Figure 1: Map of the Okavango Delta ........................................................................................................... 8
Figure 2: Assessment regions of the IUCN freshwater biodiversity project phase 1 ................................... 9
Figure 3: Demonstration sites of the IUCN freshwater biodiversity project phase 2 .................................. 10
Figure 4: Dragonfly in Kwara Concession ................................................................................................... 14
Figure 5: A reed frog in Kwara Concession ................................................................................................ 15
Figure 6: Water lilies off the Boro channel ................................................................................................. 18
Figure 7: HOORC Director introducing the expert meeting objectives ....................................................... 28
Figure 8: Sampling for macro-invertebrates near the HOORC campsite in the Okavango Delta .............. 30
Figure 9: Dr Helen Dallas provides training in macro-invertebrate identification to tour guides ................. 32
Figure 10: The fifth iteration of the South African Scoring System (SASS5) Score Sheet ......................... 33
Figure 11: Participants using the OKAS Score Sheet during the macro-invertebrate monitoring training . 34
Figure 12: Off-line project wiki was used to record implementation ........................................................... 36
Figure 13: Example of a risk monitoring chart ............................................................................................ 36
Figure 14: Elephants traversing Chief’s Island in the Moremi Game Reserve ........................................... 39
Figure 15: A meandering channel of the Okavango Delta .......................................................................... 44
List of Text Boxes
Box 1: The Ramsar Convention ................................................................................................................... 6
Box 2: IUCN Freshwater Biodiversity Unit ................................................................................................... 9
Box 3: South Africa’s River Health Programme ......................................................................................... 19
Box 4: Principles of the Conservation Commons........................................................................................ 21
Box 5: Origins of the Okavango Research Centre (ORC) .......................................................................... 22
Box 6: Views of the Okavango River ......................................................................................................... 45
5
Introduction
The Okavango Delta case study was one of four pilot efforts across Africa trying to integrate information
about freshwater biodiversity into the development planning process. The Okavango Delta case used the
mechanism of a long-term water quality monitoring programme and later, an outreach book. The available
freshwater biodiversity information was integrated into a wetland health monitoring tool (index of
biological integrity) that is under development for long-term use, and the Delta book will reach decision-
makers more immediately and pilot a reporting tool for communicating about freshwater issues. Varying
degrees of success were achieved trying to get decision-makers to use freshwater biodiversity datasets in
planning and numerous lessons were learned from the process of trying. Recommendations arising from
this experience applicable to other similar efforts are offered in this report.
The global importance of freshwater biodiversity
Water is the basis of life, and fresh water systems are among the most productive life-support systems in
the world. Wetlands in particular provide many important goods and services ranging from food and
building materials, to water filtration, flood and erosion control, and are a critical resource for the
livelihoods of many of the world’s poorest communities (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). While
having a relatively small coverage, freshwater systems make a big impact in terms of global biodiversity.
Freshwater biodiversity refers to the natural variety, abundance, and distribution of species found in these
freshwater ecosystems. The diversity of species in freshwater habitats is disproportionately high as
compared to other ecosystems. Freshwater habitats cover less than a percent of the world’s surface, yet
they provide a home for over 25% of all described vertebrates, more than 126,000 known animal species,
and approximately 2,600 macrophyte plants (Darwall et al 2008). An estimated 12,500 fish, 5,700
amphibian and 4,000-5,000 mollusc species depend on freshwater habitats (IUCN 2009). Other major
groups dependent upon freshwater habitats include reptiles, insects, plants, and mammals. In total, there
could be up to a million species included in the definition of freshwater biodiversity.
There are three major categories of ecosystem services provided by freshwater biodiversity: provisioning,
supporting, and cultural (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Provisioning services include: the
delivery of clean water, providing food (e.g., rice, fish, crayfish) or goods used by humans (e.g., reeds as
building material), and resilience to anthropogenic impacts (e.g., pollution, excessive nutrients release).
Supporting include: suppression (a service) or enhancement (a disservice) of water-borne diseases, flood
attenuation in flood prone areas, delivery of sediments to coastal areas (e.g., beach and dune formation).
Cultural services include: recreation, tourism value, inspiration, and religious applications. These goods
and services are valued comparably to the GDP of some countries in the top third of the world’s
economies (Darwall et al 2008).
The overriding value of freshwater biodiversity is scale dependent. At the global level, freshwater
biodiversity is primarily seen in terms of its great role in maintaining our biosphere. Though freshwater
covers only 0.8% of the world’s surface, it contains 12% of all described species and supports the
maintenance of most others forms of biodiversity. Freshwater ecosystems in continuous flux can make a
range of habitats available at different times of the year to terrestrial and arboreal animals, supported by
freshwater species, which are thus critical for the maintenance of global biodiversity (McAllister et al 1997;
Abramovitz 1996). Nationally, the value of freshwater biodiversity can be measured in terms of
contribution to Gross National Product through national accounts and satellite natural resource accounts.
The most prominent examples of freshwater connected economic value are related to fisheries and
6
tourism. Locally, freshwater biodiversity directly and indirectly
supports livelihoods. Many people, but most acutely the
world’s poor, depend on the services provided by freshwater
biodiversity for their livelihoods. It supplies food, water
purification, flood regulation, and protection. Most fish caught
in freshwater is done so using the least sophisticated methods
and eaten very close to source, demonstrating that freshwater
fish species supports the nutrition of the poor. Additionally,
many serious human diseases are water-borne or spread
through aquatic vectors (e.g. malaria, schistosomiasis,
onchocerciasis, cholera, dysentery) so the maintenance of
freshwater biodiversity is a key link in preventative health
strategies.
Freshwater biodiversity has already begun to decline, and it
has declined faster compared to terrestrial or marine species
over the past 30 years (Xenopoulis 2005). Rapidly growing
global human populations demand increasing volumes of
water. Freshwater systems are under growing pressure, as
flow patterns are disrupted and the load of waste substances
increases. Runoff from agricultural and urban areas, the
invasion of exotic species, and the creation of dams and water
diversion are key threats. Overexploitation, flow modification
including water abstraction, destruction or degradation of
habitat, and invasion by alien species and pollution also
threaten freshwater species (Dudgeon et al. 2006; Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment 2005). Predicted global climate
change will compound these threats. Temperature changes
and shifts in precipitation and runoff patterns will have knock-
on effects to freshwater biodiversity (Dudgeon et al. 2006).
Another major issue is acidification which along with warming
threatens a number of species. Ones with calcareous shells
such as Crustaceans are highly vulnerable. Water monitoring
exercises at HOORC are currently assessing pH changes.
In order to help mitigate the threats and better inform the
development and conservation planning process, we need to
know where freshwater species occur, how important they are
for human livelihoods and ecosystem functioning, and how
threatened they are and by what. To achieve this, information
on species distributions, population status and trends, habitats
and ecology, threats and utilisation are collated and used to
conduct assessments of extinction risk. The information is all
made available on the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species™ (IUCN 2008).
Box 1: The Ramsar Convention
The Convention on Wetlands, signed in Ramsar, Iran, in 1971, is an intergovernmental treaty which provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. There are presently 158 Contracting Parties to the Convention, with 1822 wetland sites, totaling 168 million hectares, designated for inclusion in the Ramsar List of Wetlands of International Importance.
The Convention’s mission is the “conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local, regional and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world.” Its three pillars of implementation are: (1) the wise use of all wetlands; (2) special attention to internationally important wetlands; and (3) international cooperation.
The Convention has recognized the interdependence of people and their environment, and is the only global convention addressing interactions between water and ecosystems.
See www.ramsar.org for more
information.
7
The Okavango Delta Site
The demonstration site of the case study is the Okavango Delta (see Figure 1: Map of the Okavango ),
Botswana, forming one of the world’s largest area Wetland of International Importance. The Okavango
Delta is protected through the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands (see Box 1 at right).
As a site of global importance for biological conservation and diversity, the Delta is a significant habitat for
terrestrial and water bird species with 444 bird species confirmed. Thirteen resident bird species,
including the Wattled Crane (Burgeranus carunculatus) and the Slaty Egret (Egretta vinaceiqula), are
globally threatened and many data deficient species may also be classified as such. The Delta contains
high densities of large mammal species particularly elephant (Loxodonta Africana). It is also the habitat of
one of the largest remaining populations of the African wild dog (Lycaon pictus) and is a stronghold for
the Sitatunga antelope (Tragelaphus spekii), the Nile crocodile (Crocodilus niloticus), and leopard
(Pathera pardus). There is ahigh floral diversity with 208 aquatic and semi-aquatic species, 675 herbs
and grasses and 195 woody species. One endemic has been identified, the ground orchid (Habenaria
pasmithii). A number of other plant species found in the Delta have been identified as rare or endangered
(Ramberg et al 2006).
At a national scale, the Delta contributes 2.1% of Botswana’s Gross National Product (Turpie 2006)
primarily through tourism but also through limited fisheries and other subsistence resource uses. The
measurable economic value of the Delta is overwhelmingly dominated by non-consumptive uses of the
resource through ecotourism. Tourism provides around 50% of formal employment in northern Botswana,
and 9.2% of total employment in Botswana -- or 1 in every 10.8 waged jobs (Arntzen 2005; WTTC 2007).
Tourism is the second-highest earner of foreign currency for Botswana after diamonds (WTTC 2007).
Households in and around the Delta earn an estimated total of $31USD million per year from natural
resource use, sales, salaries and wages in the tourism industry, and rents and royalties in community-
based natural resource management (locally known as Community Trust) arrangements (Turpie 2006).
Many are directly dependent on the Delta for subsistence, and consequently, the population is clustered
in a band of settlements around the Delta. Options for subsistence outside the Delta are limited as the
natural resource base of northern Botswana is marginally productive. Soils are generally poor, rainfall is
low and unreliable and although significant mineral deposits have recently been discovered, mines have
not yet been developed (Turpie 2006). The Delta’s wetland resources are a lifeline for thousands of
Botswana’s poor.
8
The Okavango Delta is under threat. Global climate change will lead to higher ambient and water
temperatures and faster evaporation, resulting in faster drying up of seasonal swamps. The increase in
CO2 concentrations may alter the composition of the vegetation, and increase the woody biomass.
Changes in rainfall levels in Angola and rainfall variability will have an impact on the inflow, but the nature
of the impact is not known at the moment (Wolski and Murray-Hudson 2008).
The Delta depends on the water inflow from Namibia and Angola. Increased upstream water abstraction
and pollution form the major threats from these countries. Local uses (agriculture, fishing, resource
collection and use) could alter the resource base and biodiversity due to growing commercial and
subsistence use of the Delta and its resources. The Government of Botswana, through the Department of
Environmental Affairs, has expressed concern about the depletion of some veld products, overgrazing
and land degradation and the environmental impacts of the growing number of tourists.
If these threats are not addressed, they will have a profound impact on the freshwater biodiversity.
Commercial and artisinal fish species, threats to aquatic and terrestrial plant life, and animals such as the
Sitatunga are significant and also the wider structure and functioning of the Delta is at risk. Specific
changes are likely to directly affect local communities that are heavily dependent on the Delta for their
livelihoods, including consumptive and non-consumptive tourism
The available evidence suggests that, without appropriate intervention, the Okavango Delta of the future
will be potentially very different from what exists today.
Figure 1: Map of the
Okavango Delta
Prepared by HOORC
9
The African Freshwater Biodiversity Project
The African Freshwater Biodiversity Project, “Integration of
freshwater biodiversity in the development process throughout
Africa: mobilising information and site demonstrations” is
implemented through the IUCN Species Programme
Freshwater Biodiversity Unit (see box at right). It has been
funded by the European Commission Program on
Environment in Developing Countries (Program on Tropical
Forests and other Forests in Developing Countries).
In the first phase of the project, regional Biodiversity
Assessments collated all existing information on African
aquatic plants) (see figure 2 below). IUCN has completed
comprehensive assessments for eastern Africa and southern
Africa and ongoing assessments for the rest of Africa are to be
completed in 2009. These regional assessments provide a
comprehensive picture of the status of freshwater biodiversity.
They also allow for the basins that contain high numbers of
species or threatened species to be identified. The
conservation status of freshwater species was assessed,
species ranges were mapped, and findings were presented in
a suitable format (regional reports). This effort represents the
most comprehensive dataset ever compiled on Africa’s
freshwater biodiversity.
Box 2: IUCN Freshwater
Biodiversity Unit
The IUCN Freshwater Biodiversity Unit (FBU) aims to put in place a factual basis for efforts to conserve and manage freshwater biodiversity globally.
The FBU works in conjunction with the IUCN Species Survival Commission’s Specialist Groups (including the Freshwater Fish, the Dragonfly, and the Mollusc Specialist Groups), regional scientists, experts in freshwater biodiversity, and policy makers. The FBU has a key partnership with Conservation International's Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, working to undertake regional and global freshwater biodiversity assessments.
techniques are highly transient; this poses a major risk to the success of
the programme.1 Government officials are rotated frequently from the
remote Delta posting, there is high turnover in lab staff at the University
research centre, and tourism operator staff are quickly moved around
camps to meet the demands of their core business. Additionally, HIV/AIDS
has taken an immense toll on the availability of individual capacity.
Individuals are often absent for medical appointments, funerals, are ill and
unable to work, or tending to family concerns in this region with 20-39%
HIV prevalence (GoB 2006). Given the expense of one-on-one training
and the degree to which such investment is quickly eroded, creative
strategies to sustain capacity are needed.
The Okavango demonstration site found that the production of durable
training materials such as video courses can be a more sustainable
method to maintain capacity than expensive one-on-one training. “User
friendly” training manuals should be available to act as a refresher for
those who have already been trained and assist in the familiarisation of
others in the monitoring techniques. IIED (Thompson 2002) has devised
guidelines for trainers in participatory learning and action methodologies.
These can provide some inspirational ideas for future monitoring training
methods.
One benefit of reliance on macro-invertebrate monitoring is that the level
of academic capacity required is much less than for chemical monitoring.
Trained volunteers have assisted biomonitoring using macro-invertebrates
since the Save Our Streams (SOS) programme was founded in 1969 in
the United States (Firehock and West 1995). The South African River
Health Programme (see Box 3, at right) successfully relies on volunteers
(amongst others, DWAF Regional Offices, provincial departments of the
environment, conservation agencies, universities and municipalities) to
generate information for improved management of its rivers. Skills
certification through an accreditation programme has been used in the
South African model to ensure that volunteers are adequately trained.
Qualifications for the South African Scoring System method expire and
must be renewed – a recommended method to maintain consistently high
standards of monitoring.
Tools and methods
5. Identify and work with critical local stakeholders who can carry out
advocacy.
1 This risk has been recognized since the initial project document for the pan-African project.
Box 3: South Africa’s River Health
Programme
South Africa’s River Health Programme (RHP) serves as a source of information regarding the overall ecological status of river ecosystems in South Africa. The RHP primarily makes use of in-stream and riparian biological communities (e.g. fish, invertebrates, vegetation) to characterise the response of the aquatic environment to multiple disturbances. The rationale is that the integrity or health of the biota inhabiting the river ecosystems provides a direct and integrated measure of the health of the river as a whole. The objectives of the RHP are to: 1. Measure, assess and report
on the ecological state of aquatic ecosystems;
2. Detect and report on spatial and temporal trends in the ecological state of aquatic ecosystems;
3. Identify and report on emerging problems regarding aquatic ecosystems;
4. Ensure that all reports provide scientifically and managerially relevant information for national aquatic ecosystem management.
The Department of Water Affairs and Forestry is the custodian of the programme and intends to institute legislation formalizing the RHP through the South African National Water Act (1998). The programme is supported by an accreditation programme in order to guarantee a high level of quality across all of South Africa’s provinces. More information on this programme can be obtained from www.csir.co.za/rhp/index.html.
20
The working environment of politicians and other decision-makers is a complex mixture of personal
feelings, technical inputs, social pressures, political considerations, and economic realities. Their jobs are
difficult, and involve difficult decisions. They are unlikely to be immediately influenced by detailed
technical reports alone. In reality, detailed technical reports are often not read by the people they are
targeted at. Time and competing priorities are the main culprits for this, rather than lack of interest or
capacity, but it is important to note that the latter do play their part.
Politicians and decision-makers do however respond more directly to pressure from within the
constituencies that they represent. It is thus critical to work with the local stakeholders groups who can
influence the political agenda. Community groups, local non-governmental organisations, industry
associations, traditional leadership structures and other bodies can campaign and raise public awareness
– and then decision makers may then take note of an issue. The role of IUCN or another scientific
organisation not involved in advocacy work is thus to provide appropriate information to support these
groups’ lobbying efforts. The Okavango freshwater profile produced by the IUCN case study is one such
example.
6. Build trust and identify incentives for information collation and exchange.
Open access to conservation information is essential to enable effective decision-making and to empower
those concerned with the management and conservation of biodiversity. Ideally all organisations and
individuals in this field would follow the principles of the Conservation Commons (see Box 4), which
promotes open access to sharing and use of conservation data, information, and knowledge resources by
all sectors of society.
21
Box 4: Principles of the Conservation Commons
Principle 1
Open Access: The Conservation Commons promotes free and open access to data,
information and knowledge for conservation purposes.
Principle 2
Mutual Benefit: The Conservation Commons welcomes and encourages participants both to use
resources and to contribute data, information and knowledge.
Principle 3
Rights and Responsibilities: Contributors to the Conservation Commons have full right to attribution for
any uses of their data, information, or knowledge, and the right to ensure that the original integrity of their
contribution to the Commons is preserved. Users of the Conservation Commons are expected to comply,
in good faith, with terms of uses specified by contributors and in accordance with these Principles.
The Principles of the Conservation Commons are in line with
• Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development: environmental issues are
best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level, and that at the
national level each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the
environment that is held by public authorities, and the opportunity to participate in decision-
making processes;
• Article 8(j) of the Convention on Biological Diversity: each Party shall, subject to its national
legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous
and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity;
• Article 17 of the Convention on Biological Diversity: Parties shall facilitate the exchange of
information, from all publicly available sources, relevant to the conservation and sustainable use
of biological diversity, taking into account the special needs of developing countries.
The Conservation Commons Secretariat organised an alliance workshop at the 2008 IUCN World
Conservation Congress (WCC) in Barcelona to address barriers to data sharing. The workshop was
organised in collaboration with Conservation International, Global Biodiversity Information Facility, IUCN,
National Geographic Society, The Getty Research Institute, The Nature Conservancy, and UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Centre.The purpose of this workshop was to draw attention to the barriers faced
by the conservation community which limit access to biodiversity data and information, and to identify
efforts to collectively address these challenges.
See www.conservationcommons.org for more information.
In practice, lack of trust among parties emerged as a significant barrier to exchange of biodiversity
information at the site level. Local researchers feel that they are usurped by outside agencies and foreign
researchers who access their knowledge and publish an analysis of it quickly, sometimes without due
22
credit for their efforts. There is thus great sensitivity about sharing data.
Some data was known to exist which was gathered with public funds.
Such data can be held on for several years without being made widely
available. Appropriate credit for authors in publications with wide
circulation is one incentive which can draw data from sources and the
prospect of having data well-presented and prominently displayed. In
the Okavango case study, production of the freshwater biodiversity
profile and association with the prominent lead author served as an
incentive to draw available data from researchers. The prospect of
having the book co-published between IUCN and the University of
Botswana was an incentive which generated great enthusiasm. The
lead author of the Okavango profile was able to access data which was
not previously available in the public domain for publication.
7. Understand incentives for academic participation in development
work.
Academics play a key role in the development of their (native and host)
countries. This role is most often emphasised in a developing country
context. As individuals, academics may have more or less incentive
beyond personal concern to contribute to development and
conservation. The Okavango Research Centre was initially formed with
a public mandate (see Box 5 at left). However, its placement within the
University structure meant that academic staff were not previously
being adequately incentivised through performance reviews to focus on
research and publication at an academic levelWhile applied research –
for example in the context of the ODMP – does take place, academic
staff time had not previously been specifically allocated for
development or conservation work. Geographic location is also an
issue – the research centre is physically removed from the Delta’s main
town and any stakeholders who do not have access to a private
vehicle. Access to and exchange of scientific results with government
and other stakeholders has not been structurally imbedded into the
modus of operation of government agencies or the research centre –
although in terms of HOORC this is in the process of changing radically
with a new Centre Director. .
Application of data collected to environmental actions through support
for lobbying, public outreach, and practical efforts should also be
rewarded during staff review. The Senior Librarian of HOORC has
sponsored an award for staff who share their knowledge with the wider
community. The Moabi Wa Kitso Award for Knowledge Sharing for the
Okavango Delta is awarded on behalf of HOORC's Library to annually
recognise a person who has made a significant contribution to sharing
of knowledge for the benefit of the Okavango community. Publication of
their results in the Okavango book was one incentive for academics to
contribute to development work. Similar initiatives should be pursued to
Box 5: Origins of the Okavango Research
Centre (ORC)
The origins of the University of Botswana ORC
lie with a government dredging project which
the Department of Water Affairs attempted to
launch in 1991. The project was to deepen,
widen and realign some river bends by
dredging and building bunds. The intention
was to improve the river's flow, enable it to fill
a proposed reservoir in Maun, thus providing
a more reliable and increased water supply to
the district.
A national and international furor arose over
the project. Many residents felt they had not
been adequately consulted; others said they
did not believe it would work, having seen
previous bunding projects fail. Many believed
it would bring a loss of natural resources such
as fish and reeds; others expressed concern
about increased health risks. Local and
regional NGOs and international
environmental organisations such as
Greenpeace protested the plan, and strongly
lobbied the Botswana government to
reconsider. A comprehensive Environmental
Impact Study was carried out by IUCN, which
reported a number of drawbacks to the
project, including environmental damage. the
Botswana government decided to stop the
project.
A major and very positive upshot of the
controversy, however, was Government's
realisation that it lacked sufficient background
knowledge and an adequate scientific base to
formulate policy and management decisions
on the Delta. Government also realised that
an impartial body was needed to monitor
developments in the Delta.
The idea to start a research centre focusing on
sustainable utilisation of the Okavango's
resources was floated. The University of
Botswana, through the Faculty of Science,
expressed interest; and eventually
Government took the decision to create a
research centre as a part of the national
university.
For more information visit www.orc.ub.bw/.
23
encourage academic support for environmental monitoring, reporting and outreach as part of the core
work of the Centre.
8. Be creative in the design of communication tools.
Information about the freshwater biodiversity of the Delta was already available in reports and academic
papers, but these tools were not necessarily reaching decision-makers. The Okavango case study saw a
potential niche where the project could add value. The USAID and SIDA-funded Okavango River: Flow of
a Lifeline book (Mendelsohn and el Obeid 2004) can be found on the desk or shelf of most decision-
makers and nearly all policy-makers in the Delta, and widely throughout all of the basin countries. The
reach of that book was unlike that which any academic publication or even magazine article would be
likely to have. The idea to produce a similar product with a distinct focus on freshwater biodiversity came
from the evident reach of the Flow of a Lifeline, in combination with the long-standing plan of HOORC and
others to produce an annual ‘State of the Delta’ report book. This product met several needs among
partners in terms of improving the visibility of relevant research, and stimulating interest in the future
results of the monitoring programme. HOORC produces fact sheets to try to get through to people at all
levels, some of which are scheduled to be translated into Setswana.
There are many ways to reach decision makers with information. The recommendation out of the
Okavango case study experience is to identify what has worked previously and interpret creatively to
meet identified gaps in communication. Such communication products may not have the depth of
information available in the academic material but do stimulate a demand for more and updated sources
of information and can have a significant impact.
Adaptive implementation
9. Be realistic about the capacity and motivations for each stakeholder group to contribute to
monitoring.
Many long-term monitoring programmes involve stakeholders in the sampling of an area through a
structure programme of training and support. The South African River Health Programme is an example
of where this has worked very well. The Okavango Delta’s proposed long-term monitoring programme,
however, relies heavily on the efforts of tourism operators to conduct most of the field sampling for
chemistry and macro-invertebrates. One reason for the shift in proposed responsibility is the evident
capacity restrictions of DWA and HOORC. Other driving rationales behind this shift is that the operators
have available staff, are already located in the Delta, have a business incentive to ensure long-term
conservation of the Delta, and given the availability of resources, should play a greater stewardship role
in the Delta’s management. It has been proposed that contributions to and results from monitoring efforts
are reflected as a milestone linked to the renewal of operators’ lease agreements. A Biokavango
consultancy on lease agreements is proposing such a methodology which could be adopted.
In practice, tourism operators are engaged in business, and must by necessity concentrate on providing a
service to their guests. Human resources are often already stretched to capacity with core tourism duties.
Furthermore, if monitoring targets and results are linked to lease renewals, it is unlikely that any operator
would report negative change - the reliability of the resulting data would therefore be questionable.
Although there are many good rationales behind the contribution of tour operators to the monitoring
24
programme, the overall approach seems as yet inadequately thought through. Stakeholders can play a
key role in long-term monitoring programmes, but the designers of these programmes need to be realistic
about how stakeholders can contribute. A strong central body (recall recommendation 3) is still necessary
to maintain quality control of the data. The Department of Water Affairs (DWA) and HOORC can play that
role by sampling at additional locations independent of tour operators. This is the way forward now
proposed.
10. Recognise where need exists for external support.
The Okavango Delta today is relatively pristine, partly as a result of very limited development in northern
Botswana, as well as in upstream countries, and the nature of its economy which is to a large degree
based on ecotourism. Given reasonably good ecological conditions and few actors competing for the
resource, the development of appropriate monitoring tools to start a record of the Delta from these
baseline conditions is essential in the light of increasing tourism and resource use (plus climate change
impacts) in the future. While biomonitoring tools are evidently valuable over a long-term, and to maintain
a record from baseline conditions would yield rich information, groups within the Delta are not
immediately investing in this process. Though the Darwin project (described in Part 3, Section A) is
assisting in the scientific components of this process, the ODMP has little momentum for preventive
interventions at this time.
The Okavango Delta demonstrates a case where the national economic dependence on a wetland
resource is actually quite low. Tthere is instead a heavy dependency in terms of poor people and tourist
commitments. While there is a growing push for nationalisation of the tourism industry, few educated
Batswana are taking up available government grants to establish tourism business and several
businesses in nationalised sectors (Class C mobile safari licenses) have no citizen buyers. Even when
calculating tourism satellite accounts, the Delta is not such a major earner for Botswana when compared
to mining. Diamonds alone account for fully one third of the nation's GDP, over 90% of earnings from
exports, and 50% of government revenues. However, low economic dependence on the Delta has had
the positive attribute that it remains in near-pristine condition.
This presents the difficulty of putting conservation on the political agenda when problems are not yet
acute. Prevention is better than cure is sometimes even difficult in the health sector, let alone the
conservation sector.
Many of the critical partners in the Delta’s conservation are in the upstream countries. Regional NGOs
exist which are concerned about the state of the Delta; for example, the Namibia Nature Foundation,
Desert Research Foundation of Namibia, and the Association for Environmental Conservation and Rural
Development (ACADIR) in Angola. Combined with additional external support, these organisations can
add considerable support and capacity to local efforts led by, for example, the Kalahari Conservation
Society. Since the international community is concerned about conserving the Delta, it needs to support
these NGOs and encourage the development of local civil society groups. Without external support, the
opportunity to conserve the Delta in its intact state could be lost within a generation or less.
Proposals for external conservation funding and technical aid should be considered. International
conservation groups can fill this gap through: technical support for better valuation of the resource (e.g.,
for global biosphere, natural capacity and existence values), improved natural resource accounts and
scenario modeling tools, and creative conservation financing tools such as payment for carbon offsets.
Similar recommendations could apply to other cases where local dependence on a resource is low.
25
11. Be willing to adapt to changing circumstances in order to reach project objectives.
The Okavango Delta case study had a set of project activities which had been negotiated and designed
during a planning phase. In subsequent (interim, pre-implementation and early implementation) periods,
some circumstances changed, other projects had addressed some components of the proposed study,
institutional capacity in the proposed host organisation was found to be insufficient, and some
assumptions or preconditions for project success (e.g., that a long-term monitoring programme would be
underway led by ODMP and DWA) had not materialised within the timeframe as originally envisaged.
The first mechanism for getting biodiversity information into development planning was the monitoring
programme, and IUCN’s dataset was in fact taken up in the design of the OKAS. This first phase of the
case study will have a long-term impact. The second mechanism was the Okavango freshwater profile,
and will have the more immediate impact of getting freshwater biodiversity information on the desks of
decision-makers. By developing the second mechanism, the Okavango book, additional benefits were
achieved which will strengthen the development of the long-term monitoring programme and ensure wide
awareness of freshwater biodiversity in the Delta.
In the case of the Okavango case study, benefits were obtained by revising the activities planned to meet
the projects desired results and objectives, rather than continuing to carry out the activities when
circumstances had changed which would have resulted in sub-optimal outcomes. A more detailed
overview of the project, the stages it went through, what changes were made, and what the outputs and
impacts were can be found in Part 3.
Part 3: Case-specific experience and lessons learned
The Okavango Delta demonstration site was one of four case studies across Africa aiming to get
decision-makers to use freshwater biodiversity information in the process of planning development. The
Okavango Delta site used the mechanisms (or entry points) of a long-term water quality monitoring
system and a book to realise its goal. Broader lessons on the process of getting biodiversity information
used in development planning can be drawn from this pilot experience. This section provides a more in-
depth analysis of implementation in the Okavango case study, first through a review of the activities
conducted (Section A) and then a discussion of lessons learned (Section B).
Section A: Activities of the Case Study
Planning and Design Phase (2005-07/2007)
The proposal for the Okavango Delta demonstration site emerged during the formulation of the Okavango
Delta Management Plan (ODMP) in 2005. The Chief Technical Advisor to ODMP identified the need for
improved freshwater biodiversity information to complement the proposed monitoring work which would
inform adaptive management of the Delta. At the IUCN pan-African project Steering Committee meeting a
representative of the (then-planned) GEF-funded Biokavango project fleshed out details of the proposed
case study, which would occur in parallel to the establishment of the monitoring programme. The “value
added” of the IUCN input at the site scale was to incorporate globally significant biodiversity criteria into
26
the monitoring work, meeting the GEF project’s need to address “incremental benefits” of global
conservation through their project.
The case study shared a staff coordinator at HOORC with the University College London DEFRA Darwin
Initiative funded project, “Monitoring and Simulating Threats to Aquatic Biodiversity in the Okavango
Delta.”
Two other projects were ongoing at HOORC with complementary objectives - the Biokavango Project
(www.orc.ub.bw/biokavango), and the Darwin project (www.orc.ub.bw/projects/darwin.html). The planned
outputs which were common to the three projects were:
(1) An overview of baseline information on freshwater biodiversity in the Delta,
(2) Development of indices of biological integrity (IBI) or similar ecosystem health assessment
tool(s),
(3) Piloting of a long-term water quality monitoring programme towards better decision-making
for implementation of the Okavango Delta Management Plan (ODMP), and
(4) Capacity building and training for biological monitoring (with different emphasis).
The stages of the project are now outlined and discussed in more detail.
Implementation Phase 1 ((07/2007 – 07/2008)
The first phase activities of the IUCN case study were:
1. An exchange of information on the aquatic freshwater biodiversity of the Delta through an
When one speaks of the Okavango River a variety of images come to mind. How one thinks about and values the
resources of that river depend very much on where one sits and what one does while sitting.
For a conservation desk officer located in Berlin or London or Washington, starved of green spaces and horizons,
whose senses are brutally assaulted by late-modern life, the Okavango is both idyllic symbol of the pre-modern and
functional storeroom of the biosphere. For a Motswana, squatting in a Delta reed bed during the high flow season,
collecting reeds or fish, livestock grazing and watering nearby, the river is a life-sustaining artery flowing variably
through a harsh physical environment. For a member of the Department of Water Affairs, sitting in Windhoek,
worrying about dam levels, AGOA-driven development directives and population influx, the river appears primarily
as a factor of production, a resource that must be harnessed if standards of living are to be maintained and
livelihood options improved not only in Windhoek but throughout the central highveld.
The value of the river differs slightly for a member of Botswana’s inner elite – someone in Cabinet, or a Permanent
Secretary perhaps. Well-paid and interested in business opportunities, you are late in recognising the economic
potential of tourism in the Delta region. The river for as long as you can remember has been very far from the cut
and thrust of every day politics in Gaborone, though there was that unfortunate incident some fifteen years ago
when a government proposal to dredge the lower Boro river, upstream of the village of Maun, and transfer water
to Orapa Mine did raise a significant public outcry among residents of Ngamiland. Thus, the tourism sector is
dominated by foreigners – tour operators from South Africa, Australia, England, the United States – and you are
now interested in getting in on the action. The lower Okavango, particularly the Delta, to you is also a factor of
production, but tourism is mainly a non-consumptive, post-industrial service industry.
Of all riparian state and basin dwelling actors, the Okavango resides furthest from the minds of policy makers in
Luanda. Beleaguered for decades by a pernicious rebel movement, UNITA, assisted variously by South Africa and
the United States, you have long been preoccupied with economic and political survival. Moreover, your party and
your interests are very much Luanda and north of Luanda-centred. The oil from Cabinda is your lifeline, not water
from the Cubango and Cuito river systems that ultimately join to form the Okavango. Indeed, there are many rivers
and much water in Angola; the Okavango is of little concern to you. But you do know that your neighbours,
Namibia and Botswana, long allies in the struggles against colonialism, apartheid and more recently war in the
DRC, are very interested in the resources of the Okavango River Basin (ORB). You want to accommodate them, but
you have interests in other river basins shared with Namibia. Perhaps you can use the Okavango as a bargaining
chip for mutual gain. At the same time, as a participating member of the Southern African Development
Community (SADC) in the post-civil war era, you would like to play by the regional rules – although, unsure of what
these mean for your sovereign right to act as a state, you have ratified almost none of the regional protocols.
From Swatuk (2005)
46
Language and gender roles
While English is Botswana’s official language, Setswana is the national language. Much daily activity
occurs in Setswana, crucially in terms of negotiation and building informal links. Often key parts of
meetings take place in Setswana or another local language. Have a well trusted local-language speaker
on your team. Despite widespread adoption of English as the official language of government and
business, estimates of the proportion of Batswana who have any knowledge of English range from 35 to
40% (Bagwasi, 2003). Any individuals working in (or planning to work in) Botswana should at least have
familiarity with basic terms and working ability with greetings. This is valuable, and helps build trust, but
does not replace the above. A citizen of Botswana is referred to as a Motswana. The plural of this is
Batswana, and the language of the Tswana people is Setswana. Some of the basic phrases to get started
are available online.
Ikalanga is also widely spoken in academic, government and professional spheres. The Kalanga people,
though representing only 150,000 of Botswana’s population, invest heavily in education and thus are
strongly represented in advanced positions, for example in the management of the Delta. It may also be
worthwhile to invest time learning at least basic greetings in Ikalanga.
Botswana has a predominantly patriarchical culture, where men are assumed to be leaders and parallels
to traditional family life are often drawn. When considering candidates for a position or looking to
leadership in a meeting for example, gender as well as age can be key deciding factors. It is disrespectful
for women to wear trousers in a village. Particularly at a kgotla (public meeting), women must wear long
skirts. Women may be sent home to change or asked to leave the meeting if not attired correctly. Foreign
women may be excused from this rule in a town but it is best to demonstrate respect as best possible and
wear skirts to public events.
Sources for further guidance:
- Basic language guides can be ordered online6
- The Expat Women guide for women overseas has some general guidance as well as the option to be
linked with a mentor in Botswana7
Protocol and the culture of consensus
In the workplace, appropriate protocol is of paramount importance and essential to demonstrate proper respect for Botswana’s institutions and senior/high-ranking individuals. The guidance (in Table 2) below reflects general experience.
6 For example from, www.day12.com/phrasebook_setswana.htm.
7 Online at www.expatwomen.com/countries/links_botswana.php.
47
Table 2: Notes on protocol
Address
Women as “Mma” or “Mme” for highest respect. Address men as “Rra” or “Rre” to
denote highest respect.
Greetings Greetings are very important. Make time to greet everyone in a room.
Titles
Anyone with a PhD is called Doctor, as well as medical doctors.
Meetings
Meetings are opened with prayers.
Budget at least two hours for speeches at the beginning of an open meeting.
Allow sufficient time for comments and discussions, around 50% of the agenda.
Requests,
Invitations
Send letters from the highest individual in an organisation, or as high as feasibly
possible.
Consultation is absolutely critical. The process of discussing to reach consensus is highly valued in
Botswana, with roots in the traditional kgotla system. For important decisions, a kgotla (public meeting),
must be arranged. It should be run by a senior official in concert with the traditional local leaders, and
outcomes are always arrived at by consensus. In fact, it’s a little more subtle than this: the outcome can
often be accurately predicted, even if the path to reaching it cannot. The kgotla does not let everyone
have a hand in making a decision, but in discussing it, and thereby feeling part of it. Anyone at all is
allowed to speak, and no one may interrupt while someone is "having their say". This custom of allowing
everyone their full say is carried over into meetings of all kinds, from discussing a budget to a staff
briefing, and can mean meetings last many hours. It is critical to allow enough time for this process,
because decisions just do not go forward without full support, and any decisions which do are likely to
suffer heavily and probably fail from lack of support.
Sources for further guidance:
- Insight into the culture and customs of Botswana can be found at the Centre for Intercultural
Learning, a Canadian foreign service training office8
- The Botswana embassy in Japan also provides detailed notes on culture9
- A Doing Business in Botswana guide can be purchased which covers business culture, doing
business, business customs, etiquette and business protocol10
8 Online from www.intercultures.ca/cil-cai/intercultural_issues-en.asp?lvl=8&ISO=BW&SubjectID=2.
9 Found online at www.botswanaembassy.or.jp/culture/body2_1.html.
10 Order from www.worldbiz.com/index.php/cPath/32.
48
The political economy of the Okavango Delta
Botswana is under pressure to diversify its economy away from a reliance on mining. Emphasis has
shifted to the tourism industry to provide more jobs and wealth (through ownership) for Batswana. While
the tourism industry has exceeded expectations in terms of environmental management, and some of the
Delta’s camps are world-renowned for environmental performance, it is worth noting the political tensions
that surround tourism development in the Delta. International organisations can easily be seen to be
siding with the largely foreign-owned tourism industry, for example as these companies are celebrated by
international recognition of their environmental initiatives and leadership.
A local view is that Delta tourism is “enclave” tourism, or “internal colonialism.” As described by a HOORC
researcher, it is held that, “socio-economic benefits such as better paying jobs, particularly those in
management, are occupied by expatriates. The dominance of the industry by foreign investors and the
non-local investment [has] reduced control over local resources … the loss of local autonomy is certainly
the most negative long-term socio-cultural effect of tourism in a destination area. A local resident may
also suffer a loss of sense of place, as his/her surrounding is transformed to accommodate the
requirements of a foreign-dominated tourism industry. Interviews with the local people in the Okavango
indicate that there is a general assumption that the Delta has been taken from them by government and
given to foreign tour operators” (Mbaiwa 2005). It is important to be aware of the strong feelings
presented by tourism development, and particularly the apparent linkages between international NGOs
and ecotourism operations. Internal correspondence from safari operations has been leaked to the
national media which demonstrate racism by safari operators. A balanced approach working in the Delta
should be taken where international conservation organisations do not work with tour operators to the
apparent exclusion of local groups.
Sources for further guidance:
- The Ngami Times newspaper, especially The Maun Shuffle editorials11
- HOORC tourism unit research papers and Flow blog updates12
- The update of Botswana’s tourism policy (when released by the Botswana Tourism Board) and
Darwall, W., Smith, K., Allen, D., Seddon, M., Mc Gregor Reid, G., Clausnitzer, V. and Kalkman, V.
(2008). Freshwater biodiversity – a hidden resource under threat. In: J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor and S.N.
Stuart (eds.) The 2008 Review of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Darwall, W.R.T., Smith, K.G., Tweddle, D. and Skelton, P. (eds) (2009). The Status and Distribution of Freshwater Biodiversity in Southern Africa. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN and Grahamstown, South Africa: SAIAB. Dickens, C. W. S. & Graham, P. M. (2002). The South African Scoring System (SASS) Version 5 Rapid
Bioassessment Method for Rivers. African Journal of Aquatic Science 2002, 27: 1.10.
Dudgeon, D., Arthington, A. H., Gessner, M. O., Kawabata, Z., Knowler, D., Lévêque, C., Naiman, R. J.,
Prieur-Richard, A-H., Soto, D., Stiassny, M. L. J. & Sullivan, C. A. (2006). Freshwater biodiversity:
importance, status, and conservation challenges. Biological Reviews 81:163-182.
Government of Botswana (2006). Botswana HIV Sero-prevalence Sentinel Survey among Pregnant
Women. Ministry of Health: Gaborone.
IUCN (2009). About the Freshwater Biodiversity Unit. Retrieved on 25 January 2009 from
