s knowledge (Keely and Scoones, 2003).

This study was aimed at appraising IK on molapo farming andimportance of this farming practice to rural livelihoods. Weinvestigate and make an inventory of IK in molapo farming inthe Okavango Delta. We further investigate the extent to whichit was incorporated in the development of the Integrated LandUse Plan for the Okavango Delta Ramsar Site. In addition IK ofmolapo farming practice in the two settlements of Tubu and Sho-robe was compared and analysed to capture spatial differencesin IK within the molapo farming communities in the OkavangoDelta.

2. Literature review

Studies on agricultural production systems in the OkavangoDelta have shown that productivity of molapo farming is gener-ally high. For example, it is reported that sorghum grown underrain fed conditions can yield 500 kg/ha while yields for thesame crop under molapo farming can be as high as 2900 kg/ha(Bendsen, 2002; Kgathi et al., 2004). This is despite the practicetypically constituting a much lower hectarage than drylandfarming (Bendsen, 2002). The system is therefore suited to poorsubsistence farmers as it is comparatively productive with min-imal labour and capital inputs. Maize is the main crop undermolapo farming system but, sorghum, sweet potatoes, milletand water melons are also grown.

Considering the high productivity and popularity of molapofarming the practice can contribute significantly to a sustainablelivelihood strategy within the Delta. If supported it could re-duce poverty and the need for government support. It is impor-tant within the sustainable livelihoods framework to understandand give prominence to the livelihood priorities of the poor inpolicies that affect them (Chambers and Conway, 1991;Scoones, 1998). Thus there is a need to have a policy environ-ment which is supportive of molapo farming because it is acontributor to the livelihood portfolios of the Okavango Deltarural communities.

For this to be realised a conducive environment has to be cre-ated whereby the policy priorities of poor people can be realisedmore effectively. Notably enhancing their capacity to articulatetheir demands and influence the policy process is critical. Howeverin most instances the local communities do not have the capacityto articulate their interest (Fabricius et al., 2007) or are not giventhe appropriate platform. It is argued that this was generally thecase with the land and water resources use planning process forthe Okavango Delta (Magole, 2008). This is unfortunate because,the knowledge that the farmers have on molapo farming could be

harnessed through policy processes to improve rural livelihoodsand develop a sustainable livelihoods strategy.

2.1. Marginalisation of indigenous knowledge in land use policydevelopment – the discourse

Contestation between scientific knowledge and local basedknowledge is one major aspect of policy and development pro-cesses in developing countries. Several studies have blamed policyfailure on the lack of stakeholder participation and failure to in-clude IK in the development process (Brokensha et al., 1980; Brig-gs, 2005; Agrawal, 1995; Warren, 1991; Kolawole, 2008). IK isdefined as a body of knowledge that is accumulated systematicallyover time by local people of a given culture through the build up ofexperiences, informal experiments, innovation and continuousinteraction with the environment (Kolawole, 2008; Lwoga et al.,2010). Thus land users such as molapo farmers hold key knowledgeon the management of their resources. Factors contributing to thelack of inclusion of IK in policy include; its location specific naturewhich makes it difficult to upscale without losing the context ofthe local environment (Briggs, 2005; Lwoga et al., 2010; Klees,2008); lack of documentation (Agea et al., 2008; Lwoga et al.,2010); and unconventional inter-generational knowledge transfersystems (Mpofu and Miruka, 2009). Western or scientific knowl-edge is however viewed as systematic and rational with itsstrength being that it can be falsified making it more appealingto planners (Briggs, 2005).

The apparent lack of inclusion of IK in policy has led to margin-alisation of farmers in decision making and implementation ofagricultural development programmes (Lwoga et al., 2010).According to observations of some development practitioners theintroduction and dissemination of modern technologies relied onthe concept of technology transfer (Lwoga et al., 2010). The ‘trans-fer’ assumed complete ignorance of those on the receiving end,thus ignoring the potential of IK holders to contribute to the formalpolicy processes. It is however apparent that farmers continue torely on their IK rather than government extension services (Lwogaet al., 2010). Fabricius et al. (2007) argues that the inclusion of IK inpolicy process is crucial, the advantage being that IK evolvesthrough practice and therefore it has been tried and important les-sons learnt from its application. The lessons learnt if harnessed andsupported by policy could enhance livelihoods of rural farmers.

Although the sentiments on marginalisation of IK in policy pro-cesses are genuine, the notion that prominence of western knowl-edge and technology is the main causal factor of development andpolicy failures should be treated with caution. It is pertinent to avoidloss of opportunity for sound policy and development strategy thatlies in the practice of benchmarking. Agrawal (2004) emphasisedthe need for adopting complementarities between western-basedand indigenous knowledge systems rather than to be ‘‘buried in abarrage of rhetoric’’ due to preference of either knowledge system.

2.2. The evolution of land use policy and the use of IK in Botswana

Through post independence land reform, key land use policyand legislation in Botswana followed the classic approach (Magole,2003). For Botswana, like in many other African countries, most ofthe post independence policies and programmes have been influ-enced by colonial legacies (Magole, 2003). The colonial legaciesmanifest themselves through statutes and policies that borrowedheavily from the colonial masters (Bryant, 1998). According toMolutsi (1988) colonialism reduced complex environmental prob-lems to two opposing ideologies of production, namely capitalismand peasant production. Capitalism was based on technologicaladvancement while peasant production was dismissed as ineffi-cient and responsible for environmental problems.

S. Motsumi et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195 187

In Botswana, the so called peasant production was a product oflocal cultures and knowledge driven by local leadership of Bogosi2

and local institutions such as the kgotla3 (Molutsi, 1988; Peters,1992). The Kgosi4 was advised by village elders who were generallyward headmen and resource users holding appropriate knowledge.This process provided feedback mechanisms and development of re-sponse mechanisms, referred to by Berkes and Folke (1998) as social-ecological system. Molapo farming as a traditional practice was alsosubjected to such norms and regulation by the local leadership.

However, one rational of post colonial land use policy was thebelief that the traditional management and control of land (com-munal ownership) limited agricultural production due to insecu-rity of tenure among producers (Molutsi, 1988). Governmentthrough bureaucracy and political elites had the conviction thatsolutions to low agricultural productivity lied in the enactmentof legislation and land use policy that promote change from com-munal to private landholding (Molutsi, 1988; Peters, 1992; Magole,2003). The first and main one of these is the Tribal Land Act of 1968which resulted in the introduction of Land Boards to take over allo-cation and management of land from Dikgosi.5 The removal of Dikg-osi from land management has probably led to the loss of IK ingeneral including molapo farming.

The emergence of new plans that guide natural resource man-agement and utilisation in the Okavango Delta has attempted toaddress the above concerns. This was done through the applicationof new planning concepts such as Integrated Water ResourcesManagement; Ecosystem Approach; Stakeholder Participationand Adaptive Management. The analysis of the extent to whichthese policies embrace the new concepts and how successful theyare in supporting rural livelihoods in general and molapo farmingin particular is critical.

2.3. The emergence of the neo-classic approach in Botswana:Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP) and the Integrated LandUse Plan for the Okavango Delta Ramsar Site (ODRS)

The applications of new concepts such as Integrated Water Re-sources Management (IWRM) and adaptive management have be-come increasingly popular in Botswana especially in the OkavangoDelta (DEA, 2008, Magole, 2008). The ‘‘new’’ concepts stress the needfor consideration of community perspectives as an essential compo-nent of natural resources management. It is particularly argued thattheir knowledge, experience, institutional arrangements and capa-bilities should be considered when management decisions are made(Fabricius et al., 2007). Advocates of this perspective argue that landuse planners should appreciate that because communities live in andmanage the resources on a daily basis they are the first to detectchanges as they affect their life (Folke et al., 2005; Fabricius et al.,2007). Moreover the interactions between communities and theirenvironment has taken place over many generations and has gener-ated knowledge mainly through ‘‘experimentation, trial and error’’that can inform policy (Fabricius et al., 2007).

In recognition of the value of IK and the paradigm shift towardsparticipatory policy processes, the Botswana Government in col-laboration with local, national and international stakeholders hasprepared a systematic and comprehensive plan for the manage-ment of the Okavango Delta, based on IWRM principles and eco-systems approach. Both these emphasis integration andparticipatory policy decision making.

2 Chieftainship.3 Kgotla is ‘‘multi-referential’’ term in that it refers to a traditional gathering of local

people to discuss issues and also to an institution led by Kgosi (chief) of morafe(community of shared values and beliefs).

4 Chief.5 Chiefs. Plural of Kgosi.

3. Study area

As indicated above the study was conducted in the OkavangoDelta in the Ngamiland District which is located in the NorthWestern part of Botswana (see Fig. 1 below). The Okavango Del-ta is a unique and important socio-ecological system in terms ofphysical characteristics and socio-economic attributes. The Deltais in the terminus part of the Okavango River Basin which isshared by Angola, Namibia and Botswana. Annual rainfall inthe Okavango basin averages in the range 1100–1200 mm inthe Angolan highlands, gradually declining southwards to480 mm over the Delta (Andersson et al., 2006). Approximately95% of the basin’s runoff is generated by the headwaters fromcatchments in Angola (Wolski and Murray-Hudson, 2006). Thisannual flood pulse inundates areas which vary in size from yearto year from 5000 km2 to 120,000 km2 (Wolski and Murray-Hud-son, 2006).

Ngamiland District is particularly important in that despite itsresource endowments, it is characterised by high levels of poverty(Magole and Magole, 2009). The study sites within the Delta areTubu and Shorobe settlements. Both settlements are located onthe fringes of the Okavango Delta and experience variations inflooding regimes. Tubu settlement is in the north-western fringesof the Okavango Delta (see Fig. 1 below). The village falls withinthe Thaoge River system that used to feed Lake Ngami in the down-stream. Tubu is characterised by a series of floodplains which arefed by the ground water seeping from the Thaoge river systemand periodic surface water flows (McCarthy and Ellery, 1998). Thisfeature drives the flood recession farming practised in the Tubuarea. The population of Tubu was estimated at 754 in 2001 andnumber of households at 154 comprising mainly of the WaYei peo-ple (CSO, 2001). The main livelihood attributes are livestock farm-ing, arable agriculture, fishing and remittances from formalemployment (Kgathi et al., 2006).

Shorobe settlement lies in the distal parts of the OkavangoDelta in the south east (see also Fig. 1 below). The settlement islocated along the Mogogelo and Gomoti outflow systems whichflows into the Thamalakane river systems. Being in the distal partof the system the Shorobe floodplains are experiencing the fre-quent periods of desiccation which affect the way molapo farmingis practised in the area. The floodplains where molapo farming ispractised lie within a low lying fault line which results in pro-longed periods of flooding during periods of high floods (Vander-post, 2009). The population of Shorobe is estimated at 955 peopleliving in 194 households also consisting mainly of the WaYei eth-nic group (CSO, 2001). Like in Tubu the main livelihood activitiesare livestock and arable farming. Additional livelihood sources aregathering veldt products and formal employment.

The two settlements were selected for this study because theyare located in the areas of the Delta where molapo farming iswidely practiced. Therefore, farmers in these villages are assumedto possess a wealth of IK on arable farming in general and on thepractice in particular. The study site settlements are also locatedin areas that have different hydrological regimes hence providinga good basis and opportunity for comparison. Flood recessionfarming in some parts of Tubu is based on the moisture from theraised water table while in Shorobe it all takes place on the mois-ture left by receding flood waters. IK is generally location specificand is usually confined to particular sections of the population(Polit and Beck, 2004 in Lwoga et al., 2010), as such it will beuseful to establish if there are any area specific differences on IKand the implications of these differences on land use policy inthe Okavango Delta. It is therefore assumed that there may besome differences in the way molapo farming is practiced in thetwo settlements.

Fig. 1. Map showing study sites.

188 S. Motsumi et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195

4. Study methods

The study used a variety of methods to collect primary and sec-ondary data. A combination of qualitative and quantitative meth-ods of data collection was used in order to enhance theinterpretation and the quality of analysis. Participatory Rural Ap-praisal was conducted in the two settlements between May andJune 2010. The PRA exercises lasted for 4 days in each of the twovillages and were conducted using the standard PRA methodology(Mascarenhas, 1991). The PRA was used to gain a broad under-standing of the socio-economic environment of the communitiesin the two settlements. The exercises provided information onthe livelihood activities, natural resource use, as well as identifytrends in socio-economic profiles and development patterns.

A survey of all molapo farmers was carried out using a struc-tured questionnaire to determine factors such as, transfer of landacross family lines and land ownership according to gender, formalland titling and traditional/informal land ownership. 60 and 58molapo farmers were interviewed in Tubu and Shorobe respec-tively. Purposive sampling was used to select study participantsin the two study sites. This sampling method was selected because

Table 1Profiles of focus group participants: Senior molapo farmers in Shorobe settlement.

Respondentprofile

Educationlevel

Other livelihoodactivities

Ethnicity Skills

1. Female,70 years andmarried

None Basket making andold age Pension

Moyei Farming and bas

2. Male, 82 yearsand married

None Dryland and smallstock farming

Moyei Mine work and f

3. Male, 81 yearsand married

None Livestock farming Moyei Mine work, safarfarming

4. Female, 55,single

None Dryland farming Moyei Unskilled, also wintensive program

5. Male, 74 yearsand married

Form 2 Cattle farming Moyei Councillor and fa

6. Male, 65 yearsand married

None Livestock farmingand security guard

Moyei Security Guard a

7. Male, 81 yearsand married

None Thatching andlivestock farming

Monajwa Thatching and fa

the key attribute, IK is assumed not to be randomly distributed.Survey data was analysed using descriptive statistics, namely per-centages. Chi-square test was used to test for associations betweenvariables. This test was used to test for associations between par-ticipation in molapo farming and household attributes (educationlevel, marital status, land ownership, type of household head andethnicity).

Focus group discussions were held to investigate the IK amongmolapo farmers in the two settlements. Based on the guidance ofthe elders and other leaders in the two settlements farmers whowere deemed to possess knowledge on molapo farming were iden-tified and requested to participate in the discussions. Focus groupdiscussions are able to provide insights on aspects such as atti-tudes, feelings, and depth of knowledge. They also provide anopportunity for follow-up on the issues that were not expected(Kahan, 2001). This method was therefore suited for the investiga-tion of IK in molapo farming communities. The discussions wereconducted for two groups of molapo farmers (see Tables 1 and 2 be-low for participants profiles). In each settlement older farmers(40 years and above) and younger farmers (between 25 years and39 years) were purposely selected for participating in the discus-

Length of practise ofmolapo farming

Landownership

Relatives practisingmolapo farming

ket making Since childhood Owned withcertificate

Yes – aunt

arming Since childhood Yes – nocertificate

Yes

i industry and Since childhood Yes – withcertificate

Yes

ork in the labourme and farming

Since childhood Yes Yes

rming Since childhood Yes Yes

nd farming Since childhood Yes Yes

rming Since childhood Yes Yes

Table 2Profiles of focus group participants: young molapo farmers in Shorobe.

Respondentprofiles

Level ofeducation

Other livelihood activities Ethnicity Skills Length of practise ofmolapo farming

Landownership

Relatives practisingmolapo farming

1. Female,26 years andsingle

Form five Piece jobs Moyei Farming 1 year No –parentsfarm

No

2. Male, 30 yearsand single

Form five Piece jobs Wa Yei Lay Counsellor andfarming

1 year No –parentsfarm

Yes

3. Female,30 years andsingle

Standard3

Ipelegeng (labour intensiveworks programme)

Wa Yei Farming 4 years Yes Yes

4. Male, 24 yearsand single

Form 5 Fishing Wa Yei Farming and fishing 2 years No –borrowed

Yes

5. Female,24 years andsingle

Form 5 Fishing Wa Yei Farming and fishing 1 year No –borrowedfarm

Yes

6. Female,37 years andsingle

Juniorcertificate

Motshelo (informal cash lendingamong group members)

Motawana Health Educationand farming

2 years No –borrowedfarm

Yes

7. Female,35 years andsingle

Juniorcertificate

Informal trading and drylandfarming

Wa Yei Informal sectortrading and farming

Since childhood Yes Yes

S. Motsumi et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195 189

sion groups. The rationale for having two groups of different agecategories was to determine some aspects of IK such as transfer,modification and adaptation across age groups. Discussion pointsand guidelines were pre-developed and explained to the group ofparticipants in detail in the national language, Setswana. The peo-ple of Tubu and Shorobe are predominantly of WaYei ethnic group.Molapo farming practice and knowledge is largely associated withthis ethnic group. Insights and knowledge as explained by farmerswas documented, furthermore patterns and differences in informa-tion derived from the groups were analysed.

Policy analysis was done through perusal of key land use plan-ning documents, namely, the Okavango Delta Management Plan(ODMP) document and the Integrated Land Use Plan (ILUP) forthe Okavango Delta Ramsar Site (ODRS). Provisions of the ILUPwere analysed using content analysis methodology in terms of in-tent, key provisions and process. While for the ODMP focus was onappraising the process for the effectiveness of the plan and stake-holder participation strategy. Provisions of these documents wereanalysed in the context of molapo farming in the Okavango Delta.

5. Results and analysis

5.1. The position of molapo farming in the livelihoods portfolio of thestudy site communities

Molapo farming is an important source of livelihood in theOkavango Delta in general and for the study sites communities inparticular. The PRA results indicate that arable and livestock farm-ing constitute an important part of the livelihoods of the people inthe two settlements (Table 1). Women and men have ranked arableinclusive of molapo farming and livestock farming as the mostimportant livelihood activities.

Fig. 2 presents the proportion of livelihood activities based onthe results from the survey in the two communities. Here again re-sults show that a high proportion (27% and 20%) of the communitymembers in Tubu and Shorobe were involved molapo farmingrespectively. Livestock farming contributes about 17% in Tubuand about 14% in Shorobe to rural livelihoods, further indicatingthat it is an important source of livelihood. Community membersalso depend on government support programmes about 40% con-tribution to livelihoods (government financial assistance, Ipelegeng– labour intensive programme and food baskets) indicating thatpoverty is high and hence the need for aid. During the focus group

discussions it was revealed that the farmers have limited liveli-hood options to fall back on when agriculture fails. This was fur-ther underlined by molapo farmers, that due to poverty theyhave limited capacity to pursue other livelihood opportunities.

In terms of the characteristics of the households the resultsindicate that about 50% of molapo farm owners are women, whileabout 60% of the households are female headed. This makes molapofarming an important livelihood activity for marginalised groupssuch as women. The survey results analysed using chi-square totest for any associations between practising of molapo farmingand the following parameters; education level, ethnicity, house-hold type and land ownership revealed that there are no significantassociations. However other studies have shown that BaYei peoplepredominantly practice molapo farming (Tlou, 1985; Bendsen,2002). It is important to note however these studies did not testfor associations to ethnicity.

5.2. Indigenous knowledge among molapo farmers in NgamilandDistrict

Focus group discussions revealed that there is a wealth of IKthat exists among molapo farmers on the following aspects: molapofarming calendar; land preparation; soil quality; crop selection;plant pests and disease control; storage and preservation of har-vest; taboos and rituals related to molapo farming practice. In thecontext of this study, a farming system is defined as a uniqueand reasonably stable arrangement of farming practices thathouseholds engages in as characterised by traditions within the re-mits of physical, biological and socio-economic factors, whichtakes place in a particular locality as determined by the societygoals and available resources (Magoro and Masoga, 2005). Conse-quently, this system includes methods of planting, crop husbandry,selection of crops, storage of produce, preservation of seeds, soilmanagement and land preparation Table 3.

5.2.1. Community calendar of key activitiesOur study sites farmers are engaged in a number of aspects of

molapo farming (land preparation, field fence maintenance, plant-ing, weeding, harvesting, livestock husbandry, veldt product har-vesting and fishing) as outlined in the community calendars(Fig. 3). The calendars show that on farm activities are commonduring the months of August–March each year just before the on-set of floods. The calendars were generated by men and women

Fig. 2. Proportions of livelihood activities practised in the two settlements.

Table 3Ranking of livelihood activities by men and women in Tubu settlement.

Activity profile by males Activity profile by femalesActivity Activity

Livestock 40 Livestock 97Ploughing 39 Ploughing 87Poles (house construction 37 Poles (house construction) 85Grass (thatching) 36 Grass (thatching) 82Mokola (palm trees for

basketry)36 Wild fruits 78

Reeds 35 Mokwaipo (plant colourants forbasketry)

75

Water 35 Mokola (palm trees for basketry) 72Dikabo/fly swatters 34 Traditional beer 70Bulrush/papyrus 34 Basketry & carving 68Water lily 34 Tuck-shop (vendor) 65Carving 33 Building 64Mokhutsumo (wild fruits) 33 Fisheries 63Honey 33 Hair dressing/Bakery 62Tsaro (wild fruits) 32 Water lily 61Basketry 31 Firewood 60

190 S. Motsumi et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195

separately to check for differences in perspective. There was how-ever more convergence than divergence between male and femaleperspective and calendar knowledge. The only slight difference be-tween the sexes is that men have included rainy season in theircalendar; probably because of its importance for livestock in whichthey are the main participants. It is also worth mentioning thatother off farm activities such as harvesting of veldt products haslittle overlap with farming activities as such they are complemen-tary rather than impeding to arable farming. This is indicative of alivelihood strategy which though based on agriculture relies on adeliberate combination main source of livelihood with others. Sur-vey and PRA results shown that farmers at the study sites havemultiple sources of livelihoods coupling arable and livestock farm-ing with veldt products harvesting, informal employment, and gov-ernment social support programmes. This contributes to acommunity food and nutrition security strategy Table 4.

5.2.2. Type of cropsThe farmers in the two settlements cultivate a variety of crops

with maize, millet and sorghum being the most important as pertheir ranking during the PRAs. Other crops that are grown are;gourds (maraka in Setswana), melons (babu or marotse), watermel-ons (magapu), sweet reed (ntshe), beans of different varieties (dina-wa), and groundnuts (ditloo). During the focus group discussionsfarmers revealed that the choice of crops to cultivate is dependenton a variety of factors. Older farmers in Shorobe prefer cereals

(maize and sorghum) because of their importance in householdfood security. While the younger farmers in Shorobe preferred cashcrops because they require less effort in terms of crop husbandry.Examples of these cash crops are green mealies and sweet read.Weather patterns and the physical environment in the localitiesalso provide clues on the type of crops to plant, for example in-crease in flowering of trees such as motopi (Boscia ulbitrunca) sig-nals the onset of a bad year for crops. The farmers, thereforeplant drought tolerant crops such as sorghum and millet.

5.2.3. Methods of plantingFarmers reported that they use hoes and animal drawn ploughs

to till the land. Farmers claim that these implements and the meth-od they use to plant conserve moisture compared to mechanicaltillage methods. In Tubu village, in particular, the farmers preferthe traditional planting methods as opposed to the use of tractorbecause they say it is not suited for molapo farming. The farmerslamented that with the high moisture content of the soil in melapo(flood plains) tractors tend to get stuck in the mud. Furthermore,farmers have observed that the tractors create big soil lumps whichprevent seeds from germinating.

5.2.4. Soil qualityThe farmers are confident with their knowledge of soils, high-

lighting that they know which soils are good for crops and whichones are not. Generally farmers use growth patterns of grass toidentify where they can plough within their fields preferring toplough where the grass is tall. They observe type and growth pat-terns of vegetation. For example tall grasses indicate good qualitysoil for maize. Colour and texture are an important determinantin classification of soils. The dark greyish soils are considered fer-tile while the white sandy soils are believed to be infertile. Similarstudies elsewhere have indicated that farmers have knowledge ofsoil types and fertility. For example in Niger red soils are perceivedto be moderately fertile while black soils are more fertile and whitesoils are infertile (Lamers and Feil, 1995). In addition to colourfarmers also use texture or what they call the ‘feel’ of the soil to as-sess the quality of the soil. A similar technique is applied by farm-ers in Swaziland (Osunade, 1994).

Of notable significance was that the farmers in Tubu do notplant in the type of soil where there is semombo (peat fires) be-cause the crops burn from the heat generated. It appears that peatfires are more common in Tubu as compared to Shorobe as farmersin Shorobe have not alluded to them during the focused group dis-cussion as an issue. The farmers reported that after the occurrenceof peat fire in fields there is reduced productivity. Farmers also said

Fig. 3. Illustration of the 200 m development zone along the river channels of the ORDS Molapo farming like all other developments is only allowed within the ‘public domain’area too far from the flood plain where it traditionally takes place. (Adopted from ODRS Integrated Land Use Plan, Tawana Land Board, 2007).

Table 4Seasonal calendar women and men for Tubu which generally represent the Delta area.

Activity Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Rains

Floods

Ploughing

Weeding

Letlhafula (maturing crops ready for consumption still green)Harvesting

Land preparation

Grass/reeds harvesting

Fishing

Veld products

livestock

Women Men

S. Motsumi et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195 191

they do not plough in a field where the grass is relatively short be-cause that is an indicator of high salinity in the soil (mmu o olets-wai). Fertilizers are a major limiting factor in most ‘agriculturalproduction systems in Africa due to prize of fertilizer’ (Keely andScoones, 2003). However farmers in Shorobe and Tubu say this isnot an issue for them as they do not need to use fertilizers as thesoils in the flood plains are fertile.

5.2.5. Pest management and general upkeep of cropsThe control of pests is critical component of farming systems

and farmers in the study sites have extensive knowledge on as-

pects of effective management of pests. Birds (doves, red-billedquelea and francolins) have been identified as a major pest in bothsettlements. Porcupine has featured prominently as a pest in Tubuand has been singled out by both older and younger farmers as amajor pest problem. Farmers used a wide range of herbs and partsof various plants to control pests in the two study sites. Concoc-tions of various herbs are used extensively in the study sites. Inaddition to freely available knowledge farmers reported that theyuse diviners who mix seeds with traditional medicine beforeplanting. According to the farmers different pests attack crops atdifferent stages of development. For example worms, mainly

6 The nation or the local people.

192 S. Motsumi et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195

stalk-borers affect seedlings as they germinate while birds eatgrains of maturing crops. The farmers in both study sites indicatedthat they also use mechanical/physical control to scare pests, how-ever this requires increase in labour. In both villages the olderfarmers reported that they use traditional doctors or diviners toprotect their fields using magical process called go thaa masimoin Setswana. Magoro and Masoga (2005) found the same practicein the Limpopo Province of South Africa. Taboos are also used forpest control in both settlements and are generally observed by el-ders and less by young farmers. There are taboos that for exampleprohibit eating in the fields because it will attract pests.

5.2.6. Storage of harvestThe traditional storage methods are widely used in both settle-

ments. Traditional storage structure called serala (drying podium)which is made up of wooden poles and grass is used to store har-vest before thrashing. Serala is a raised with stands protected frominsect damage by use of ash mainly collected from fire places (lei-so). Similar structures are used in Limpopo Province in South Africa(Magoro and Masoga, 2005). Serala is used to speed up the dryingof the harvest and while at the same time pest damage is avoidedby having harvest in one place. Sesigo which is a granary madefrom weaved reeds and grass is used to store processed farm pro-duce. In order to reduce pest damage, sesigo is sometimes smearedwith cow dung to repel insect pests. The harvest stored in sesigo ismixed with ash from motswiri tree or leadwood (Combretum imb-ebe). These methods of storage are similar to the ones used byfarmers in Tanzania (Lwoga et al., 2010). Women used to makebig buckets made from grass called letolo in Setswana or sendand-ala in Yei language. In addition kaxhoo in Yei or totwana (basket) inSetswana was smeared with cow dung to avoid destruction ofgrains by an insect pest (weevil called tshupa in Setswana). The tra-ditional storage structures are made from locally available materi-als thereby making it cheaper for the farmers.

5.2.7. Different types of molapo fieldsIn the village of Tubu the farmers distinguish three types of mel-

apo (plural of molapo) fields, namely kama which is generally on araised ground and usually used when the floods are high; moxhex-um which is a sloppy area generally located on the middle groundbetween floodplain used during periods of moderate flow. Farmersalso can plant their crops on the low lying floodplains (madiba)during period of low flow. Depending on the inflows, weather con-ditions and subsequently extent of flooding, floods can recede ontime for farming or take longer. The different type of molapo fieldsgive farmers the ability to respond to varying flood levels. In Sho-robe however the farmers use only one type of floodplain fields be-cause of the geomorphology of the river downstream. This isimportant knowledge for land use policy as evidently flexibilityis key. Thus fixed tenure which is the national norm is not suitablefor the molapo context.

5.2.8. Transfer of indigenous knowledgeThe farmers in both sites reported that children acquired IK

from their parents through active participation in farm work or ac-tive engagement. According to the farmers children participateddifferently in farm work, for example boys worked closely withtheir fathers while girls worked with their mothers. Thus IK trans-fer took place by a process of learning through socialisation (Mpofuand Miruka, 2009). This system of knowledge transfer was reducedwhen more and more young people started relying on governmentfor farm management knowledge. Moreover government reportsshow that less and less parents practice agriculture (CSO, 2001).Schools also contribute to reduced opportunity for knowledgetransfer as children spend more time in formal education. Mpofuand Miruka (2009) argue that the emphasis on the ‘‘individual’’

rather than the ‘‘collective’’ of modern education systems has ledto loss of IK and erosion of the social structures that facilitatedtransfer of IK. Thus with more and more people acquiring formaleducation mode of production changed from on farm productionto a livelihood system based on formal education where graduatesworked in formal employment and earned cash to finance theirlivelihood.

5.2.9. Shocks and adaptationsIn the past the progressive drying of the Okavango Delta re-

sulted in reduced availability of suitable conditions for this typeof farming. The gradual drying of the Thaoge system has resultedin a reduction in flooded areas in the Nokaneng Flats, where histor-ically molapo farming was extensively practiced, hence the reduc-tion in availability of the molapo fields (Rashem, 1988). Currently(from late 1990s to present) the system has experienced wet con-ditions (Wolski, 2009). The relatively wet and dry situations pres-ent different sets of constraints to molapo farming. In a bid tosustain the buffering effect of molapo farming in rural livelihoodsagainst shocks, IK possessed by farmers can be harnessed andmainstreamed into land use policy.

Based on the PRA results farmers have multiple sources of live-lihoods such as coupling arable and livestock farming with veldtproducts harvesting, informal employment, and government socialsupport programmes. Dependence on multiple livelihoods sourcesis a coping strategy to unreliable molapo farming during periods ofuncertain yields mainly during high or low flood (Motsholaphekoet al., 2011; Vanderpost, 2009). Farmers also adapt to this uncer-tainty by having both molapo fields and dryland ones such as inShorobe. While in Tubu farmers use different type of molapo fieldsto adapt to different flooding situations as explained above (undera section on molapo fields). Diversified livelihood strategies haveimportant buffering effect against shocks and surprises such asdrought and flooding and other impacts of climate change (Fabri-cius et al., 2007; Motsholapheko et al., 2011).

5.3. Analysis of land use policy, plans and legislation governing molapofarming

The Tribal Land Act of 1968 as the primary legal instrument wasperused to check for provisions and clauses that are relevant tomolapo farming practice. This study found out that there areclauses in the act which regulate the appointment of Land Boardmembers – the main decision makers with respect to allocationand management of the land. The members are primarily drawnfrom the members of the public residing in a particular tribal area.Furthermore there is a provision which allows for the appointmentof local land overseers to assist Land Boards in the land allocationprocess by witnessing land claims and identifying land which isavailable for allocation. Land Overseers are identified by morafe6

and drawn from among the community members to work with LandBoards, this has allowed for infusion of some local knowledge in landmanagement. This study established that, while this is a laudable ef-fort to involve local people, it has proven inadequate as evidenced bydouble allocations and other land disputes. Moreover the land over-seers are only used to assist with allocations and have no say in zon-ing and other land management decisions.

From the focused group discussions it is clear that transfer ofland management and allocation powers from traditional leader-ship to state institutions disempowered the community and madeit difficult for their knowledge to be incorporated into policy deci-sions. Furthermore umbrella national policies are applied to localconditions thereby ignoring the uniqueness of local conditions,

S. Motsumi et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195 193

knowledge and ecological variations and in some instances run-ning counter to local preferences (Poteete, 2003; Magole, 2003).Clearly the transition from local based resource management to acentralised Government led one has made it difficult to includeIK in land management. In a bid to address the shortcomings ofthe centralised management new concepts such as IntegratedWater Resources Management (IWRM), co-management, adaptivemanagement and ecosystems approach have been advocated for.The common factor in these is that they push for integration.

The study established that under the umbrella of the OkavangoDelta Management Plan (ODMP) framework a number of resourcespecific strategies and plans were prepared. Among these was theIntegrated Land Use Plan (ILUP) for the ODRS which ‘‘essentiallyaims at establishing regulations, guidelines, proposals and pro-grammes that will regulate the use of land; guide land manage-ment and zone the Ramsar Site into distinct land use zones,which will suffice for the next 24 years’’ (Tawana Land Board,2007). The motivation for the preparation of the plan was a num-ber of issues deemed pertinent in the management and conserva-tion of the land and water resources of the ODRS. These includeirregularities in land allocation, unclear procedures resulting inland use conflicts; lack of protection of traditional user rights andlimited use of IK (DEA, 2001).

We found out that although IK was acknowledged as importantin developing land use policy for the ODRS there is no evidence ofits use or integration in the final outcome of the Integrated LandUse Plan. Instead the plan appears to ignore farmers’ knowledgeand practice. For example the plan sets a 200 m development freebuffer zone from river channels. The plan states that, ‘‘molapo farm-ing fields should be situated minimally 20 m below the high watermark in the floodplain, thus respecting the free access to the public do-main’’ (Tawana Land Board ILUP, 2007, pp 222). This is illustratedin Fig. 3 below. Traditionally molapo farming is practiced withinthe flood plain to take advantage of the receding flood and depos-ited nutrients. This regulation is disregarding this practice andtechnically prohibiting the practice. The shortcoming here is thatthe provision or regulation restricts molapo farming to marginalareas away from the fertile floodplains and this is likely to reduceyields to dryland farming levels.

We establish that, local and specific resource strategies are noneexistent in the resource use policy environment of Botswana. Weargue that, these could address the identified limitations in theland use plan and cater for molapo farming. Thus although it isknown that molapo farming is a highly productive system no par-ticular attention is paid to the practice in terms of institutionalsupport. There are no regulations and guidelines to specificallyguide wise use and best practice in molapo farming hence sustain-able livelihoods in general and sustainable molapo farming in par-ticular will remain elusive for the rural communities of theOkavango Delta.

This study found out that the methodology and approach for thedevelopment of the ODMP and its associated products such as ILUPwas considered to be relatively participatory. The ODMP planningprocess can be considered as one of the pioneer plans that em-braced meaningful stakeholder engagement in the planning pro-cess (Bendsen, 2005; Segomelo et al., 2006; Magole, 2008). Themethods applied for community involvement were mainly work-shops and public meetings within the traditional setting of thekgotla.7 The workshops provided an improved environment forstakeholder input than the kgotla meetings, primarily because ofthe time limitations of the Kgotla. Through perusal of the workshopproceedings we established that workshops were typically held over

7 The Kgotla is a traditional village assembly place, the meeting itself and the seat ofthe Kgosi (Chief).

a full day to a maximum of 5 days depending on the agenda, while akgotla meeting is expected to last for a maximum of 2 h. Other lim-itations of the kgotla have been acknowledged and highlighted inSegomelo et al. (2006) and Magole (2008). One of the major limita-tions is low participation of women and marginalised groups such asthe youth and less influential people (the poor, people with disabil-ity) within the community. This was evident during the ODMP pro-cess where an elite group of known individuals in the District weremuch more outspoken in the meetings than other less knownparticipants.

It appears that District level decisions that affect (or do not) lo-cal production practices are not appropriate as they miss out on lo-cal knowledge. Focus group discussions with local molapo farmersin the study sites revealed that farmers possess and still use knowl-edge on adaptation to shocks, natural variability, crop husbandry,pest management strategies and soil management among others.Opportunity therefore exists for cross-learning within the contextof management of molapo farming in the Okavango Delta to im-prove rural livelihoods.

6. Discussions

The dominant approach of provision of extension services inBotswana is that of packaging knowledge created by scienceoften from experiments in other countries and then transferredto through extension staff for adoption by farmers i.e. ‘‘trans-fer-of-technology approach’’ (Assefa et al., 2009). The approachhas limited scope for incorporating IK (Lwoga et al., 2010) asevidenced by the case of land use policy in the Okavango Del-ta. Due to its construct, land use policy in the Okavango Deltaignores poor farmers and the sustainability of their livelihoods.From the study, it is apparent that farmers have minimal influ-ence in shaping policy options and their implementation.These, therefore, have no or little relevance and benefit totheir production system. Farmers rely mainly on their ownknowledge. Lema and Kapange (2006) found similar results inTanzania, where the farmers out of realisation that they donot control decision making and policy implementation reliedon their IK.

Based on the profiles of the farmers who participated in the fo-cused group discussions and this study in general it is clear thatmolapo farming is practised by poor farmers who either solely relyon the practice for livelihood or have very limited alternativesources of livelihood. Notably the majority of them are womenand depend on government social programmes as safety netsagainst shocks induced crop failure. Policy support for molapofarming is necessary to support poverty reduction strategies andsocial equity programmes within Ngamiland District. However,policy analysts argue that although the importance of IK isacknowledged there are still challenges of using it to inform policyin Botswana (Madzwamuse and Fabricius, 2004; Cassidy et al.,2011).

This study has established that, although, IK is still availablewithin molapo farming communities in the Okavango Delta thereis possibility of it being lost due to challenges of IK transfer acrossgenerations. IK transfer can take place by the process of learningthrough socialisation (Mpofu and Miruka, 2009), however, this sys-tem of knowledge transfer is reduced when more and more youngpeople started relying on government for farm managementknowledge. This situation is obtained within molapo farming prac-tice in the Okavango Delta.

Furthermore, studies have indicated that molapo farming inthe Okavango Delta is one form of livelihood for rural peoplewho are exposed to shocks such as flooding and desiccation ofrivers (Motsholapheko et al., 2011). The use of different molapo

194 S. Motsumi et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195

fields based on flows is also linked to adaptation to climate andflow variability in the Okavango Delta. Molapo farming and itsassociated IK therefore presents an opportunity for contributingto development of adaptation and coping strategies to climatechange or climate variability.

7. Conclusions

The study found out that the use of IK in molapo farming is stillprominent in the two settlements. Farmers have valuable knowl-edge and practices in molapo farming that if harnessed could en-hance the contribution of agriculture in general and that ofmolapo farming in particular to rural livelihoods in Ngamiland.Low cost technologies that are suited for molapo farming couldbe explored to assist farmers in increasing yields from molapofarming. There is need to work with the famers through a partici-patory process to develop guidelines that can be used by the landauthority to manage molapo farming. This approach has the poten-tial to improve livelihoods of the people practicing molapo farmingwhich is crucial for the long-term sustainability of this farmingsystem.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the support from InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC) through the Botswana Eco-Health Project.

References

Agea, J.G., Lugangwa, E., Obua, J., Kambungu, R.K., 2008. Role of indigenousknowledge in enhancing household food security: a case study of Mukungwe,Masaka District, Central Uganda. Indilinga – Afr. J. Indigenous Knowl. Syst. 7 (1).

Agrawal, A., 1995. Dismantling the divide between indigenous and scientificknowledge. Dev. Change 26, 413–439.

Agrawal, A., 2004. Indigenous and scientific knowledge: some critical comments.Indigenous Knowl. Monit. 3 (3), <http://www.nuffic.nl/ciran/ikdm/3-3/articles/agrawal.html>.

Andersson, L., Wilk, J., Todd, M., Hughes, D.A., Earle, A., Kniveton, D., Layberry, R.,Savenije, H.H.G., 2006. Impact of climate change and development scenarios onflow patterns in the Okavango River. J. Hydrol. 331 (1–2).

Assefa, A., Waters-Bayer, A., Fincham, R.M., 2009. Comparison of frameworks forstudying grassroots innovation: agricultural innovation systems andagricultural knowledge innovation. <http://www.innovationafrica.net/pdf>.

Bendsen, H., 2002. The Dynamics of Land use Systems in Ngamiland: ChangingLivelihoods Options and Strategies. University of Botswana Harry OpenheimerOkavango Research Centre, Maun, Botswana.

Bendsen, H., 2005. Documentation of Second Round of Kgotla Meetings forOkavango Delta Management Plan. University of Botswana HarryOppenheimer Okavango Research Centre, Maun, Botswana.

Berkes, F., Folke, C., 1998. Linking Social and Ecological Systems: ManagementPractices and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience. Cambridge UniversityPress, Cambridge, UK.

Botswana Central Statistics Office, 2001. Population and Housing Census 2001.Botswana Government, Gaborone.

Briggs, J., 2005. The use of indigenous knowledge in development: problems andchallenges. Prog. Dev. Stud. 5 (2), 99–114.

Brokensha, D., Warren, D., Werner, O. (Eds.), 1980. Indigenous Knowledge Systemsand Development. University Press of America, New York.

Bryant, R.L., 1998. Power, knowledge and political ecology in the third world: areview. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 22 (1), 79–94.

Cassidy, L., Wilk, J., Kgathi, D.L., Bendsen, H., Ngwenya, B.N., Mosepele, K., 2011. In:Kgathi, D.L., Ngwenya, B.N., Darkoh, M.L. (Eds.), Rural Livelihoods, Risk andPolitical Economy of Access. Nova Science Publishers, Inc..

Chambers, R., Conway, G.R., 1991. Sustainable Rural Livelihoods: Practical Conceptsfor the 21st Century. Institute for Development Studies, Discussion Paper 296.

Chimbari, M.J., Magole, L., Wiles, G., Dikgola, K., Kurugundla, N., Fanta, T.D.,Ngwenya, B., Nyepi, M.S., Motsumi, S., Ama, K., Thakadu, O., Chombo, O., 2009.Application of the Ecohealth Approach to Understand Flood-Recession (Molapo)Farming in the Context of Hydro-Climate Variability and Hydro-climate Changein the Okavango Delta, Botswana. University of Botswana Harry OppenheimerOkavango Research Centre, Maun, Botswana.

Department of Environmental Affairs, 2001. Okavango Delta Management PlanProject Proposal. Government of Botswana Ministry of Environment, Wildlifeand Tourism.

Department of Environmental Affairs, 2008. Okavango Delta Management Plan.Government of Botswana Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism.

Fabricius, C., Folke, C., Cundill, C., Schultz, L., 2007. Powerless spectators, copingactors and adaptive co-managers: a synthesis of the role of communities inecosystem management. Ecol. Soc. 12 (1), 29.

Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., Norberg, J., 2005. Adaptive governance of social-ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 30, 441–473, <http://environ.annualreviews.org>.

Kahan, J.P., 2001. Focus groups as a tool for policy analysis. Anal. Soc. Issues PublicPolicy 2001, 129–146.

Keely, J., Scoones, I., 2003. Understanding Environmental Policy Processes: Casesfrom Africa. Earthscan Publications Ltd., London, UK.

Kgathi, D.L., Bendsen, H., Blaike, P., Mbaiwa, J., Ngwenya, B., Wilk, J., 2004. RuralLivelihoods, Indigenous Knowledge Systems, and Political Economy of Access toNatural Resources in the Okavango Delta. University of Botswana, Maun,Botswana.

Kgathi, D.L., Kniveton, D., Ringrose, S., Turton, T., Vanderpost, C., Lundqvist, J.,Savanije, H., Seely, M., El Obeid, S., Mendelson, J., 2006. The Okavango; a riversupporting its people, environment and economic development. J. Hydrol. 331(1–2).

Klees, S.J., 2008. Indigenous Knowledge Initiatives at the World Bank. The NationalInstitutes of Health and Pennsylvania State University. <http://www.lib.umd.edu/drum/bitsream/1903/8131/1/umi-umd-5303.pdf>.

Kolawole, O.D., 2008. Situating local knowledge within development agenda: somereflections. J. Sustain. Dev. 5, <http://www.journals.cdrs.columbia.edu>.

Lamers, J.P., Feil, P.R., 1995. Farmers knowledge and management of spatial soilcrop growth variability in Niger, West Africa. Neth. J. Agr. Sci. 43, 375–389.

Lema, N.M., Kapange, B.W., 2006. Farmers’ organisations and agriculturalinnovation in Tanzania: the sector policy for real farmer empowerment. In:Wennik, B., Heemskek, W. (Eds), Farmers’s Organisations and AgriculturalInnovation: Case Studies from Benin, Rwanda and Tanzania. Amsterdam, RoyalTropical Institute, pp. 71–78.

Lwoga, E.T., Ngulube, P., Stilwell, C., 2010. The relevance of indigenous knowledgefor small-scale farming in Tanzania. Indilinga – Afr. J. Indigenous Knowl. Syst. 9(1).

Madzwamuse, M., Fabricius, C., 2004. Local ecological knowledge and the Basarwain the Okavango Delta: the case of Xaxaba, Ngamiland District. In: Fabricius, C.,Koch, E. (Eds.), Rights, Resources and Rural Development: Community BasedNatural Resources Management in Southern Africa. Earthscan, London, UK, pp.160–173.

Magole, L., 2003. A Tragedy of the Commoners: The Evolution of CommunalRangeland Management in Kgalagadi, Botswana. A Thesis Submitted to theSchool of Development Studies. University of East Anglia, in Fulfilment of theRequirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 2003.

Magole, L., 2008. The feasibility of implementing an integrated management planfor the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Phys. Chem. Earth 33 (8–13), 906–912.

Magole, L., Magole, I.L., 2009. The Okavango Delta: whose delta is it? Phys. Chem.Earth 34 (13–16), 874–880.

Magoro, M.D., Masoga, M., 2005. Aspects of indigenous knowledge and protection insmall-scale farming systems: a challenge for advancement. Indilinga – Afr. J.Indigenous Knowl. Syst. 4 (2).

Mascarenhas, J., 1991. Participatory Rural Appraisal and Participatory LearningMethods: Recent Experiences from Myrada and South India. PRA Notes, issue13. IIED, London, pp. 26–32.

Mbaiwa, J.E., 2002. The Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts of Tourism inthe Okavango Delta, Botswana: A Baseline Study. Harry Oppenheimer OkavangoResearch Centre, University of Botswana, Maun.

McCarthy, T.S., Ellery, W.N., 1998. The Okavango Delta. Trans. Roy. Soc. S. Afr. 53,157–182.

Molutsi, P.P., 1988. The state, environment and peasant consciousness in Botswana.Rev. Afr. Polit. Econ. 42, 40–47.

Motsholapheko, M.R., Kgathi, D.L., Vanderpost, C., 2011. Rural livelihoods andhousehold adaptation to extreme flooding in the Okavango Delta, Botswana.Phys. Chem. Earth 36 (2011), 984–995.

Mpofu, D., Miruka, O., 2009. Indigenous knowledge management transfer systemsacross generations in Zimbabwe. Indilinga – Afr. J. Indigenous Knowl. Syst. 8 (1).

Ogen, O., 2006. Traditional farming and indigenous knowledge systems in Africa:perspectives from ikale-yoruba experience. Indilinga – Afr. J. Indigenous Knowl.Syst. 5 (2).

Olatokun, W.M., Ayanbode, O.F., 2008. Use of indigenous knowledge by ruralwomen in the development of Ogun State. Indilinga – Afr. J. Indigenous Knowl.Syst. 7 (1).

Osunade, M.A., 1994. Community environmental knowledge and land resourcessurveys, Swaziland. Singapore J. Trop. Geogr. 15, 157–170.

Peters, P.E., 1992. Manoeuvres and debates in the interpretation of land rights inBotswana. J. Int. Afr. Inst. 62 (3).

Polit, D.F., Beck, C.T., 2004. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods, seventh ed.Lippincott Williams Wilkins, Philadelphia.

Poteete, A.R., 2003. When professionalism clashes with local peculiarities: ecology,elections and procedural arrangements in Botswana. J. S. Afr. Stud. 29 (2), 461–485.

Rashem, K., 1988. Economic Findings and Results of Dryland and Molapo FarmingSystems of Western Ngamialnd. Agricultural Development Ngamiland,Technical Report No. 5. Department of Agricultural research, Ministry ofAgriculture, Maun.

Saanark, N.L., 2003. Flood recession agriculture in the Senegal River. Danish J. Geogr.103 (1), 99–113.

S. Motsumi et al. / Physics and Chemistry of the Earth 50–52 (2012) 185–195 195

Scoones, I., 1998. Sustainable Livelihoods: A Framework for Analysis. Institute forDevelopment Studies, Working Paper 72.

Segomelo, P.K., Motsumi, S., Madzwamuse, M., 2006. Demonstrating IntegratedWetlands Management and Participatory Planning – Okavango DeltaManagement Plan Project. A Paper Presented at the OKACOM/ODMP Seminar,World Water Week, 2006, Stockholm, Sweden.

Tawana Land Board, 2007. Okavango Delta Ramsar Site Land use and LandManagement Plan (2005–2029). Ngamiland District Land Use Planning Unitand Department of Environmental Affairs, Maun, Botswana.

Tlou, T., 1985. A History of Ngamiland, 1750–1906: The Formation of an AfricanState. MacMillan Botswana, Gaborone.

Vanderpost, C., 2009. Molapo Farming in the Okavango Delta. Fact Sheet 7/2009.Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre, Maun, Botswana.

Warren, D.M., 1991. Using Indigenous Knowledge in Agricultural Development.World Bank Discussion Paper No. 127.

Wilk, J., Kgathi, D.L., 2007. Risk in the Okavango Delta in the face of social andenvironmental change. GeoJournal 70, 121–132.

Wolski, P., Murray-Hudson, M., 2006. Flooding dynamics in a large low-gradientalluvial fan, the Okavango Delta, Botswana, from analysis and interpretation ofa 30-year hydrometric record. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 10, 127–137.

Wolski, P., 2009. Assessment of hydrological effects of climate change in theOkavango River Basin. Environmental Protection and Sustainable Managementof the Okavango River Basin Project. Permanent Okavango River Basin WaterCommission - OKACOM Secretariat, Maun, Botswana.