RESULTS OF A SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL SURVEY
CARRIED OUT IN THE KAVANGO REGION,
NAMIBIA, MAY-AUGUST 2001
Report compiled by Brian T. B. Jones1
for the Every River Has its People Project.
Windhoek, September 2001
(DRAFT FINAL REPORT, 05 NOVEMBER 2001)
1
Every River Has its People project co-ordinator for Integrated Rural Development and Nature
Conservation (IRDNC)
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Although one person has been responsible for the compilation of this report, the
results presented are the work of a team. Thanks should go to the IRDNC staff
for the Every River Project, Johnny Shivute and Dorothy Wamunyima, for their
tireless support in taking care of logistical arrangements for the survey in difficult
circumstances and for their leadership of the data gathering team. Thanks also to
the team itself, Florentine George, Antonia Ngangate and Veronica Sindjenge.
Mention should also be made of the support provided by officials of the
Directorate of Forestry in the Ministry of Environment and Tourism who not only
provided transport on occasion, but also participated enthusiastically in the
survey process. Thanks should go to SIDA for funding the survey as part of the
Every River Has its People Project.
2
LIST OF ACRONYMS
CBM
CDC
DEES
DoF
DRFN
DRM
DRWS
IRDNC
MAWRD
MBESC
MET
MFMR
MWACW
MLRR
NAMPA
NGO
OKACOM
RDCC
SIAPAC
SIDA
Community Based Management
Constituency Development Committee
Directorate of Extension and Engineering Services
(MAWRD)
Directorate of Forestry (MET)
Desert Research Foundation of Namibia
Directorate of Resource Management (MET)
Directorate of Rural Water Supply, (MWRD)
Integrated Rural Development and Nature
Conservation
Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural Development
Ministry of Basic Education, Sport and Culture
Ministry of Environment and Tourism
Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources
Ministry of Women Affairs and Child Welfare
Ministry of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Namibian Press Agency
Non Governmental Organisation
Permanent Okavango River Basin Commission
Regional Development Coordinating Committee
Social Impact Assessment and Policy Analysis
Corporation (Pty) Ltd.
Swedish International Development Agency
3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
5
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a socio-ecological survey carried out in the
Kavango Region of Namibia for the “Every River has its People Project” from
May to August, 2001. The survey was carried out by a Namibian NGO,
Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC), with technical
support from a Namibian consulting firm, SIAPAC.
The “Every River has its People Project” (referred to in this report as the “Every
River Project”) has the following goal and objectives:
The overall goal of the project is:
to promote the sustainable management of natural resources in the
Okavango2 River Basin for the benefit of basin residents and states
through promoting and facilitating the effective participation of basin
stakeholders in natural resource decision-making and management,
particularly related to water resources
The Objectives of the project are:
1)
To increase the capacity of communities and other local stakeholders to
participate effectively in decision-making about natural resources of the
Okavango River Basin, particularly those related to water resources, at
local, national and regional levels
2)
To develop mechanisms to promote and facilitate the participation of
communities and other local stakeholders in natural resource
management and decision-making, particularly those related to water
resources, at local, national and basin-wide levels
The project is being carried out in three phases:
The first phase consists of a “socio-ecological survey”, conducted in collaboration
with riparian community representatives, and aimed at exchanging information
and understanding between Okavango riparian communities and project staff,
i.e., “co-learning”.
Based on the information gathered and lessons learned in the first phase, the
second phase will focus on the development and testing of educational and
In the Kavango Region of Namibia, the river is known as the “Kavango” River, not the
“Okavango” and this preference was made clear to the survey team in strong terms. When
referring to text relating to project documents this report will use “Okavango”, but all other
references will follow local preference.
2
6
training approaches and materials, in order to support the capacity building
activities envisaged in the third phase.
Using the materials and approach developed in Phase Two, the third phase will
involve conducting the education and training necessary to increase the capacity
of communities and other target groups. It will also initiate formal links and
participation mechanisms for communities in natural resources management
processes and decision-making processes, e.g, Namibia’s Water Act revision,
OKACOM and Ramsar (the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance)
planning for the Okavango Delta.
The findings of the socio-ecological survey in Kavango Region are presented in a
form geared towards using the information for the design and implementation of
phases two and three of the project in Namibia.
2. PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY
The Every River Project is being implemented in Namibia and Botswana (there
has been no project implementation in Angola because of the continuing war in
that country). However, although implementation in both countries is following the
broad framework of the project, the approach followed in each country has been
different. The differences in approach have arisen because of different
circumstances in each country.
One of the main factors giving rise to the differences is the fact that in Namibia
the Kavango River stretches for more than 400 km along which distance are
situated hundreds of villages and sub-settlements. The overall population of the
region was estimated at 176 600 in 1999 (el Obeid and Mendelsohn 2001), and
two thirds of this number, 114 000 people, live along the river. There are also a
number of small isolated settlements in the dry sandy interior, often not far from
the river in terms of distance (30-40 km), but far in terms of travelling time
because of deep sand.
The security situation in the Kavango Region also played a role in determining
how the survey work would be carried out3. For most of the survey period, there
were very few incidents in the region. However, the threat of anti-personnel
mines laid in tracks and footpaths near villages, and the possible shooting or
abduction of residents were always present. This meant that certain high-risk
3
Clashes between Unita rebels and Angolan army forces in southern Angola, and the use of
Namibia by the Angolan army to attack Unita have led to destablisation of the whole area along
the river where it forms the border between Namibia and Angola. Namibian villagers have been
abducted, shot and injured by anti-personnel mines laid in tracks near their villages. Many
refugees have left Angola to settle on the Namibian side of the river. This situation led to the
delay of the launch of the Namibian component of the project as the security situation was too
unstable during most of 2000. A decrease in incidents throughout 2001 enabled the project to
start up in the Kavango Region
7
villages could not be surveyed, or that in certain places it would not be wise to
hold meetings. Namibian and Angolan military personnel were stationed close to
locations used by the survey team as a base, and often random shooting could
be heard in the early morning or late afternoon. At no stage, however, were any
actual attacks launched on these military bases.
Another significant factor is that the Namibian survey was based on a
methodology developed over a number of years by the Ministry of Environment
and Tourism (MET) and IRDNC. The first socio-ecological survey carried out by
these organisations was in West Caprivi in early 1990. Since then a further seven
such surveys (excluding the Kavango survey) have been carried out in various
communal areas of Namibia. The survey methodology has been refined over
time and adapted to the specific needs and circumstances of each area. The
socio-ecological survey methodology places a high premium on not only
information gathering, but also on an exchange of information between the
various stakeholders, particularly between community members and government
officials. The methodology also aims to facilitate a joint understanding between
all major stakeholders of the issues and problems facing local communities in
terms of natural resource use and management. There has also been a strong
emphasis on developing joint solutions to the most urgent problems, and
facilitating the implementation of those solutions.
The methodology was further refined and revised in order to adapt it to the
specific circumstances of the Kavango Region. The mainly linear nature of
settlement patterns over such a large distance means that it is impossible to
survey the whole river. Therefore the length of the river had to be divided into
manageable survey areas and each area surveyed separately. Thus four survey
areas were identified:
1) The Gciriku tribal area, focusing on settlements along the river, in the major
omiramba4 and in the interior north of the Kaudom Game Reserve.
2) The Central area including settlements along the river in the Sambyu tribal
area east of Rundu and in the Mbunza tribal area west of Rundu; settlements
in the interior in both tribal areas, settlements in the major omiramba and
along the main tarmac road from Rundu to Grootfontein.
3) The Kwangali tribal area including settlements along the river and in the
interior.
4) The Mbukushu tribal area including settlements along the river, neighbouring
the Mahango Game Reserve and in the interior.
An attempt was made in each area to include the major habitats such as
floodplain, omurambas and dry sandveld in order to try to capture differences in
resource use and potential conflicts between inhabitants of riparian areas and
residents of non-riparian areas.
4
Old drainage lines, some of which sometimes receive a backflow of water from the river, but
rarely, if ever, actually flow themselves (singular = omuramba).
8
The following process was planned for each survey area:
a)
An initial information sharing meeting where key stakeholders
(community leaders, government representatives, existing
development projects) were given an opportunity to make short
presentations on their activities and what they think are the main
issues and problems concerning the river and natural resource use.
At the end of the meeting the key issues and problems (and
possible solutions) were summarised and attention drawn to where
there is agreement or disagreement between stakeholders over
these issues.
b)
A survey of residents at their settlements using qualitative survey
instruments to interview key informants and focus groups, allowing
collection of data across different socio-economic groups. The
instruments used were the following and are attached as Annexes
6-10:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
Natural Resource Use Mapping (including rules for resource
use)
Social Linkages
Venn Diagram (for community institutions and organisations)
Traditional Doctor Resource Use Tables
Community Resource Use Tables
“Fill in” interviews were conducted by the project co-ordinator to
gain additional information from key stakeholders (e.g.
development projects, tourism lodges etc.)
c)
A mid-survey feedback meeting to key stakeholders to inform them
of progress of the survey and emerging issues.5
d)
Continuation of the survey using the instruments and further “fill in”
interviews
5
This second meeting was not held for the Kwangali area as it proved too difficult to mobilise
participants for all three meetings. The area is large and traditional leaders are scattered along
the river and inland. Some of the key participants had to travel more than 400 km for the round
trip to attend the meeting. Due to the size of the Mbukushu area and the fewer number of
villages compared to the other areas, it was decided to conduct the survey over a shorter period
(8 days instead of 12-14). As a result, the second meeting was not held.
9
e)
Final survey meeting providing feed back on the last part of the
survey, further identification and prioritisation of key issues and
problems, identification of possible solutions, and if possible,
identification of actions6. The results of this meeting provide the
foundation for developing a shared understanding of the issues and
problems concerning natural resources associated with the river
and its basin. They also provide a basis for consideration of future
project activities. At this meeting representatives to attend further
project meetings and workshops at regional, national and basin
wide level were identified.
f)
Write up of each survey report as a chapter for the overall Namibia
report.
g)
Feedback to communities on contents of report and further steps in
project. Project staff will provide this feedback at community
meetings in strategic parts of the survey areas.
Holding three meetings as part of the survey in the Gciriku and central areas
added considerably to the logistical problems presented by the implementation of
the survey. However, the meetings were valuable components of the survey for
a number of reasons. They helped to validate some of the data being gathered
during interviews, provided additional data, provided an opportunity to gather the
specific views of community leaders, provided a platform for an exchange of
views between different stakeholders, and began the process of developing a
common understanding of issues linked to the river and a common vision among
stakeholders. On a number of occasions, community leaders indicated that the
information being provided by other stakeholders at the meetings was new to
them or they used the opportunity to suggest other ways of operating to NGO
and government service providers (Lists of participants in the formal survey
meetings are contained in Annexe 5).
The survey instruments were designed to gather qualitative data regarding
natural resource use issues linked to the river. It was decided to carry out a
qualitative survey because the region has been well surveyed in the past by a
number of different agencies for a number of different purposes. Indeed there is
already “survey fatigue” among residents of the region. The data gathering team
was often confronted by residents reluctant to provide information. Villagers said
many people had visited them in the past to ask questions but had never
6
It had been intended to identify who could take action to implement solutions at the final meeting
of each survey area. At the last meeting of the first survey, there was insufficient time. It was
subsequently felt that this component was too ambitious as it was not possible for the project to
hold anyone to account. Expectations could be created that action would take place, when in fact
there was no actual commitment from the organisations concerned. This component was
therefore dropped from the agenda of the final meetings.
10
provided any feed back. Once they understood the nature of the survey however,
most residents were willing to participate.
There is already a considerable body of data regarding the hydrology of the river
and the physical environment of the basin in the Kavango Region. The existing
data on socio-economic status and bio-physical aspects has been captured in
the document “A Preliminary Profile of the Kavango Region in Namibia” by Selma
El Obeid and John Mendelsohn. This profile has been produced as part of the
Every River Project and is an important companion to the results of the socioecological survey. This report on the results of the socio-ecological survey does
not attempt to repeat the data presented in the profile. The two documents
should be read together.
A total of ……. Interviews were carried out during the survey. The number of
interviews carried out using each instrument in each survey area is presented in
Table 1. The number of villages covered (45) represents a balance between the
time and resources available for the survey and a desire to gain sufficient
coverage to ensure that the findings are reasonably representative.
Table 1. Number of interviews carried out in each survey area
Area
Resource
Mapping
Focus Group
Resource
Tables
Traditional
Doctor
Tables
Venn
Diagram
Gciriku
Central
Kwangali
Mbukushu
Total
4
6
2
5
2
5
4
2
Social
Linkages
Focus
Group
4
6
The number of people involved in the interviews totalled….
A team of four data gatherers and the IRDNC Assistant Community Outreach
Officer for Kavango conducted the first survey, which took place in the Gciriku
tribal area, with the IRDNC Senior Community Outreach Officer for Kavango
acting as supervisor. Prior to the survey, the team spent a week being trained by
SIAPAC’s Senior Research and Projects Officer, Mr Erich Afrikaner.
The team was accompanied in the field by the IRDNC Project Coordinator and
representative of the basin-wide consultant, as well as another member of the
IRDNC Windhoek support staff and a SIAPAC representative. Due to
observations in the field, it was realised that the time allocated for the survey
could be shortened slightly and that it was necessary to field only three data
gatherers and the IRDNC
Assistant Community Outreach Officer under
supervision of the IRDNC Senior Community Outreach Officer in order to carry
out the survey efficiently.
11
3. PRESENTATION OF DATA
The data gathered during the survey is presented below according to each
survey area. This division has been made because while there are a number of
similarities concerning resource use issues, there are also circumstances and
issues specific to each area. The central area, for example, is heavily influenced
by the presence of Rundu, the administrative capital of the region, with a
population of about 45 000 (El Obeid and Mendelsohn 2001). There is
considerable variation in the way in which resources are managed in each area,
particularly with regard to the role of traditional authorities and their ability to
enforce rules and regulations. An attempt to draw general conclusions is made at
the end of this report, but readers are cautioned that such generalisations will
mask diversity between the survey areas. This diversity needs to be recognised
in planning future phases of the project.
For each survey area the data are presented according to categories of
information based on the terms of reference for the Basin-wide consultant
(attached as Annexe 11). These categories are:
i. Cultural, religious, and social significance of the river to the people living
within the basin
ii. Perception of communities on the state of the resource
iii. Who is using the resource, how and who has control
iv. Institutions and governance within the community
v. Traditional knowledge and management systems of natural resources
vi. Perceptions on rights that people upstream and downstream have
vii. Perceptions on rights that out of basin resource users have
viii. Perceptions on rights (within local context) that non-riparian communities
have
ix. The history of the community as told by them
x. How the river and its resources can help develop community members' lives
xi. Management structures that communities would like to see
xii. The institutional, information-sharing capacity, resources communities see
as needed
xiii. Peoples' views on whether the resource can be developed or kept in its
natural state.
For each category, data have been drawn from a number of sources. These
include the interviews using the survey instruments, “fill-in” interviews conducted
with key informants, the discussions during the formal survey meetings and
reports and documents of other surveys and investigations conducted in the
region. The results of the formal survey meetings are presented as subsections
of each survey. Attention is drawn to the prioritisation of key issues and problems
carried out during the final meeting of each survey.
12
4. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY IN THE GCIRIKU AREA
Interviews were carried out at 15 villages in the Gciriku area. Nine were visited
along the river:
Mbambi
Katere
Makena
Kashira
Mukuvi
Nyondo
Shamvura/Shinyungwe
Korokoko
Rutcara
Interviews were carried out at six inland villages between the Kaudom Game
Reserve and the river:
Gcumagcashi
Kandjara
Djara-Djara/Manyondo
Shakambu7
Ncame
Koro
A total of 4 interviews using the natural resource mapping instrument were
conducted, 2 using the natural resource tables, 4 using the social linkages
instrument, 4 using the Venn diagram instrument and 2 traditional doctors were
interviewed. A total of 117 people were recorded as being present during the
interviews with an indeterminate number drifting in and out while the interviews
were taking place.
4.1 Cultural, religious, and social significance of the river to the people living
within the basin
The survey gained few direct responses to the questions in the natural resource
use mapping instrument regarding the cultural, religious and social significance
of the river and associated resources. Most uses of resources stated by
respondents were for economic rather than for cultural, religious or social
purposes. However, it was clear from responses to other questions and from
general comments that respondents place a definite aesthetic value on
resources, such as the river, trees and wild animals. Many respondents
emphasised the need to conserve resources for future generations, not only so
7
Shakambu was not visited by the data gatherers. However, while carrying out interviews at
Ncame, it was discovered that a group of San from Shakambu were visiting to collect the pension
of an old woman in the group. It was decided to interview the group in order to gain an idea of
issues affecting a marginalised group in the region. The IRDNC Project co-ordinator spoke to an
old San woman who described a life of real hardship where it was not certain where they would
get their next meal from. She said her family depended upon her pension and getting casual work
from Kavango people. However, they were often underpaid for the work done, sometimes
received meagre rations of food or were not paid at all. She said her family did not receive
drought relief. This went to the Kavangos because the Kavangos did not consider the San to be
people. The San were unable to hunt because all the large wild animals had gone. At the time,
her family had gone four weeks without eating properly. One of her adult daughters had gone
missing and might have died of hunger. While it is true that poverty is rife in the Kavango Region,
it is generally accepted that the worst off people are the San who are afforded the least rights of
access to resources and opportunities.
13
that they could be utilised, but also enjoyed for their existence. The view of a
resident of a village near the river on the disappearance of wild animals: “If we
had kept animals here, people would not have to go to Kaudom to see animals
and we will have our own animals. Our children do not know kudus, elands and
elephants.” Resident of another riparian village: “It is a good idea for the people
who stay in our community to know how to manage the use of our natural
resources. We must think of the younger generation. They will never be able to
know about some of the trees and the wind will blow and there will be nothing to
stop the wind”.
Views about wildlife are not, however, uniform. At one inland village some
residents expressed the view that it would be good to live with wildlife again. In a
discussion regarding how could wildlife could be returned, one resident noted: “I
will kill the animals because I want to eat.” This sparked the following exchange
of views:
Respondent 1: “We want animals to come back. We want our
children to know the animals”
Respondent 2: “I can’t allow elephants to come here and eat my
crops. Other animals can come, but not elephants.”
Respondent 3: “I agree, the other animals can come, but not
elephants or lions.”
Respondent 4: “If you find your crop destroyed, you can go and
report it to Nature Conservation”.
Respondent 2: “Nature Conservation promised us that if an
elephant destroyed our crops they would come and investigate, but
when we reported it they did not do anything.”
A number of other resources are important for cultural and social purposes such
as palm leaves and various other trees for basket making, a variety of plants and
animals for medicinal purposes and some wildlife species such as hippo and
giraffe for traditional feasts. Hardwood tree species are used for carving, while
some fruits are used for making traditional beer. Acacia leaves are eaten by
people at a specific ceremony to show respect.
4.2 Perception of communities on the state of the resource
There is a general perception that most resources are declining. Respondent at a
riparian village: “The resources are declining because the people are over using
instead of giving the resources a chance”. Views regarding specific resources
were as follows:
14
Wildlife – At an inland village: “the resources are declining because all
animals are running away from fire that is caused by ourselves and there
is no control on hunting. People hunt and burn every day. Too many
people scare the animals”. Another view from a riparian village was that
there was a shortage of wildlife because access to game animals was
denied by government laws. Hippos were said to be disappearing because
of hunting and the river becoming shallow, and small riverine animals such
as otters were also said to be disappearing along the river. At another
inland village residents were emphatic that they had not hunted and eaten
the wild animals – the reason for the decline, was noise from the village, a
lack of water and fire.
Trees and grasses – believed to be declining because of fire
Wild fruits – mangetti nuts, and maguni (monkey orange)
(spineless monkey orange) declining at an inland village
and matu
Plants – Ukerete and Parinari Curatellifolia at an inland village
At the final formal meeting of the survey, participants agreed that the following
resources were declining along the river:
Trees, fish8, thatching grass (wire leaf daba grass - a type found near the
river and locally called “marenge”), wild animals (large mammals have
disappeared from the area near the river and the smaller ones are also
declining)
They also agreed that the following were declining in inland areas:
Trees for poles, wild fruits, wild animals (large mammals), thatching grass
(particularly at Djara-Djara village)
There is also a general understanding that over utilisation is the cause of the
decline in resources. A resident of a riparian village: “We really do not give the
natural resources a chance, because we are poor and cannot afford to buy
everything in the shops. That’s why we sometimes over use the natural
resources”.
8
For a full discussion of fish populations and artisanal fisheries along the Kavango River in
Namibia see Hay et al. 2000. Their report concluded that there had been an overall decline in
catches in subsistence fisheries from 1987 to 1992 and that catch per unit effort appears to be
declining. Among their recommendations are: to establish fish sanctuaries and closed fishing
seasons; to initiate community data collection, and to establish a management regime in close
collaboration with neighbouring countries.
15
During the formal meetings, traditional leaders expressed concern about the river
itself, saying that over the years it was becoming shallower and shallower. One
headman said: “The river is a disappointing issue. We need to rescue the river.
When I grew up people didn’t just walk across the river like today because the
river was deep then”. Another headman said one reason for the river becoming
shallower was silting caused by ploughing downhill along the river banks and
said people need to be told how to look after the river9.
There was a feeling that the instability in the area had led to an improvement in
the general status of the river. Because it was perceived to be dangerous to live
too close to the river, most people had moved away from the banks. People had
also spent much less time fishing or cutting reeds for fear of being shot or
abducted.
4.3 Who is using the resource, how and who has control
Resources in both riparian and inland areas are being used by residents as well
as by outsiders. Residents often claimed that outsiders used resources without
asking for permission locally, did not pay for the resources harvested and used
the resources wastefully. Examples cited include the cutting of too many trees for
poles and not being able to transport all the poles, or cutting a whole tree to get
at wild fruits instead of climbing the tree or using other methods. Outsiders are
accused of being the main culprits in using mosquito nets for fishing (although it
can be observed along the river that they are not the only users of such nets).
Residents of riparian areas complain about outsiders collecting river sand for
construction without asking permission or paying the residents for the sand. In
inland areas, outsiders are accused of causing fires when they visit to harvest
various resources and of using residents’ water without paying.10
The definition of “outsider” depends upon the context. Generally outsiders are
people who come from outside the Gciriku tribal area. Respondents complained
of people coming from Rundu and as far afield as western Kavango and Caprivi.
In some specific contexts, such as at some inland villages, the term “outsiders”
was used to refer to people coming from other parts of the Gciriku area.
Control of resources is one of the most important issues that emerged from the
survey. Many respondents and participants in the formal meetings complained
that it was very difficult to control the use of resources by outsiders. When
confronted, outsiders would often claim that since Namibia’s independence,
9
Concern about the shallowness of the river was expressed in all survey areas. Even though the
river was at its highest for some years during the survey, there seemed to be an expectation that
the drying of the river would continue.
10 Payment for water is an important issue now that the government is handing over the operation
and maintenance of water installations to local water point committees. Residents are expected to
contribute a monthly fee towards this and feel aggrieved if others use water without contributing
or at least asking permission. See point 4.4 below for more details on water point committees.
16
everyone was free to go where they liked and harvest resources where they
liked. Outsiders would claim that they had permits for cutting and transporting
trees, but when asked to show the permits would refuse.
There is general agreement that there should be a far greater level of local
authority to control the use of resources. During the participatory meetings,
where the communities were represented by traditional leaders, the consensus
(also among some government officials) was that traditional authorities should
have greater authority and should be supported in their efforts by the central and
regional levels of government. The traditional leadership felt that it did not
currently get sufficient support from central government in terms of enforcing
traditional resource management rules.
According to one of the Chief’s Traditional Councillors: “Problems arise from the
fact that there are almost two competing powers – the laws of the traditional
authority and the laws of the government. The government says it works with the
traditional authorities, but that is only through their mouths. If the traditional
authorities come with certain laws about natural resources, the government
doesn’t honour or enforce those laws. That is why we cannot stop the destruction
of the natural resources”.
Another issue related to the control of natural resources concerns the idea that
certain resource users should pay a fee to the traditional authority. This became
a point for discussion during the formal meetings of the survey in relation to
thatching grass and the cutting of palm leaves. The traditional authority says that
because it controls these resources, harvesters should pay a user fee. The
traditional leaders say that this has always been the case and is not something
they have just introduced now that these resources have become
commercialised. A committee has been established to investigate the paying of
fees for the commercial use of poles, fish, thatching grass and palm leaves.
However, a problem is that the traditional authority will not be able to enforce
payment of such fees. It was pointed out by Forestry officials that one of the
ways to gain authority and control over resources was through the establishment
of a community forest.
4.4 Institutions and governance within the community
The range of institutions within the community varies from village to village. The
traditional authority is represented in some form in all villages, but particularly
since independence, a number of other institutions have been created which
affect governance at local level11.
11
The general notes in this section concerning the traditional authority structure, land and farming
committees, various development committees and water point committees are valid for the whole
region. The sections on surveys in other areas do not repeat this background material, but focus
on specific conditions in that area.
17
The Chief, or Hompa as he is called locally, is the head of the traditional
authority. He is assisted and advised by a group of Chief’s Traditional Councillors
comprising Senior Headmen and other community leaders appointed by the
Chief. The Senior Headmen are the next most important group in the traditional
hierarchy and represent the main villages. In smaller settlements there are subheadmen known locally as ‘voormanne” (foreman).
There is also a Land and Farming Committee12 for the Gciriku area. The
members are elected by the general community and include representatives of
the traditional authority as well as other elected community leaders. The chair of
the Land and Farming Committee resides in Rundu. There appear to be some
tensions between the chair and the traditional leadership. The committee acts on
behalf of the traditional authority in allocating land for farming and other
purposes.
In most inland villages there is a water point committee13 set up under the
Community-based Management (CBM) programme of the Directorate of Rural
Water Supply (DRWS) in the Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Rural
Development (MAWRD). This programme aims to hand over the operation and
maintenance of water installations to villagers. In order to facilitate this process
the CBM programme is promoting the establishment of water point associations
represented by water point committees. The committees receive training in
managing funds and running the committee and a “caretaker” is appointed and
trained to maintain the installation. In some areas these committees function well
and manage to raise sufficient funds, but in others there is a lack of organisation
and in poorer communities a lack of funds for contributions. Although this issue
was not raised during the survey, in other parts of the country, such as Omaheke
Region, marginalised groups such as the San are often not considered when
such committees are elected, often do not have the cash to contribute to
maintenance and sometimes find it difficult to get access to water. Water
committees have also been established for all seven rural constituencies in
Kavango.
Under Namibia’s decentralisation policy, Regional Councillors are expected to
establish development committees in their constituencies. Below the
constituency level, villages and settlements are also expected to establish
development committees. All of these committees fall ultimately under a
Regional Development Coordinating Committee (RDCC) chaired by the Regional
Governor and bringing together regional councillors, heads of government
departments, community leaders and prominent NGOs. In Kavango, the RDCC,
12
Land and Farming Committees were introduced in Kavango shortly after independence by the
then Minister of Lands, Resettlement and Rehabilitation
13 In mid June 2001 there were 260 water point committees in the Kavango Region. 40 had
received training and 23 water installations had been handed over to committee members for
them to assume minimum responsibility for the maintenance and operation of the installations
18
has not been active for some time and held its first meeting for some months
during mid 2001. The Gciriku tribal area falls within two Regional Council
constituencies – those of Ndiyona and Mashare. The development committees
for these two constituencies have not been very active.
Organisations at village level mentioned by respondents were Church groups,
women’s groups, water point committees, health committees, youth groups,
school board committees and political parties.
4.5 Traditional knowledge and management systems of natural resources
There is a high degree of awareness among residents of the need to conserve
resources. Respondents at all villages visited and participants at formal meetings
emphasised the need to conserve resources, either so that there would be
enough to still harvest in the future or for cultural and other reasons (see 4.2
above). Resident of an inland village: “It is important to maintain the natural
resources because we have to leave the resources to recover so they can benefit
us, the new generations and people of other countries”. Resident at a riparian
village: “God gave us our natural resources for free. If we misuse them then we
will have nothing at all”.
There is also a high degree of awareness of good management practices, based
on past knowledge and experience, but it is clear that these are being replaced
or ignored to a large extent. Resident of a riparian village: “People are fishing
now with mosquito nets. Our forefathers used to fish with a No. 4 net not No. 1
and No.2. No.1 and No. 2 nets catch the tiny fishes and that is not good. No. 4
only catches big ones and that is good.”
There is considerable knowledge about plants, animals, birds and reptiles that
can be used for different purposes, including for food, medicine, clothing,
ceremonies, tributes, decoration, building purposes and tools. The resource use
tables show that respondents mentioned a total of ……… trees and plants,
…..animals, …..birds, ……… reptiles and amphibians (number still to be
computed) that are used for these purposes (see Annexe 1 which provides a
consolidated list of natural resources for the Gciriku area derived from the
resource use tables and traditional doctor resource use tables).
Respondents reported that there were no areas that were regarded as “off limits”
for use according to traditional culture. There were no rules saying they must not
use specific areas. The only area that was “off limits” was the Kaudom Game
Reserve where “nature conservation keep their animals”.
Some contradictory responses were received from respondents regarding the
existence of traditional rules for using natural resources. Some said there were
no rules, while others said rules had always been there. There was also a degree
19
of contradiction over this issue within the same interview. It is possible that when
people say there are no rules, they mean that the rules are not obeyed or not
enforced and so in this sense they do not exist. A resident at an inland village
said: “There are no rules if people go to collect the trees, grass and fire wood.
There were rules before, but we do not implement them anymore, but our
forefathers implemented them and took good care of the natural resources”.
Another respondent from the same village added that there were no rules on the
use of wildlife resources, although residents were aware of the government rules
on hunting. A third respondent from the same village said, however: “There are
rules set by traditional authorities, nobody is allowed to burn or cut fruit trees.”
At a riparian village a respondent said: “When it comes to plants, grasses and
trees there are rules set by the chief. If someone is found cutting trees and
grasses without the chief’s permission, they will be punished and pay four cattle”.
Another respondent at the same village said burning trees was also forbidden
and another added that catching fish with mosquito nets was not allowed by the
chief.
In one of the formal meetings, the Gciriku Chief, Kasian Shiyambi, gave an
example of how the traditional rules were breaking down. He said that before
Namibian independence in 1990, there were traditional rules concerning burning.
If these rules were infringed, then the offender was fined by the traditional
authority. If it was clear that the fire had originated from a specific village and the
culprit could not be identified, then the whole village would be fined. “Today, if we
ask who started a fire people don’t tell us. If we try to fine people, they run away”.
4.6 Perceptions on rights that people upstream and downstream have
During the Gciriku survey problems were experienced in explaining to
respondents the idea of rights of out of basin users. It was difficult for people to
disaggregate what to them was a general category of outsiders into “local”
outsiders “downstream users” and people from outside the “basin”. As a result
we were unable to collect useful data on views concerning rights of “upstream”
and “downstream” users. Responses nearly always came back to the issue of
“outsiders” entering a local area to harvest resources.
With regard to neighbours across the river in Angola, respondents said resources
had been shared in the past, but this had stopped recently because of the
banditry. Fruit trees in particular were more plentiful on the Angolan side because
they had been largely removed on the Kavango side of the river. Most people
had relatives living on the other side of the river, but most of these people had
now moved across to Namibia because of fighting on the other side.
20
4.7 Perceptions on rights that out of basin resource users have
The same problems were experienced concerning the rights of out of basin
resource users. To a certain extent rights of out of basin users were viewed in
terms of visiting the area as tourists. Two villages equated national and local
needs. One said everyone wanted their children to see rhino elephant and other
wild animals. Another said: “All national needs come from local needs, say if a
community needs something this would also concern the whole nation”. In two
villages the relationship was viewed in terms of local residents making products
that could be sold to visitors from outside the basin. One village said: “The
national people are becoming a problem nowadays because they only misuse or
they access more resources than we do. The only thing they do is come and do
whatever they feel like doing and run away, without getting permission from us,
the community”. At another village a respondent said: “In the old days, people
from different parts of the country could not cut reeds in our area, but since
independence they are doing whatever they want because they are living in an
independent country”.
A senior headman said at one of the formal meetings: “The River is not only for
the Kavango but also for tourists and everybody”. However, he also said: “when
we heard the government wanted to tap water from the river for Windhoek, we
were crying”.
Respondents were willing to share resources with other people, but only if the
permission of residents was sought first.
4.8 Perceptions on rights (within local context) that non-riparian communities
have
Inland communities are to a large extent isolated from the riparian villages and
feel neglected in a number of ways. These included a lack of services such as
schools, clinics and good roads. In one case, a clinic had been opened, but
closed due to the theft of solar panels and has yet to be reopened. A major
cause of the isolation of the inland communities is the nature of the roads. These
are nearly all sand tracks, some with such deep sand that it can take as much as
two hours to cover 40km.
One inland community complained that people go to their area with the consent
of the chief to cut poles commercially, but the community is not happy that this
occurs. Another village complained that traditional laws are made or changed
and they are not informed or consulted.
21
Respondents at inland villages also complained that they were not allowed to to
gain access to resources at the river. If they went down to the river to collect
reeds or thatching grass, the headmen stopped them.
4.9 The History of the community as told by them
Given the scope of the survey area, more than 400km along the river, and the
division of the region into five tribal areas, there is clearly no single “community”
sharing the same history. It is also somewhat problematic in this context to define
what is meant by “community”. Is it the tribal group or is it individual villages?
Given the resources and time available and the number of villages included in
the survey, it was not possible to gain a detailed history of each village visited 14.
The following information was gathered concerning the history of the Gciriku:
In terms of general history, we were told that the Gciriku had straddled what is
now the border with Angola (i.e. the river) and at the end of the 19 th century, the
Gciriku chief had lived in Angola. It was during the German colonial period that
the chief had moved across into what is now Namibia.
Two out of the three villages questioned on this issue responded to the questions
in the Social Linkages instrument regarding the history of the village. At an inland
village, respondents said the village had been established in 1968. The aim was
to control and make sure that resources were used well. People had moved there
from a number of other places because of overcrowding at the river. Apart from
Gciriku there were Mbukushu, Kwangalis and Nyembas also living in the village.
In the past people had farmed peacefully, and the ponds did not dry out. A water
pump had been installed in 1976, but now they are having problems with water.
They have to pay for water and pay for diesel for the pump. Respondents at the
same village and at a riparian village said the community is a “random thing from
the ancestors to the new generations”. The respondents at the riparian village
said their community had been established with the aim of solving problems
among the people surrounding the area and to share ideas on how to improve
the community. They could not tell when it had been established: “No-one knows
the truth because he who is supposed to know is no more with us”.
14
This caveat refers to the other area surveys as well. Where possible, some information on the
history of villages is provided. The general trend for the region is that inland villages have been
settled more recently than riparian villages due to overcrowding at the river and the construction
of the Rundu-Divundu tarred road in the east which has attracted settlers.
22
4.10 How the river and its resources can help develop community members' lives
The river and its resources are seen as main sources of peoples’ livelihoods and
this is not expected to change in the future. People depend upon the river for
fish for own consumption and for sale to generate cash to purchase items such
as food or household goods. Reeds are also cut for building purposes, sleeping
on and for sale. Trees are cut for building purposes, the making of household
furniture and for making dug out canoes. Poles and firewood are sold. Thatching
grasses that grow near the river are harvested for building purposes, while the
thatching grass harvested inland is used for building and for sale, often to large
middlemen who then sell the grass to thatching companies in Windhoek and
Botswana. Small wild animals, including many types of birds, are hunted and
snared for food. Large mammals are hunted for meat and sale in the interior.
Grass is used for grazing and wild fruits are collected from trees and bushes for
own use and for sale. The leaves of some plants are eaten and/or used for
medicinal purposes.
An additional form of development recognised by residents is the use of river
water for irrigated gardens. A number of these were established in the past, but it
appears as if few have been successful. Some have collapsed while others are
struggling. One of the few successful gardens is at Shankara, where the
community garden is supported by the proprietor, Terence Spyron. Over the past
year, the 10 families working the garden have sold more than N$100 000 (US$12
500) worth of vegetables providing on average N$10 000 (US$1 250) per
family.15
The producers have their own committee which decides who should be part of
the group and deals with other communal affairs. Spyron believes the project is
successful because he acts as a “mentor” to the vegetable producers. He
provides technical advice, but says that he often learns from the producers as
well. Spyron keeps the ledgers for the producers and puts money in a savings
account for each producer as requested. Perhaps the most important inputs are
free water for irrigation (provided from his own agricultural business) and the
provision of a stable and permanent market. Spyron often takes the produce to
Rundu to sell and has arranged for a catering firm to take regular orders.
Spyron believes there is potential for the commercial harvest and sale of
mangetti nuts, fruit of the tree, Ricinodendron rautenenii. There is demand
overseas for the oil for cooking and for cosmetic products.
15
While the US$ amount will appear low in Namibian terms, this represents a significant injection
of cash into a family living in a society where there are few jobs and few other opportunities to
earn a cash income.
23
Residents also recognise the potential of tourism in the area and some
respondents cited this as a reason for conserving natural resources. A resident of
an inland village said: “When it comes to maintaining the natural resources, we
must keep and use them wisely to attract the tourists for more investment in the
country, the region and locally” However, there are two obstacles to using
tourism development to benefit local livelihoods. On the one hand the security
situation has led to an almost total decline of tourism in the region and on the
other, the tourism industry is firmly in the control of outside businessmen. A
community-run campsite established with support from a development agency
has collapsed. There are tourism facilities at Shamvura and Shankara and the
only other tourism venture in the area, King Nangara Lodge (established by a
Danish businessman), has closed. Given the lack of wildlife in the area, tourism
development (assuming an end to the security problems) is likely to be based on
fishing, specialised birding and through traffic to other destinations.
The harvest and sale of thatching grass has become a significant means of
generating income for many residents and is also recognised as having further
potential. There are a number of buyers who act as middlemen, buying from
harvesters and then selling to thatching companies in Namibia and Botswana.
One of these middlemen is the Shamvura Trust which estimates it handles 65%
of the production in the Kavango Region. It operates over an area of 2 900 sq
km, working with 48 villages and buying from 1 552 individuals. Over the past
year, the trust had paid nearly N$170 000 (US$21 250) for grass from villagers.
The trust employees 65 female grass processors on contract over a 12 month
period, 19 casual labourers and two permanent staff members. It pays more than
N$90 000 annually in salaries (Paxton, M. pers. comm.).
During the formal meetings, traditional leaders raised a number of issues
concerning the thatching grass. These included what they believed to be low
prices set by the middlemen and the need for the middlemen to pay a levy to the
traditional authority. During survey interviews in the inland areas one village
complained that the middlemen do not buy from the villagers, but bring their own
harvesters. Representatives of the middlemen present at the meeting said this
was not their policy and they would investigate. It was decided that a meeting
should be held between all stakeholders to discuss the issues concerning
thatching grass.
The director of Shamvura, Mark Paxton, emphasises that the purchase of
thatching grass has a beneficial effect on the environment. The cutting of the
grass promotes regeneration and harvesters are taught to cut with sickles and
not to pull out the grass by its roots (previously the grass was pulled out by its
roots and used for fish traps). Harvesters are also encouraged not to cut when
the grass is in seed. Paxton says because the grass has a monetary value
placed on it, those who benefit tend to try to prevent fires that will damage the
24
grass. Further, the grass used is a climax grass that is not frequently grazed, so
grazing is not being reduced
On a smaller scale to thatching grass, basket and other craft making can help to
develop community members’ lives. The Rossing Foundation craft project is
working with more than 350 women and 20 men to produce a variety of products,
including a number based on natural resources: palm and combretum baskets;
reed mats and grass place mats; and wooden spoons. In 2000 the project bought
N$124 000 (US$15 500) worth of crafts from project participants. The project
places a strong emphasis on product development and training and in the long
term expects the participants to manage their activities on their own. The crafts
are marketed by Mud Hut Trading, a Windhoek-based Fair Trade organisation
established by the Rossing Foundation (Paxton, C. pers. comm.).
The co-ordinator of the project, Charlie Paxton, says there is a strong emphasis
on monitoring the resources used for the crafts (e.g. palm trees, trees which are
used to obtain dyes) and participants are taught to harvest sustainably. She says
people are protecting the trees and grasses used for basketry and is encouraging
agro forestry as people are planting trees that they use in their craft making.
Paxton believes there is potential for expansion of craft production, although in
terms of baskets the availability of palms is a limiting factor. If many palms could
be planted, more baskets could be made. However, the market should not be
saturated.
4.11 Management structures that communities would like to see
Respondents found it difficult to envisage what specific management structures
they would like to see apart from the recognition that there should be greater
local control over resources. Respondents at a riparian village: “It will be difficult
to bring changes in our community. Some of them will follow the rules but some
will not. They will do what they want to do and not follow the rules. Even our
children won’t listen to us anymore. We don’t know if the rules will work for us.
We can only bring changes if the community works together and understands
each other. If the community understands each other it means we can also bring
some changes in our structures managing our natural resources”.
In terms of gaining greater local control over resources, the traditional leadership
expressed interest during the formal meetings in the establishment of
conservancies and community forests. Both these structures provide for the
devolution of authority over resources (wildlife and forest resources respectively)
to local communities. The institutional arrangements for both are similar and a
conservancy could fairly easily gain forest rights and a community forest could
fairly easily gain wildlife rights.
25
The Directorate of Resource Management (DRM) in the Ministry of Environment
and Tourism (MET) is working with the Gciriku tribal authority to establish a
conservancy adjoining the south western corner of the Kaudom Game Reserve 16
(Kahengutji pers. comm.). The establishment of the conservancy has been
delayed due to a boundary dispute with the neighbouring Shambyu tribe. The
conservancy is expected to benefit the whole Gciriku area. There is one village in
the proposed conservancy and this lies in the disputed boundary area.
The Directorate of Forestry (DoF) in MET is also negotiating with the Gciriku
tribal authority to establish a community forest. This would stretch from Mukuvi
on the eastern boundary of the Gciriku area about 10 km westwards to
Shinyungwe and cover an area about 20 km deep inland (Nheta pers. comm.).
At a meeting held in mid June, 2001, it was decided to go ahead with the
establishment of the community forest.
4.12 The institutional, information-sharing capacity, resources communities see
as needed
Although respondents were able to point to how resources should be conserved,
there was often a feeling that they needed information on more modern
conservation practices. It is not clear whether this was a response to a feeling
that their current practices are inappropriate or a response to the problems faced
with controlling the perceived unsustainable practises of outsiders.
Specific information needs identified during formal meetings and during
interviews are as follows:
i. appropriate methods for sustainable fish harvesting
ii. contour ploughing, conserving trees and grasses to prevent silting of river
iii. problems caused by burning and how to prevent unwanted fires
16
The Kaudom Game Reserve was proclaimed on land set aside for conservation by the Gciriku
Tribal Authority with the idea was that the Gciriku would receive a percentage of the income from
the reserve. However, the reserve was proclaimed under the then ethnic administration for
Kavangos and the income was retained at this level. Subsequently the reserve was proclaimed
under national legislation (in 1989) and the Gciriku have received no benefits from the park apart
from animals shot for traditional feasts. Although these issues were not raised during the survey,
in the past, the traditional authority has strongly requested the MET to provide benefits from the
reserve. In a letter sent to MET in 1995, the Land and Farming Committee expressed concern
that the Gciriku had not received a share of entrance fees from the park, nor had they received a
promised share of hunting revenue in areas adjoining the park. The committee was also
concerned about problem animals and said it wanted the park to be smaller “as the area given to
animals is bigger than that meant for human population which is not acceptable”.
26
4.13 Peoples' views on whether the resource can be developed or kept in its
natural state
From the data presented above, the conclusion can be drawn that residents are
opposed to large scale transformation of the land and its resources because they
depend upon those resources for their survival. At the same time, they would like
to see the development of irrigated gardens, which will involve localised clearing
of land for horticulture. Clearing of land is also accepted as the necessary
consequence of crop growing, although there is recognition that such clearing
should take place in a controlled way.
4.14 Results of formal meetings during the Gciriku Survey
First meeting (Shankara, 14.05.01)
This meeting was attended by project staff, a supervisor from SIAPAC,
representatives of the traditional authority, government officials, and
representatives of NGOs and development projects working in the area (see list
of participants in Annexe 6).
Participants were invited to give short presentations on a) activities carried out by
their organisation and b) their perceptions of resource management issues and
problems. From the various presentations, the key issues and problems were
identified along with some possible solutions (Table 2). Suggestions and ideas
came from different stakeholders, but agreement was sought from the meeting
before an issue or solution was recorded:
Table 2. Key issues and problems identified during the first formal meeting of the Gciriku Survey
Issue/Problem
Possible solution/action
Fires that damage grass and trees
a) Community members should be appointed
to patrol along river area to prevent
unwanted fires
b) Establishment of a community forest could
help with fire control
Over fishing caused by outsiders and the use No solutions/actions suggested
of small mesh nets (e.g. mosquito nets)
Deforestation
a) There should be more control on tree
cutting
b) Tree planting
c) Community forest
Silting of river due to ploughing downhill, a) Contour ploughing
deforestation, and removal of reeds
b) More control on cutting of trees and reeds
Outsiders (from outside Gciriku area) use local
resources without permission – contributes to
over utilisation
a)
27
Authority to manage and control access to
resources needs to be at local level. This
could be achieved through community
forest or conservancy
Poaching (especially near Kaudom GR.)
Encroachment of settlements and farms close
to Kaudom G.R. leading to greater conflict
between humans and wildlife (damage to crops
and livestock)
Community sometimes lacking in commitment
to help themselves, not willing to contribute to
own development17
Over grazing
a) Conservancy?
No suggestions
No suggestions
No suggestions
Second meeting (Shankara, 21.05.01)
This meeting was attended by project staff, representatives of the traditional
authority, government officials, and representatives of NGOs and development
projects working in the area (see list of participants in Annexe 5).
The enumerating team reported back to stakeholders on the first part of the
survey which covered villages along the river. The team listed the villages visited
and explained the instruments used. The findings on the main resources that
people depend on, resources that people believe are declining and the key
issues and problems were presented. Participants were then invited to discuss
the findings. The results were as follows:
1) Main resources people depend upon along the river
Fish, wild fruits, water, trees, soil, reeds, thatching grass, grazing with access to
water (added during the meeting)
2) Resources that are declining
Trees, fish, thatching grass (a type found near the river locally called “marenge”,
wild animals (large mammals have disappeared from the area near the river and
the smaller ones are also declining)
3) Key issues from the survey of villages near the river
i. People from outside harvesting resources without permission (e.g. trees,
fish, sand, reeds, wild animals, thatching grass
One of the Chief’s Traditional Councillors had very strong views on this issue, saying the
people of the area were often lazy and regularly drunk. A number of other participants in the
survey confirmed that alcohol is a problem in the area. It is conventional wisdom in the area that it
is unwise to try to hold village meetings in the afternoon as by then many residents are likely to
have had too much to drink to participate properly. One explanation provided is that for very poor
people, traditional beer is a cheap way of gaining some form of nutrition, filling the belly and
taking your mind off your problems.
17
28
ii. No rules for using resources – there used to be rules, but since
independence people say they can go anywhere and harvest resources
where they want to. “Making rules is for the government”.
iii. Fires coming from outside Gciriku (some from people clearing land locally)
iv. People are fined (by traditional authority) for causing fire, but not for cutting
trees – fire affects everyone, but trees do not belong to anyone
v. People know that it is very important to conserve and they know what the
problems are. Some reasons why they cannot solve the problems are
poverty and a lack of rules and laws
vi. Younger people are not learning about conserving resources from their
elders (on at least one occasion, the survey interview provided a platform for
this exchange to take place)
4) Solutions mentioned during the survey of villages near the river
i. Cutlines should be created to prevent fire18
ii. An open market should be created to sell local products/resources to
outsiders so that outsiders don’t harvest the resources themselves
5) Issues added during discussion
i. Cutlines were created by the previous government using local labour. This
should happen again. DoF have a programme to develop cutlines, but there
had been some problems with this in the Gciriku area. This should be done
as a partnership between the community and DoF, with the traditional
leaders being closely involved in choosing people to work on the cutlines.
ii. Partnerships should be developed between the government, communities,
NGOs and the private sector
iii. Government should recognise traditional laws regarding resource use and
should help enforce them – there is a need to empower local resource
managers
18
According to participants in the meeting, prior to Namibian independence, the then government
had introduced a system of establishing cutlines. Two teams of people were employed to clear a
line and another to burn along the line. Participants said these cutlines were very effective in
stopping fires. They were also useful for identifying where a fire had started. The Directorate of
Forestry currently has a similar programme which it is piloting in a small number of communities.
Some of the problems involved in implementing the programme in the Gciriku area were
discussed at the meeting and some new procedures (including greater involvement of headmen
in selecting workers) were agreed upon.
29
Third meeting (Shankara, 28.05.01)
This meeting was attended by project staff, representatives of the traditional
authority, government officials, and representatives of NGOs and development
projects working in the area (see list of participants in Annexe 5).
The enumerating team again reported back to participants on the survey process
(meetings held, instruments used, villages visited – now including those in the
inland,) and reiterated the key issues from the survey of riparian villages and
from the previous meetings. The team then reported back on the issues raised
during interviews conducted at inland villages, including the main resources
people depend upon and the resources that people believed were declining. The
participants were then asked to discuss and comment on the findings from the
inland survey. They were then asked to prioritise what they believed to be the
most urgent overall issues that needed attention.19 Time was also taken to try to
identify solutions, building on solutions suggested at previous meetings and
during the survey. It had been intended to identify who could take action to
implement the suggested solutions, but there was insufficient time for this. Finally
participants were asked to identify who should represent the Gciriku area at
future regional or basin-wide meetings of stakeholders.
I.
Main resources inland residents depend upon
Trees, wild fruits, water, soil, thatching grass (for own use), wild animals, grazing.
II.
Main resources inland residents believe are declining
Trees for poles, wild fruits, wild animals (large mammals), thatching grass
(particularly at Djara-Djara village)
III.
Main issues affecting inland residents
i. Fire – destroys grazing areas and crops, chases away wild animals and
affects wild fruits
ii. Water – outsiders come to harvest resources (e.g. poles, wild fruits,
thatching grass) and use villagers’ water without paying
iii. Cutting of trees – Outsiders cutting trees wastefully and without permission
iv. Wild animals (as a problem) – destroy crops and livestock (in some areas
elephants are seasonal visitors)
v. Not enough services – a clinic at Kandjara has closed because the solar
panels were stolen and access to schools is a problem in some other
villages
19
There may have been some bias in this prioritisation as representatives of non riparian villages
were not present
30
vi. Thatching grass – companies bring their own harvesters rather than buying
from locals or insist on 60 bundles being provided free before buying 20. The
outside harvesters also start fires where they camp.
vii. Reeds – people not allowed to cut reeds in Cwiba Omuramba (Kaudom
G.R.) anymore
viii. Resources at the river – Some villages report that residents at the river
restrict them from harvesting resources (e.g. reeds and fish) yet the inland
residents do not prevent people from the river from harvesting resources
inland
ix. Knowledge of conservation – people know they should conserve but they
want information about modern resource management methods
x. Wild animals (return of) – Residents generally want wildlife to return to their
areas although there is internal debate about whether predators and
elephants should be encouraged
xi. Palm leaves – some women at Koro say they are not paid enough by the
Rossing Craft Project for palm leaves
xii. Outsiders – residents have no authority to prevent outsiders from over
utilising resources or harvesting wastefully
xiii. San people – are the poorest of the inland residents, are not treated well by
the other residents, still depend upon a lot of wild animals and plants to
survive, but main source of food i.e. large mammals have virtually
disappeared
xiv. Traditional laws – some residents of the inland areas feel they are not
informed or consulted when traditional laws are changed or made.
20
During the meeting representatives of the thatching grass middlemen said it was not their
policy to use their own cutters or to ask for a certain amount of bundles for no payment. They said
they would investigate this with their employees and foremen.
31
IV.
Prioritisation of key issues and identification of solutions
Table 3. Prioritisation of key issues and solutions at the 3d formal meeting of the Gciriku Survey
ISSUE
SOLUTIONS
Fire
a) monitoring patrols by community members
b) cutlines
c) community forest
d) community firefighters
e) empower traditional authority
Silting of River
a) contour ploughing
b) conserve trees and reeds
c) conserve grazing along river
d) reclaim dongas
Deforestation
a) conserve trees
b) plant trees
c) community forest
d) control outsiders
e) prevent shifting cultivation (use fertiliser and improved crop
strains)
Over fishing
a) community and MET need to work together
b) Min. of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) must
become
involved
in
law
enforcement
and
extension/information (closest MFMR office is in Windhoek!)
c) Community fish reserves (participants agreed in principle but
wanted more information)
Traditional authority lacks a) Govt. is conducting review of traditional authority power
power over outsiders and b) Establish local community control over resources
certain resources
- Community forest
- Conservancy
- Water point committees
Thatching grass
a) Meeting for all stakeholders (community leaders, thatch grass
businesses, government officials etc.) to discuss issues
concerning use, conservation, buying prices, levies to the
traditional authority etc.)
b) Establish local control over the resource
Decline in ground water a) establish carrying capacity for water points
supply
b) prevent “flocking” of people to water points
- co-operation between water committees at local, constituency
and regional level
- co-operation between water point committees, traditional
authority and government
- pipeline from river for local water supply
Commercial and
use of river sand
outside
1. Outsiders and contractors should pay traditional authority
2. Empower traditional authority
32
5. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY IN THE CENTRAL AREA
Interviews were carried out at 12 villages in the Central area. Seven were visited
along the river:
Sambyu
Mupapama/Takwasa
Mantjienya/Tjeye
Kaisosi
Mbunza
Kasivi
Sivara
Halili
Kapako
Interviews were carried out at 5 inland villages:
Sambyu
Gongwa
Mbunza
Fumbe
Nkutu
Nsindi
Mile 30
A total of 6 interviews using the natural resource mapping instrument were
conducted, 5 using the natural resource tables, 6 using the social linkages
instrument, 2 using the Venn diagram instrument and 5 traditional doctors were
interviewed. A total of 158 people were recorded as being present during the
interviews with an indeterminate number drifting in and out while the interviews
were taking place.
5.1 Cultural, religious, social significance of the river to the people living within the
basin
The river and its resources play a central role in the life of people in the Sambyu
and Mbunza tribal areas. As in the Gciriku area, most uses of resources stated
by respondents were for economic rather than for cultural, religious or social
purposes. However, again it was clear that most respondents place an aesthetic
value on resources, such as the river, trees and wild animals. Many respondents
emphasised the need to conserve resources for future generations, not only so
that they could be utilised, but also enjoyed for their existence.
It was clear, for example, that respondents place an aesthetic value on resources
such as wild animals. It is important to them that their children can continue to
see wild animals. The following is a typical statement in this regard: “At this stage
33
our children don’t know the big animals. We really want things like that to be back
in our village and the country at large”
With regard to natural resources in general: “The resources are for us and our
grandchildren so we cannot overuse them while we know that there are still
others who want to benefit from the resources” (resident of a riparian village).
And on the river itself: “The river is our life”
Some resources, such as Mbare (palm trees), Mbahe (giraffe), and Mvhuu
(hippo) are used for ceremonial purposes, while some trees and reeds are used
for religious purposes, also palm leaves and flowers. Baskets made from natural
resources are also used for cultural and religious purposes.
5.2 Perception of communities on the state of the resource
There is a general perception that most resources are declining. One respondent
at a riparian village said the reason for this general decline was the increase in
the number of people and this view was echoed by some of the participants in
the formal meetings. Views regarding specific resources were as follows:
Grazing: a shortage caused by overcrowding, increasing number of people, and
increased clearing of fields for crops
Fish: declining because of lack of enforcement of local rules, lack of
management and use of mosquito nets, and an increase in human population
leading to over fishing, It was said that generally people do not return small fish
to the river. A Chief’s Traditional Councillor from Sambyu said some people were
also using poisonous substances to catch fish in ponds and oshanas. He also
said that fish were dying because of pollution in the river from industries in
Rundu. Generally in the Mbunza tribal area, people said fish resources were still
healthy although at one village they reported the disappearance of a specific type
of fish called “serengerenge” locally. Another species under pressure and being
caught in small nets is a fish called Mkunga. (It was agreed in the meeting that
the Mbunza area always seemed to be better stocked with fish than other areas,
but no-one could explain why.)
Reeds: declining in one area because of increased population pressure caused
by an influx of people from Angola. It was said that people are pulling out whole
reeds and not cutting them so they can re-grow.
Trees: declining because people are cutting down whole trees for firewood and
people from Rundu collect poles in big trucks. Fire is also a cause of the decline
as well as clearing for fields.
34
Thatching grass: declining because of fire and outsiders
Wild fruits: declining because people cut and burn fruit trees to make fields
Wildlife: animals such as spring hare declining because of fire, hunting by
outsiders, and over hunting. In some of the inland areas, large mammals such as
kudu visit seasonally and some areas are occasionally visited by elephant.
People said large wild animals were declining because of an increase of people,
a lack of management and fire.
The river: “The Kavango river was not like this in the olden days. It was a deep
river that a barge could use to pass along. But what we are seeing now is
different. The river is shallow, even the goats and their children can cross over to
the other side. The main problems are people ploughing along the side of the
river which means the soil will normally get into the river and it will block some
parts of the river” – resident of a riparian village in Mbunza tribal area. At the
formal meetings held during the survey, there was recognition that overgrazing
and cutting of trees was causing soil erosion close to the river and this was
leading to silting of the river. The collection of river sand by Rundu-based
construction companies was also contributing to erosion and silting.
5.3 Who is using the resource, how and who has control
The resources in the Central Area are being used by residents as well as by
outsiders. At one riparian village close to Rundu a respondent said that people
came from as far as Katima Mulilo in Caprivi Region (about 500 km away) to
catch fish. She said the people from Caprivi were “finishing the fish” and normally
caught more than the local residents, because they were selling the fish.
Respondents say that outsiders do not ask for permission to use local resources
and do not know the local rules. The outsiders say that now Namibia is
independent, they are free to do what they want. Outsiders also waste resources
and burn the forest after they have collected what they want.
At one of the formal meetings, one of the Sambyu Chief’s Traditional Councillors
said the main reason for the over utilisation of resources was because the use of
the resources is uncontrolled: “Anyone can take grass, reeds, trees or fish
freely.” He said there was a need to move from “the individual use of resources
to the collective use.” When asked to explain further, he said there was a need
for community-based management and control over natural resources.
During the village interviews, some respondents also emphasised the need for
control over resources to be given to local communities: “It is difficult to take care
of natural resources alone unless every community/traditional authority gets
involved. If you really get involved in taking care of natural resources, then the
35
rule should be in place for the community to be involved in decision-making”
(resident of a riparian village).
“It is important for us to manage the resources ourselves because we are the
one’s who own these resources and we know where they are located” (resident
of an inland village).
In terms of access to resources, one respondent said it was only those who could
afford the permits who could gain legal access to trees and wild animals. In some
areas, individuals have fenced off land for their own ranching activities and other
community members are excluded from using resources on this land. A resident
of an inland village along the road from Rundu to Grootfontein said she and other
women no longer had access to palm leaves for basket making because a local
male farmer had stopped them from entering his farm. As a result they had
stopped making baskets.
With regard to control of resources by the government one respondent said:
“Although the rules are there from the government, our natural resources are still
finishing. The reason is that there is no commitment from the government.”
There is also a mismatch between government decision-making at a regional
level and how local residents view management of resources. A respondent said
that: “Outsiders will come with their permit from the government and they will cut
a big mangetti tree which we depend upon for its fruit. We cannot refuse them
the tree because it’s been bought from the government.” This issue was also
discussed at some length during the formal meetings with traditional leaders and
government officials. The traditional leaders made several suggestions as to how
government could liaise with traditional authorities before issuing permits for tree
cutting in a specific area.
Traditional leaders noted that whereas in the past most people used to either
obey the local rules or accept the fines imposed by the traditional authority if the
rules were broken. However, now many people (especially outsiders, but also
some locals) do not accept the authority of the traditional leaders. They do not
obey the rules concerning resource use and do not accept the legitimacy of the
traditional authority to levy fines for offences.
5.4 Institutions and governance within the community
As throughout the region, the range of institutions within the community varies
from village to village. However, throughout the Central Area the range of
institutions described in section 4.4 is reflected. The traditional authority is
represented in some form in all villages, and seems to have general support
particularly at a village level. Data from social linkages instruments show that
36
residents believe that local headmen are effective in solving problems between
people at village level and in keeping the village informed.
The Land and Farming Committee in the Mbunza and Sambyu areas have been
established (as in the rest of the region) to assist the traditional authority in
administering communal land. A document provided by the Mbunza Land and
Farming committee sets out the following responsibilities of the committee:





Review applications for land and grant approval for land acquisition
Settle of land disputes among the Mbunza community members
Update the community concerning any development programmes of the
government and NGOs on land issues
Plan for correct and viable land utilisation and the conservation of natural
resources
Advise the traditional chief on land management and administration
The document lists the following plans for the future:
 To promote the socio-economic development of the community, especially on
agriculture
 Restructuring of settlements
 To negotiate with government and NGOs for irrigation projects to secure food
security
 Awareness raising on the importance of conservation of natural resources
 In collaboration with other stakeholders, combat deforestation and over
grazing
Organisations at village level mentioned by respondents were Church groups,
women’s groups, water point committees, health committees, youth groups,
school board committees and political parties.
NGOs that work with the communities were Lux Development, the Lihepurura
Kavango Trust and Rossing Foundation (working with one basket making group
in the central area).
A natural resources committee or Environment Club was established some time
ago in the Mbunza area with the late regional councillor as the chair. It has
struggled to keep going because of a lack of financial resources and one
participant at a formal meeting said it had not been supported by the traditional
authority.
There was an attempt to establish village natural resources committees under
the central one and some of these seem to still function. One such is at the
village of Kasivi on the river. On the initiative of the traditional authority, the
village elected the committee and committee members have to have grown up in
the village and be known to the villagers.
37
Anyone who wants to fish in the village ponds has to have permission from the
committee even if they have permission from the chief. If a person has not
received permission from the committee, then the community will ask that person
to leave. If a person tries to fish with a net, they will have to surrender the net to
the committee. When asked what would happen if someone refused to cooperate, the “voorman” at Kasivi said the community would force the person to
surrender the net. The committee also controls the use of thatching grass, trees,
and reeds and prevents unwanted veld fires. The “voorman” said the local police
were aware of the working of the committee and if they catch someone they will
take him to the traditional authority to be tried. The police would not interfere
much if someone was caught and tried by the traditional authority.
5.5 Traditional knowledge and management systems of natural resources
There is considerable knowledge about plants, animals, birds and reptiles that
can be used for different purposes, including for food, medicine, clothing,
ceremonies, tributes, decoration, building purposes and tools. The resource use
tables show that respondents mentioned a total of ……… trees and plants,
…..animals, …..birds, ……… reptiles and amphibians (number still to be
computed) that are used for these purposes (see Annexe 2 which provides a
consolidated list of natural resources for the Central Area derived from the
resource use tables and traditional doctor resource use tables).
There is a high degree of awareness among residents of the need to conserve
resources, so that they will still be available for future use. Residents are also
aware of the effects of silting of the river caused by human activities.
“If we limit the using of resources there will be much in the future” (resident of an
inland village along the main road from Rundu to Grootfontein).
“The resources we have now won’t last long if we continue wasting them and our
grandchildren are going to suffer because they won’t have many resources”
(resident of an inland village).
“We are destroying our nature ourselves. People are overusing much of the
resources. They cut reeds and the way they do this is not the right way of using
what we have been granted. When you cut reeds, especially over cutting, the
place will be empty and when the rain comes the sand flows into the river and we
will again start complaining about the river being dry” (resident of a riparian
village).
Respondents provided divergent responses when asked about the existence of
rules for using resources. Some felt there were no rules, but as with elsewhere
this could be related to the lack of enforcement, rather than the lack of rules. For
38
example, a resident of a riparian village said there were no rules or limits on the
use of fish, wild animals, reeds, trees, grazing areas and wild fruits. Another
resident of a riparian village: “The rules surrounding access to and utilisation of
natural resources in this community are not available, only from the government
by not cutting trees without permission and for burning fires. The rule was
already there in the olden days through the traditional authority.”
However, other respondents reported that there were rules for burning and for
cutting trees, particularly wild fruit trees. At one riparian village in Mbunza, where
traditional authority seems quite strong, a fine of five head of cattle is imposed by
the headman for cutting down trees and limits are imposed on the number of
trees that can be can cut. At an inland village a fine of five head of cattle is
imposed for burning plants and trees and four head of cattle for cutting down
trees without permission.
Respondents were aware of government laws against hunting wild animals. In
some areas, the traditional authorities also impose fines (e.g. two head of cattle)
for illegal hunting or they report offenders to the government.
Some respondents said that in the old days the traditional authority had rules
about catching fish, but these do not exist anymore. The traditional authorities
wanted to stop people fishing with mosquito nets and catching small fish.
The chair of the Sambyu Land and Farming Committee said at one of the formal
meetings that in the old days people were told that they could not graze their
livestock near the river in the wet season. Today, people were grazing their
livestock all year round between the houses at settlements along the river.
There were no rules reported concerning the use of reptiles, amphibians and
birds, apart from government rules about the use of large birds. One respondent
said there were no rules from the traditional authority about the use of birds
because the birds eat crops.
Again the confusion and uncertainty about rules and their provenance is
emphasised by the following: At an inland village residents said there was a rule
not to cut trees and start fires and this rule came from government and was
passed on to chiefs and through them to the headmen. This was echoed at a
riparian village where a respondent said all rules were from the government and
the traditional authority did not have any fixed rules 21, only from the government.
A number of respondents said the rules of the traditional authority were the same
as the government’s rules. One respondent said emphatically: “There are no
rules existing in this 21st century in this village.”
There was considerable discussion during the formal meetings of the role of
government officials from various ministries (including the MET) who carry out
21
The idea of “fixed” rules might refer to “written” rules.
39
activities or provide services in a particular area and then return to Rundu with
their trucks laden with poles. The point was made that if government officials
(and particularly those from MET) are cutting trees illegally, then ordinary
villagers will think that the laws and regulations no longer apply and will follow the
example of the government officials.
No areas, apart from game reserves or land fenced off for agricultural projects,
were reported as being off-limits or left fallow. One respondent said that even if
villagers tried to leave an area fallow, nobody would listen to them as there was
no co-operation between community members. In the past areas were left fallow,
but now “we are no longer giving our resources a chance because of burning and
we take our livestock everywhere.”
5.6 Perceptions on rights that people upstream and downstream have
As with the Gciriku survey, it was difficult for respondents to distinguish between
different types of “outsider”. It was again difficult to collect useful data on views
concerning rights of “upstream” and “downstream” users. Responses were
mainly focused on the problems relating to “outsiders” entering a local area to
harvest resources. Respondents made it clear that outsiders did not have the
same rights of access to local resources, although one respondent put it this
way: “The outside users have the same rights of access as this community
because of the lack of rules.”
A resident of a riparian village said the relationship with neighbours across the
river in Angola was not good. Angolans crossed into Kavango to fish and cut
trees, but Namibians were not allowed to go to the Angolan side. Others said that
sharing of resources across the river usually took place, but had been suspended
because of the security situation.
5.7 Perceptions on rights that out of basin resource users have
As in Gciriku, rights of out of basin users tended to be viewed in terms of people
visiting the area as tourists. However, at one riparian village, a respondent said
the government should not pump water from the river for Windhoek as the river is
already shallow and will become dry. Respondents were willing to share
resources with other people, but only if the permission of residents was sought
first. Awareness of government plans to pump water from the river for Windhoek
appeared to be higher among traditional leaders and members of the Land and
Farming committees than among villagers.
5.8 Perceptions on rights (within local context) that non-riparian communities
have
40
Some inland villages said they did not use riverine resources because they lived
too far away, while riparian residents said outsiders did not have the same rights
of access to resources. They were willing to grant access if people from
elsewhere asked permission.
As elsewhere in Kavango, inland communities are to a large extent isolated from
the riparian villages and feel neglected by government in terms of service
provision
5.9 The History of the community as told by them
Information was gathered concerning the history of the following villages:
Fumbe village (an inland settlement in the Sambyu tribal area). The village was
established in 1961 because of good soil for agriculture and the availability of
fruits, plants and animals such as giraffe and elephant. In the past there were
hard times when residents had to take their livestock very far to the river for
water and cattle were lost in the process.
Gongwa village (an inland settlement in the Sambyu tribal area). The village was
established because of the good soil for agriculture and many wild animals. The
hard times were when there was no water and the good times were when young
people used to get work in towns.
Mupapama (a riparian village in the Sambyu area). Residents were not sure
when it had been established, but the area had been settled because of good soil
for agriculture and good grazing.
Nkutu (an inland village in the Mbunza tribal area). Residents said the area had
been settled for a long time. Many animals were there in the past such as
elephant, giraffe, lion and kudu. There were good times in the old days because
everything was easier to find and people survived on wild animals, wild fruits and
crops. There were bad times after independence because of drought when
people had to join food for work programmes.
5.10 How the river and its resources can help develop community members'
lives
5.10.1 Results from the survey
Some respondents were aware of the opportunities that tourism could bring to
the area. One resident of a village near Rundu and close to a tourist lodge said
that if there were more wild animals, then there would be lots of tourists in the
41
Kavango Region and in Namibia. Others from different villages said the natural
resources in Namibia were an attraction for tourists who also wanted to buy
things that people make from natural resources. Wood carvings and baskets
were mentioned as items that tourists would buy. One resident suggested the
export of hardwood timber.
A suggestion at one of the formal meetings was that control over resources such
as trees and wildlife should be given to local communities. The money generated
from the sale of timber and hunting concessions could be used for drilling bore
holes in the interior.
The Rossing Foundation is working with a small group of women at the village of
Mantjienya to develop skills in basket making and marketing and with another
group at Gongwa. The support and training is similar to that provided by Rossing
Foundation for the basket makers in the Gciriku area. Charlie Paxton of the
foundation says there is potential for the basket makers to sell their products to
the lodges in the Sambyu area. The area has a good palm resource so there is
potential for expanding current basket production.
An additional form of development recognised by residents is the use of river
water for irrigated gardens. A number of these were established in the past, but it
appears as if few have been successful. However, an irrigated garden at Kasivi:
made a profit and the money was used to buy a cow to replace the one stolen by
Unita bandits.
Also at Kasivi the villagers want to protect and develop their fish ponds so that
there will be sufficient fish to start charging people for fishing there. They are
interested in trying to start fish farming. Residents of other villages in the central
area also expressed interest in developing fish farming based on existing ponds
or on creating ponds where they don’t exist.
5.10.2 Rundu Floodplain Development Plan
Lux Development, has launched a project to establish a development plan for the
floodplain around Rundu encompassing parts of the Sambyu and Mbunza tribal
areas. The development of the plan forms part of a larger set of activities
sponsored by Lux Development aimed at putting in place a Long Range
Structure Plan for Rundu, working in co-operation with the municipality and other
authorities. The Floodplain Development Plan covers the Omuramba Ndonga
and the floodplain that lies within the Townlands of Rundu (about 14km from
west to east). Three main areas of focus have been identified: the Omuramba
(from the Rundu Airfield to the river); the western floodplain (west of Rundu
centre and Rundu Beach to the border of the Townlands); and the eastern
floodplain (east of Rundu Beach to the Townlands’ border near Vungu Vungu).
The project aims to produce a plan that will promote economic development
42
while also conserving natural resources in order to ensure that development is
sustainable economically and environmentally.
A number of consultative meetings were held as part of the project during the
course of the Every River socio-ecological survey. The two projects have
collaborated through sharing information and attendance at each other’s
meetings. The executive summary of the Concept Development Plan approved in
late September is attached as Annexe 5.
5.11
Management structures that communities would like to see
Residents would like to see management of resources take place at a local level
through their own structures. For example one respondent put the case for local
management very clearly: “Our life depends upon these resources and we have
got the ability to look after our resources, we are the ones benefitting from them.
We know where the main resources are located. We are willing to control our
resources on our own.”
There is a fairly strong feeling among residents that existing traditional authorities
should be recognised as controlling natural resources. Some also referred to
conservancies or community forests. They often referred to these as being linked
to the traditional authorities.
“People should be given the opportunity to manage the resources through the
traditional authority” (resident of a riparian village).
“We want the old rules back, not what is happening nowadays” (resident of an
inland village).
At a riparian village respondents requested help from NGOs and the government
“to give powers to the community through the traditional authority to take care of
the resources”.
A resident of a riparian village near Rundu suggested that it would be good to “sit
together and share ideas about natural resources together and make decisions.
It would be good to have a conservancy covering an area from the river to
inland”.
Residents of another riparian village said they wanted a community forest. At
Kasivi, residents reported that in 1992 a group of white people had visited their
village and had surveyed the surrounding area. The whites had suggested that a
specific area on the floodplain would be suitable for inclusion in a conservancy.
The villagers had been keen on the idea, but the whites had never returned.
43
At one village residents said it would be good to have a fire committee like they
did in the past.
5.12 The institutional, information-sharing capacity, resources communities
see as needed
The main information requirements mentioned were: “understanding and
knowledge on how we must manage and live with our resources”. Other
requirements were training on fish farming, irrigated gardens and tree planting.
Some respondents and several traditional leaders felt that MET should provide
education and training to communities on how to conserve the fish, especially
where there are ponds. Committees should be established to regulate fishing,
and these committees should be trained.
5.13 Peoples' views on whether the resource can be developed or kept in its
natural state
From the data presented above, the conclusion can be drawn that residents are
opposed to large scale transformation of the land and its resources because they
depend upon those resources for their survival. At the same time, they would like
to see the development of irrigated gardens, which will involve localised clearing
of land for horticulture. Clearing of land is also accepted as the necessary
consequence of crop growing, although there is recognition that such clearing
should take place in a controlled way.
5.14
Results of the formal meetings held during the Central Area survey
First meeting (Rundu, 11.06.01)
This meeting was attended by project staff, representatives of the traditional
authority, government officials, and representatives of NGOs and development
projects working in the area (see list of participants in Annexe 6).
Participants were invited to give short presentations on a) activities carried out by
their organisation and b) their perceptions of resource management issues and
problems. From the various presentations, the key issues and problems were
identified along with some possible solutions (Table 4). Suggestions and ideas
came from different stakeholders, but agreement was sought from the meeting
before an issue or solution was recorded. The issues and solutions are
presented below (not in any order of priority):
44
Table 4. Problems and solutions identified at the first formal meeting of the Central Area Survey
Issue/Problem
Possible solution/action
Uncontrolled use of resources
a) Establish local control over resources
– especially grass, reeds and trees
b) Move from individual to collective use and
management of resources i.e. community
based natural resource management
c) Income from use of resources should go to
local community
Erosion and silting of the river
a) dredge the river and sell sand to builders
– Caused by overgrazing and deforestation.
As a result it is ifeared the river might stop
flowing all year round
Over fishing
– Because of use of mosquito nets and no
closed season or closed areas
Pollution of river from industries
Collection of building sand from river banks
- Contractors from Rundu don’t pay for the
sand or ask permission locally
- People collect at the wrong places, leading
to erosion
Collection of reeds and thatching grass
– People pull out the reeds and grass instead
of cutting them
– Outsiders don’t ask permission locally
Cutting of trees – no control being exercised
Establishment of crop fields
- Near road and river leads to erosion people
clear and plough on unfertile soil, then
have to move and clear more land, causing
more deforestation
Distribution of settlements along road and river
leaves no space for projects (e.g. agricultural
projects)
Uncontrolled burning – especially a problem
inland
Angolan refugees
- Take up land
- More pressure on grazing and other
resources
Grazing near river is diminishing
Competition with tourism lodges
- for land
- high powered boats disturb fish breeding
areas
Communities don’t co-operate with each other
Lack of government co-operation with
a) Revive former programme of establishing
cutlines
a) Provide water and grazing inland away
from river
a) Find ways to promote co-operation
45
communities
Lack of means for traditional authorities to
communicate with residents (e.g. lack of
transport)
Lack of expertise in managing natural
resources
a) More information and education
communities and community leaders
to
Second meeting (Rundu, 18.06.01)
This meeting was attended by project staff, representatives of the traditional
authority, and government officials (see list of participants in Annexe 6).
The data gathering team reported back to stakeholders on the first part of the
survey which covered villages along the river. The team listed the villages visited
and explained the instruments used. The findings on the main resources that
people depend on, resources that people believe are declining and the key
issues and problems were presented. Participants were then invited to discuss
the findings. The results were as follows:
I.
Main resources people depend upon along the river
a) Sambyu area along the river
Fish, wild fruits, water, trees, soil, reeds, grass, small wild animals
- residents believe all of the above are declining
b) Mbunza area along the river
Fish soils, reeds, trees, water, grass, wild fruits, small wild animals
- residents believe the river level has been dropping over the long term past and
most of the other resources they depend upon are declining. Fish are still doing
well, but one species known locally as “Serengerenge” is no longer found at
some places along the river
I.
Key issues from the survey of villages near the river
a) Sambyu
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
Fire
Outsiders harvesting resources (reeds, trees, fish, poles)
Outsiders hunting small wild animals
Basket makers at Tjeye have to go far to collect palm leaves
Lack of grazing (especially at Mupapama
46
vi.
“Newcomers” at Kasivi say they are denied access to resources
b) Mbunza
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
Fire
Contractor companies collecting building sand
Lack of grazing
Lack of Water at Kasivi for community garden and residents concerned
about plans to abstract water from the river for Windhoek
v. Outsiders harvest resources (fish, wild fruits, trees, reeds)
vi. A “conservancy” promised by visitors to Kasivi area, but no follow up took
place
vii. Non-natural resources issues: At Halili residents said they need a clinic,
electricity and HIV AIDS information
II.
Solutions mentioned during the survey of villages near the river
i.
iii.
People at Kasivi in Mbunza report outsiders who use mosquito nets and
manage to defend their fish resources
People at Kasivi and Nkorowe want to fence their ponds to protect the fish
and to investigate fish farming
The Natural Resources Committee for the Mbunza area should be revived
III.
Issues added during discussion in the meeting
i.
Government trucks deliver goods and services in interior, but return with
poles – Govt. must set an example and traditional authorities should be
empowered to deal with this
At Mantjenya and Shamange people want to use ponds for fish farming
(but at Shamange someone used the water from the pond for an irrigation
project
Local natural resource management committees in Mbunza area are able
to protect resources under the headman
ii.
ii.
iii.
Third meeting (Rundu, 22.06.01)
This meeting was attended by project staff, representatives of the traditional
authority, and government officials (see list of participants in Annexe 6).
The data gathering team again reported back to participants on the survey
process (meetings held, instruments used, villages visited – now including those
in the inland,) and reiterated the key issues from the survey of riparian villages
and from the previous meetings. The team then reported back on the issues
47
raised during interviews conducted at inland villages, including the main
resources people depend upon and the resources that people believed were
declining. The participants were then asked to discuss and comment on the
findings from the inland survey. They were then asked to prioritise what they
believed to be the most urgent overall issues that needed attention. Time was
also taken to try to identify solutions, building on solutions suggested at previous
meetings and during the survey. It had been intended to identify who could take
action to implement the suggested solutions, but there was insufficient time for
this. Finally participants were asked to identify who should represent the Mbunza
and Sambyu areas at future regional or basin-wide meetings of stakeholders.
I.
Main resources inland residents depend upon
a) Mbunza
Trees, wild fruits, water, soil, thatching grass (for own use),small wild animals,
birds, grazing, stones (Nsindi).
b) Sambyu
Soil, Grass, (thatching and grazing), trees, wild fruits, water, small wild animals
II.
Main resources inland residents believe are declining
a) Mbunza
- Usimba, small wild animals, grazing, reeds (Nkutu) – because they are being
burnt
b) Sambyu
Water, grazing, fruti trees (especially mangetti, usivi), Mugoro
III.
Main issues affecting inland residents22
i.
Nsindi Village – Fire damages resources especially wild fruits for beer –
Outsiders come to harvest resources without permission – No market
locally for sale of wild fruits and no transport to sell at river – Have to go
far to collect palm leaves for baskets – Need a clinic and a church
Nkutu village – Fire damages wild fruits and grazing – Reeds have gone
because of burning – Grazing is used by outsiders from Mile 10 and Mile
20 – Need a clinic and a secondary school
ii.
22
Two more villages were surveyed after this meeting
48
iii.
Gonwa Village – Fire caused by clearing of fields, hunters, herders and
unknown people – Outsiders cut trees that people depend upon,
especially mangetti and say they have a permit, but won’t show it – Govt.
trucks collect poles and wood at night – Need to rehabilitate wells because
can’t afford diesel for water pump – Govt. rules are not working because
resources are declining so it is better to return to traditional rules – People
at the river don’t seek permission of inland headmen to harvest resources
and should know better – Women need information on rights and
development options
IV.
Prioritisation of key issues and identification of solutions
Table 5. Prioritisation of issues and identification of solutions from the final formal meeting of the
Central Area Survey
ISSUE
SOLUTIONS
1. Overfishing
a) Closed season
b) Closed area for fish breeding
c) Control net mesh size
d) Develop existing ponds and establish fish farming
e) Improve co-operation between govt., traditional authorities and
communities over law enforcement
f) Education and training in sustainable fishing practices
g) Establish natural resource management/fishing committees to
improve liaison, communication and law enforcement
f) Appoint fishing monitors/guards
2. Over
utilisation
of a) Research – who uses, how much and how?
grass, reeds, trees b) Govt. permits (e.g. for tree cutting): an application for a permit
(including overgrazing)
must be signed by the traditional authority and permits must
be in the local language
- Need to address use by c) Strengthen communal tenure through:
outsiders and issues of - giving rights over resources
local tenure and control - right to exclude outsiders
- establishing community forests and conservancies
d) Education and training
e) Improved co-operation between govt. and traditional
authorities
f) Research on the availability of the resource
3. Erosion and silting of
the river
a) Reduce overpopulation of people and cattle near river through
providing water in the interior for grazing (e.g. earth dams) and
allocating land for farms inland
b) Prevent deforestation
c) Establish Community forest
4. Uncontrolled Fire
a) Education
b) Co-operation between community, MET, MAWRD and all
stakeholders
– govt. must hold more meetings in rural areas to impart
information
– Govt. should support the traditional authorities. If people know
the traditional authorities have power they will obey them
c) More training on fire control from DoF
49
6. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY IN THE KWANGALI AREA
Interviews were carried out at 11 villages in the Kwangali area.
Six were visited along the river:
Mbambi 223 Simanya
Nkurenkuru
Kahenge
Sitopogo
Nankudu
Interviews were carried out at five inland villages:
Mpungu
Kankudi
Yinsu
Canchana
Mutjokotjo
(Numbers of interviews, numbers of people interviewed)
6.1 Cultural, religious, social significance of the river to the people living within
the basin
As in other areas, the river and its resources play a central role in the life of
people in the Kwangali area, particularly those who live close to it. Resources are
used mainly for economic purposes, but there are some uses linked to cultural,
religious or social purposes.
For example, mangetti nuts, palm leaves and grass are used during religious
ceremonies; mangetti nuts are also given to people as part of traditional
ceremonies and used for making traditional beer.
Muparara (African wattle) is used for religious purposes during Christmas
celebrations for making traditional drums and Rupanda is used for making
traditional beds. Baskets are used for social purposes in households.
Generally people in the Kwangali area place an aesthetic value on resources
such as wildlife and believe that resources should be conserved for future
generations: “We are together with the aim of the project because I do not know
what an elephant looks like. I have only seen one in a book. We are wasting our
resources and are not even thinking about the future of our children,” said one
respondent. This view was echoed in most of the interviews.
23
Of the 15 people interviewed in this village using the natural resource use mapping instrument,
six described themselves as San people
50
6.2 Perception of communities on the state of the resource
There is awareness throughout the Kwangali area that resources are generally
declining, although some local variation and differences between villages was
reported. In some areas people say they have plenty of wild fruits and trees for
example, but at other villages, residents say these resources are declining.
At an inland village: “In the olden days we used to have many resources,
especially wild animals and others. But now we have destroyed everything and
our children won’t really benefit in future.”
Along the river, the perception that resources are declining is stronger, probably
related to the larger numbers of people at the river and greater pressure on
resources.
Information regarding specific resources was as follows:
Wild animals – At an inland village: “In the olden days such as in the 1960s, there
were a lot of big and small animals around. But since people have increased, and
started clearing more fields, it led to the running away of animals. People used to
kill some animals as relish for their survival and this was also a contributing factor
to the decline of animals.” Now small wild animals are declining because of forest
fires. Most large wild animals have disappeared from riparian areas, although
hippo and crocodile can be found in the far west such as at Mbambi. Animals
such as kudu and elephant visit some inland villages seasonally and some large
predators such as leopard and hyena are present in inland areas.
Trees and wild fruits – declining because of human population growth and forest
fires. A decline in rainfall was mentioned at one village as a reason for the
decline of these resources and others mentioned the clearing of fields.
Fish – declining because the river is getting shallower and there are no ponds
Reeds – declining because of cattle grazing and commercial cutting
A type of grass growing along the river in which fish hide – declining because
people using mosquito nets for fishing are destroying the grass
Water – some inland villages reported a shortage of water because of a drop in
the water table in some cases, and in others because of an increase in livestock
Grazing – also reported to be declining in many inland and river areas
Health of the river – “I have lived along the river for a long time. Even if you are
not an environmentalist, you can see things that used to be here are no longer
51
here. The river is now flowing along a desert. It used to flow along reeds and
trees. The river is sick and really struggling.” - a Senior Headman from a riparian
village.” Silting of the river was often mentioned by traditional leaders as a cause
of the river becoming shallower.
A thatching grass found near the river called “Marenge” – has declined because
of people cutting it and because of cattle grazing
At one inland village residents said the main reasons for the decline of resources
are: “Fire, population growth and ignorance”. Population growth was cited as a
main cause of the decline in resources at a number of other villages and during
the two formal meetings of the Kwangali survey.
6.3 Who is using the resource, how and who has control
To a certain extent, the Kwangali traditional authority is still viewed as having
control over natural resources. However, as in other areas, the authority of
traditional leaders is no longer recognised by all those wishing to use the
resources. There is overlapping authority over some resources such as trees
with central government issuing permits for the use of trees that are viewed as
being under local control. In some cases, residents believe that more wealthy
people have better access to resources controlled by central government which
require permits to be bought in order to have use rights.
At a riparian village: “The rules are there, but not effective because people are
trying to ignore some of the rules so they can gain access to the resources. The
government has also been ignored by the community because only the rich
people can afford to buy permits for the trees and animals, so poor people like us
have to ignore some of the rules in order to have the resources.”
At an inland village we were told that the traditional authority sets rules about fire
but “people always disobey the rules and do whatever they want”
This exchange took place during one of the formal meetings:
“In old days people would accept the authority of traditional leaders to issue fines
for breaking traditional laws. Now people refuse, and threaten to take the
headman or chief to court. Then people think the power of the chief has been
neutralised. The power needs to be given back to the chief so he can empower
the headmen again”. – Rudolf Ngondo Land and Farming Committee chair.
Response by Regional Councillor, John Hambyuka – “The powers of the
traditional authority are in ourselves. If I am fined and I pay, then I honour the
traditional law. If I don’t pay, then I don’t honour the powers of the traditional
52
authority. Who can give back their powers? It is ourselves. We need to inform
people that they should honour the traditional law”.
There are some differences in the extent to which residents manage to exert
local control over their resources with regard to use by “outsiders”. One comment
on this issue was as follows: “Outsiders (people from Rundu) always come with
big trucks and steal timber trees. They do not ask for permission or show their
permits”.
However, another village seemed to be more successful in controlling use by
outsiders: “Since the beginning, we have tried to be responsible for the natural
resources. That’s why outsiders usually pass through the area headman if they
want to collect any resources here.” - residents of a riparian village.
In general everyone is viewed as having equal rights to access resources
regardless of status in the community. However, some forms of “individual”
ownership of resources is being recognised or claimed. For example at one
riparian village residents said the fruit trees in a crop field belong to the person
who cleared the field and others are not able to take the fruit without permission.
Equal access to resources does not necessarily apply to the minority San people
however: “Racial discrimination is among the black people. We Bushmen are
being neglected a bit, but we are used to it. It is part of life.” – San person at an
inland village. Most of the San interviewed described themselves as domestic
workers for people from other ethnic groups.
6.4 Institutions and governance within the community
Governance structures within the Kwangali area reflect the typical Kavango
situation. The Chief is advised by a Chief’s Traditional Council which in Kwangali
has 13 members, not all of which are headmen. Some members are
businessmen for example. The council is appointed by the chief, advises him and
assists him in decision-making. There are headmen in all the main villages.
Water point committees have been established at village and at constituency
level and a number of water points have been handed over to communities in the
Kwangali area.
Other structures include:
An education committee at constituency level; school boards; women’s groups
churches and church groups.
The constituency development committee (CDC) was mentioned by one village
as enforcing the laws on the sustainable use of resources. A CDC is functioning
53
in Kahenge constituency and some large villages have their own development
committees.
6.5 Traditional knowledge and management systems of natural resources
There is considerable knowledge about plants, animals, birds and reptiles that
can be used for different purposes, including for food, medicine, clothing,
ceremonies, tributes, decoration, building purposes and tools. The resource use
tables show that respondents mentioned a total of ……… trees and plants,
…..animals, …..birds, ……… reptiles and amphibians (number still to be
computed) that are used for these purposes (see Annexe 2 which provides a
consolidated list of natural resources for the Central Area derived from the
resource use tables and traditional doctor resource use tables).
There is also considerable awareness in the Kwangali area of the need for
“sustainable” management of resources:
“In order for our children and our grand children to benefit from the resources,
we must control the sustainability of resources. We must not only think of
ourselves, but also of others who want to use the resources as much as we are.”
- Resident of an inland village.
At a riparian village: “We really want the resources to stay stable so that our
children will access them in future. But if we destroy the resources, we are killing
the life of our children.”
“In the olden days we never used mosquito nets for fishing, only fish traps
because we knew that fishing with fish traps saves small or tiny fish from being
caught.” – resident at a riparian village.
A confused picture emerges from responses to questions on whether traditional
rules exist governing the use of and access to resources. At an inland village:
“We access plants, grasses and trees anytime, there are no rules except for
timber trees. We do not use timber trees.” At another inland village, residents
said there were no rules for access and utilisation of flowers, plants, bushes,
grasses and trees. The same was reported at a riparian village where residents
said there were no rules except for using mosquito nets for fishing, but the rule
didn’t work.
However, residents at another inland village said there were rules set by the
government and by the traditional authorities against the cutting of fruit trees.
Four out of five villages interviewed using the resource mapping tool said there
were no rules for using wild animals. At the other village residents said there
were rules set by the central government (MET) and by the traditional authority.
54
Only one village reported that there were rules about access to and utilisation of
fish. There were no rules for access to and utilisation of reptiles, amphibians and
birds.
However, there is agreement that rules are set by the traditional authorities for
controlling fire. People would be fined for starting uncontrolled fires.
No “off limits” areas or seasonal variation in rules of access or harvesting
according to season were reported. No areas are left fallow or to recover,
although one inland village reported that it was planning to introduce such an
idea.
6.6 Perceptions on rights that people upstream and downstream have
In general, people are willing to share resources (particularly during drought
periods) and only really distinguish between themselves and a general category
of “outsiders”.
Resource sharing has always taken place between people in Namibia and their
Angolan neighbours across the river:
“In the old days we used to go to Angola to collect some of the wild fruits like
mangetti and monkey oranges and even the Angolans used to come to our area
to collect wild fruits. We even learned how to make traditional beer from the
Angolan people. At present we are not allowed to go across that side even to cut
reeds at the other side of the river24.
“The Angolans used to come and collect resources in our area and sell some of
the resources from their country to us”.
6.7 Perceptions on rights that out of basin resource users have
Again, respondents tended to think in terms of “outsiders” using local resources
such as wild fruits, when considering questions regarding the rights and needs of
out of basin resource users. Typical responses were:
“Outsiders collect resources as much as they can and we cannot restrict them
because they are in a free country”, and, “the relationship between national
needs and our needs is almost the same because all the wild fruits are shared
among anyone who feels like having or using that particular resource”
24
Due to the security situation
55
6.8 Perceptions on rights (within local context) that non-riparian communities
have
Inland residents generally felt they had access to resources at the river and
riparian residents accepted that non-riparian communities could use the riparian
resources. They do, however, expect inland residents to seek permission to use
resources through the local headman. At the same time, some residents feel that
their resources have become “open access” resources:
“It (access to resources by others) cannot be controlled because the Namibian
people have freedom of movement and they are coming to collect whatever they
want in this area” – resident of a riparian village.
6.9 The History of the community as told by them
Little detailed information was collected and generally residents were not able to
answer on when their village was established:
Mpungu (large inland village): Residents could not tell which year the village was
started. The village was established because of good soil for agriculture and
there was plenty of wild fruits and grazing. Hard times were faced when there
was a lack of water and then they had to travel with their livestock to the river.
Currently there is insufficient grazing and “desertification” is setting in.
Siopogo village (along the river): Residents did not know when the village was
established, but said it had been started when they had fled Angola “because of
the Portuguese”.
6.10 How the river and its resources can help develop community members' lives
There is widespread recognition of the importance of the river and its resources
for local livelihoods:
“We depend much on natural resources and some of us get food and clothes
from these resources,” said one respondent.
Residents have a number of ideas about how the river and its resources can be
further used for local development. A number of people mentioned vegetable
gardens as a good way to use the water from the river and said they needed
support in establishing such gardens. At one village, residents said they have
skills such as wood carving, basket making, gardening (vegetables) and building,
but do not have the resources to start these activities.
56
Women at one village want to conserve palm trees for basket making and there
is some awareness of tourism and a belief that tourists could be attracted to the
area. For example a regional councillor suggested that if the river was healthy
again, and its vegetation was restored, wild animals and birds would return and
this would be an attraction for tourists. Villagers were also aware that tourists
were interested in seeing wild animals and this was often cited as a reason for
bringing back wild animals.
Timber exploitation furniture making
development options.
and carving were also suggested as
There was widespread awareness of the potential to establish conservancies and
community forests. Many areas were suggested where such entities could be
started. The aim of residents was mostly to protect resources that were thought
to be declining such as wild fruit trees, fish etc. The establishment of
conservancies was linked to the re-introduction of wildlife for local enjoyment and
education, but also to the attraction of tourists and income.
A number of places for conservancies and community forests were identified by
regional councillors headmen and villagers:
In Mpungu constituency: Tuguva village westwards to Katwitwi (wildlife, also
marenge and fish ponds).
Mangetti game camp
West of Kasivi: including a palm area (particularly with the aim of conserving the
palms for basket making; also thatching grass)
Gcwagi and Mahenzera: along the river and various ponds – protection for
fishing and water lilies (food)
Kahenge to Morema eastwards: to protect thatching grass(marenge) and fish
ponds
60 km from Mururani gate: Mpandu, Tjoha, Mpuku omuramba – for trees
Siphugu: to protect trees
Omuramba Nzinze to Mpungu
Siyena: to protect wild fruit trees
Mbambamusi: to protect fruit trees
Nkurenkuru: near ELCIN school area – residents are ooking for assistance in:
- surveys
- mapping the area
- organisation and supervision
- procedures for conservancy registration
- training
- finance for materials (e.g. fencing)
Plans for conservancies and community forests have been discussed at
constituency development committee meetings and at the RDCC. Regional
57
councillors have expressed a need for funds to employ some specialists to
survey the proposed areas to see whether they are viable.
6.11 Management structures that communities would like to see
Residents would like to see rights over resources devolved to the local level so
that people can be responsible for the management of their own resources on
their own behalf:
“We will be happy if we get this because we are the ones benefitting from the
resources around this village and we will be pleased to manage the resources
sustainably” – residents of an inland village.
However residents of another inland village said: “It’s alright to be responsible for
the management of the resources, but we need to have a strong committee in
this area including the headman, so that we can work as a team and be
responsible on our behalf for the management of our own natural resources”.
There is general agreement that there needs to be more co-operation and
agreement within the communities themselves in order to manage resources
better.
Some respondents identified the need for what could be seen as “comanagement” of resources through increased co-operation between traditional
authorities and government: “The government and the traditional laws must come
together, because the government is issuing permits to the people and the ones
getting the permit do not always show their papers to the headmen.” – resident of
an inland village.
There is a general recognition of traditional leaders and the traditional authority
as the channels for problem solving. Residents at several villages said the
traditional leaders were effective in providing information and feed back. The
traditional leaders are viewed as the main structure through which resources
should be managed: “The traditional rules should be strengthened like in the
olden days. Now the traditional authority is mixed up with the government rules.”
- residents of an inland village.
Conservancies and community forests are viewed as extensions of the traditional
authority rather in the same way as the Land and Farming Committee, which is
under the authority of the chief, but does not consist of headman only.
Residents at two inland villages said they needed a fire committee to deal with
uncontrolled fires.
58
6.12 The institutional, information-sharing capacity, resources communities see
as needed
At an inland village residents said the Ministry of Environment and Tourism
should “educate the people on how to take care of and manage the resources”.
At another inland village: “The Ministry of Environment and Tourism must
educate the people living here on how they must take control of the natural
resources. People are illiterate on using resources. The MET only come
whenever someone in the village kills an elephant. And the bad thing is they
arrest the killer and the eaters. They must not only sit in offices, but try to travel
and assist people with their problems”.
A Regional councillor suggested there was a need for materials and books to
inform the young people about how the river used to be and the need to
conserve it.
Specific needs mentioned were:
Information on fire
The need to conserve wild animals (especially preceding any plans for reintroductions linked to conservancies)
Training in furniture making and carving
Information on appropriate harvesting of fruit trees
Information on management of grazing areas and land use planning
6.13 Peoples' views on whether the resource can be developed or kept in its
natural state
From the data presented above, the conclusion can be drawn that residents are
opposed to large scale transformation of the land and its resources because they
depend upon those resources for their survival. However, they do not believe
resources should be kept in their “natural state” if this means non-use.
6.14
Results of formal meetings during the Kwangali Survey
First meeting (Nkurenkuru, 16.07.01)
This meeting was attended by project staff, representatives of the traditional
authority and government officials (see list of participants in Annexe 6).
Participants were invited to give short presentations on a) activities carried out by
their organisation and b) their perceptions of resource management issues and
problems. From the various presentations, the key issues and problems were
59
identified along with some possible solutions (Table 6.). Suggestions and ideas
came from different stakeholders, but agreement was sought from the meeting
before an issue or solution was recorded. The issues and solutions are
presented below (not in any order of priority):
Table 6. Problems and solutions identified at the first formal meeting of the Kwangali Survey
ISSUE
SOLUTIONS
1. Silting of River
a) Plant on ridges to stop soil erosion
- Erosion caused by loss
of grass and reed
- Donga Erosion
2. Burning
- Especially a problem
inland
- People do not obey
traditional laws on
burning
a) Need to implement cutline programme (having cutlines also
helps to trace origin of fire)
b) Provide more information on sustainable natural resource
management
3. Over fishing
- Caused by fishing with
nets, (especially
mosquito nets)
a) Provide more information on sustainable natural resource
management
4. High density of people
and livestock at river
- Puts pressure on
resources
a)
b)
c)
d)
5. Slash and burn
cultivation along river
and inland
- Causes deforestation
a) Provide more information on sustainable natural resource
management
b) Identify & promote appropriate forms of land use
c) Establish community forests/conservancies
- Protect resources
- Bring tourists
a) Sell cattle to prevent overgrazing and soil erosion
6. Overstocking of
livestock (including
donkeys)
Sell cattle to prevent overgrazing and soil erosion
More bore holes inland to relieve pressure at river
Need bore holes inland for livestock only
Identify & promote appropriate forms of land use
7. Erosion into fields
caused by road
construction
8. Water
- People
flock
to
boreholes
- People don’t attend
training for water point
committees
- Water table is dropping
a) Earth dams
60
Second and final meeting (Nkurenkuru, 26.07.01)
This meeting was attended by project staff, representatives of the traditional
authority and government officials (see list of participants in Annexe 6). A report
back meeting in mid survey was not held because of the logistical problems of
holding such meetings in this area..
The data gathering team reported back to participants on the survey process
(meetings held, instruments used, and villages visited) and reiterated the key
issues and suggested solutions from the first formal meeting. The team then
reported back on the issues raised during interviews conducted at inland villages
and along the river, including the main resources people depend upon and the
resources that people believed were declining. The participants were then asked
to discuss and comment on the findings from the survey. They were then asked
to prioritise what they believed to be the most urgent overall issues that needed
attention.
I.
Main resources people depend upon
a) Along the river
-
Water
Wild fruits (especially mangetti, monkey orange and wild berries)
Palm leaves for baskets
Sand and stone for building
Trees for poles
Thatching grass
b) Inland
II.
Water (including wells and ponds in the omiramba
Wild Fruits
Thatching grass
Trees for poles
Clay for building
Grass for grazing
Small wild animals
Palm leaves for baskets
Main resources people say are declining
a) Along the river
-
Fish
Wild fruits (especially at Kahenge)
Small wild animals
61
-
Grazing (due to increased number of livestock & influx of people with
livestock from Angola because of security problems)
b) Inland
-
-
III.
Small wild animals (due to increased human population, clearing of fields
& hunting and at Kankudi a decline in pangolins and pythons because of
fire)
Grazing (due to fire)
Water (due to lower water table & poor maintenance of government bore
holes)
Problems and issues from the survey
a) Along the river
-
Fire
Lack of grazing
Not enough access to fish (no ponds, no floodplains)
Mbambi/Simanya villages: Crocodiles eating people and livestock; hippos
destroying crops; the grass where the fish hide is missing from the river
b) Inland
-
Fire
Lack of water (especially at Mutjokotjo)
Lack of grazing areas (because of increasing numbers of people)
Too many livestock
Problem animals (two people had been killed by crocodiles at Mbambi village)
Need for education/information (especially about nature conservation laws)
Overgrazing at Mpungu (people bring cattle from 20-30 km away for water)
At Kahenge village, no help received in developing vegetable garden
Protection of wild fruit trees (suggested forest reserves at Siyena and
Mbambamusi)
Protection of wild animals (People at Kankudi saw wild animals in the Etosha
National Park and want to have a place where tourists can see wild animals in
the Kwangali area)
c) General issue
Traditional laws
- Not followed always
- Not enforced always
- Government gives permits for cutting of fruit trees that people protect under
traditional law
- People don’t report poaching
62
IV.
Prioritised problems and solutions
Table 7. Prioritised problems and solutions from the final formal meeting of the Kwangali Survey
ISSUE
SOLUTIONS
1. Lack of water
a) More bore holes
b) Establish earth dams
c) Pipeline from river to inland + storage reservoir for distribution
d) Study of Angolan catchment to see why river flow is reduced
(e.g. a dry tributary in Angola)
2. Burning
a) Implement cutline programme
b) Establish fire committees
c) Education/information
d) Honour traditional laws
e) Establish a community forest with cutlines
3. Cutting of trees
a) Education/information
- wasteful cutting
b) Establish forestry committee
- cutting of fruit trees and c) Enforce traditional laws
timber trees
d) Establish protected wild fruit areas (e.g. Siyena)
e) Harmonise government and traditional laws
f) Government and traditional authority should co-operate on
issuing permits
4. Overgrazing
a) More bore holes inland to relieve pressure at river
b) Government should repair and maintain broken bore
holes/pumps
c) Education on managing grazing areas
d) Land use planning – fields vs grazing areas
5. Traditional Laws
a) Traditional Laws should be supported and enforced (especially
- Not always honoured or
by the police)
enforced
b) There should be co-operation between the different levels of
- Unclear role of
government
traditional authority in
c) Traditional laws should be documented and made known to
various levels of
magistrates and the police
government
- Laws not written so not
recognised
6. Silting of river
a) Dredge river and sell the sand
- Need to deal with sand b) Plough along slopes and not downhill
already in river and c) Prevent erosion from road construction and maintenance
prevent erosion
d) Prevent burning of thatching grass near the river
63
7. RESULTS OF THE SURVEY IN THE MBUKUSHU AREA
Interviews were carried out at seven villages (a smaller number than for the other
areas because of the smaller area and population) in the Mbukushu area25.
Four were visited along the river:
Kangongo
Mukwe
Mutsi’ku
Kamutjonga
Interviews were carried out at three inland villages:
Kambimba
Korokosha
Mangamba
(Numbers of interviews, number of people inerviewed)
7.1 Cultural, religious, social significance of the river to the people living within the
basin
The survey received few direct responses to the questions in the natural
resource use mapping instrument regarding the cultural, religious and social
significance of the river and associated resources. Most uses of resources stated
by respondents were for economic rather than for cultural, religious or social
purposes. However, respondents mentioned some resources that were used for
other purposes:
Palm leaves, animal skins and tails:
purposes.
used for cultural purposes and religious
Makuvera, Mangindu: for beating drums for cultural and religious purposes.
25
The area surveyed included land on the eastern side of the Kavango River in what is
technically the Caprivi Game Reserve. In 1990, during a socio-ecological survey carried out by
the MET, there were few Mbuskushu people living on this side of the river and the main
inhabitants were the Kxoe (Brown and Jones 1994). Subsequent to the 1990 survey various
government projects were launched on the eastern side including an agricultural project and a
prison farm. Also many Mbuskushu people moved across the river, settled, cleared land for
crops and took their cattle with them. This encroachment undermined the integrity of the Caprivi
Game Reserve as well as an agreement between the MET and Kxoe inhabitants that they would
not settle south of the Caprvi highway as this area was important for wildlife including elephants.
The Namibian Cabinet has approved the deproclamation of the settled land and the
reproclamation of a new protected area, the Bwabwata National Park, which would also
incorporate the Mahango Game Reserve on the western bank of the river. The new park has not
been surveyed and gazetted because of the security situation. During the current survey, Kxoe
and Mbukushu residents were interviewed at Mutsi’ku on the eastern side of the river.
64
Kakundu: for ceremonies and Mutjokotjo for traditional dances.
Kudu and buffalo: for traditional feasts
Mangetti nuts: for oil for cultural purposes.
The most important non-economic significance of the river for the Mbukushu
people is the Chief’s burial ground on Shipanana Island near Andara. This is a
sacred island and is protected by a dragon that will not allow people to access
the island for improper purposes.
7.2 Perception of communities on the state of the resource
There is some local variation of perceptions concerning the state of various
resources, although overall there is agreement that some key resources are
declining.
At Kamutjonga village (close to the river and bordering Mahango Game Reserve)
residents said the following were declining:
Trees
Grass
Reeds
Palm leaves
The main causes given for the decline were elephants, fire and overpopulation.
However, at Kambimba and Korokosho inland, people said their resources were
in good condition because they were looking after them, although wild animals
had declined because of “trophy hunting, fire and overcrowded population (the
clearing of fields)”.
At Kangongo on the river, the main shortage was of wild animals (large and
small), thatching grass and grazing areas.
Respondents at two settlements at Mutsi’ku (mixed ethnically between Kxoe San
and Mbukushu): residents said no resources were declining.
During the first formal meeting of the survey considerable concern was
expressed at the decline in the level of the river and the disappearance of wild
animals associated with the river. It was noted that over the past years it had
become possible to walk across the river because it was so shallow, but this had
not been the case in the past. Some wild spinach used to grow when the river
flooded, but hasn’t grown over the past years because the river has been so low.
65
Causes cited for the drop in the level of the river and disappearance of certain
resources were increased human pressure and low rainfall. Concern was also
expressed at pollution of the river coming from the mission station and hospital at
Andara (sewage and water from corpses and new born babies), and coming from
sewage at Rundu.
7.3 Who is using the resource, how and who has control
In general all residents have access to resources according to their needs
irrespective of social status. As in other areas of Kavango there is a problem of
people not co-operating with the traditional authority over the enforcement of
traditional rules. People cite human rights as a reason for not paying a fine
imposed by the traditional leadership.
7.4 Institutions and governance within the community
Respondents mentioned the following institutions and structures:
Water point committees
Schools
Churches and church groups
Village Development Committee (mentioned at Kangongo, Mukwe and Mutsi’ku)
Constituency Development Committee
The current Mbukushu chief, Erwin Mbambo, has not appointed a Land and
Farming Committee. His chieftanship has been contested and community
members have twice arranged their own election of a new chief. Central
Government still recognises Chief Mbambo as the legitimate chief of the
Mbukushu.
The Kxoe people living on the east bank of the Kavango River do not accept the
Mbukushu chief as their overall traditional leader although this authority is
claimed by the Mbukushu and is supported by Kavango regional councillors. The
Kxoe say they have their own traditional leadership that does not fall under the
Mbukushu. The Kxoe claim that the Mbukushu are using resources on the east
bank illegally. The Mbukushu in this area recognise the Kxoe Chief as their local
headman.
7.5 Traditional knowledge and management systems of natural resources
There is considerable knowledge about plants, animals, birds and reptiles that
can be used for different purposes, including for food, medicine, clothing,
ceremonies, tributes, decoration, building purposes and tools. The resource use
66
tables show that respondents mentioned a total of ……… trees and plants,
…..animals, …..birds, ……… reptiles and amphibians (number still to be
computed) that are used for these purposes (see Annexe 2 which provides a
consolidated list of natural resources for the Central Area derived from the
resource use tables and traditional doctor resource use tables).
Respondents showed a high degree of awareness of the need for sustainable
management:
“We want to use our resources sustainably and do not want people to misuse the
resources – not to cut down trees for no reason” – residents of a village in West
Caprivi.
“The main aim is to manage our resources in a sustainable way that even our
great grand children to come can still find the resources existing” - resident of an
inland village.
“The Kxoe survive on the wild fruits and wildlife so it’s important that these
resources must be around us because they are our mother and we are their
children” – Kxoe inhabitant of a village in the Caprivi Game Park.
Another Kxoe inhabitant: “If people want to live with their animals, I appeal to
them to stop firing guns and rather use the bow and arrow so that the animals will
not fear people. That is why a Bushman is a good man to survive with animals
because he knows how to get a few and leave others for the future. The thing of
using nets to catch fish is finishing the fish in the river, they better introduce the
ancestors method of fish traps to get the big ones only and leave the small ones
to survive and grow bigger”.
Generally there was agreement that traditional rules exist to prevent the cutting
of wild fruit trees, to prevent the setting of uncontrolled fires and governing
access to grass, trees and bushes.
In some cases, but not others, the rules seem to be effective:
“The rules are still working because wild fruit trees are not cut off, since the rules
were set by the traditional authority and against the burning of fire. If you are
fund, then you will be charged accordingly”. – resident of an inland village.
“Rules are existing, but are not followed by outsiders.” – village next to Mahango
Game Reserve,
At a riparian village, residents said outsiders were not allowed to harvest
thatching grass near the village. They had to buy it from the villagers. This rule
was enforced by the traditional authority.
67
Residents at two settlements at Mutsi’ku in the Caprivi Game Reserve said there
were no rules for use of flowers, plants, bushes, grasses or trees. However, one
resident said (in answer to a different question): “The rules are helping us not to
misuse the resources. If there were no rules to help us, we could not have found
the trees in this area, and would not have survived until this time”.
People were well aware of government rules regarding killing of wildlife because
of the proximity of the two game reserves. However, at Mutsi’ku again, residents
said there were no rules regarding the use of wild animals.
One village reported rules for not harvesting small fish and not using mosquito
nets. No rules were reported for the use of reptiles, amphibians or birds, apart
from government rules about not killing birds.
No off limits areas were reported apart from the proclaimed protected areas and
the area north of the main road in the Caprivi Game Park where the Kxoe were
being denied access to wild fruit areas by the Namibian Defence Force because
of the security situation.
7.6 Perceptions on rights that people upstream and downstream have
“People living along the river have to take care of it, especially the Angolans and
people from Botswana. They also have to take care of their resources and it is
where the richness of the resources are coming from”. – resident of a village in
West Caprivi.
Generally, however, most residents think in terms of outsiders (from other areas
of Kavango or from Caprivi) and tourists when asked to consider the rights of
others regarding the use of the river.
7.7 Perceptions on rights that out of basin resource users have
“The relationship between local needs and national needs is really strong
because tourists are coming to visit our area on a daily basis” – resident at a
village next to Mahango Game Reserve.
7.8 Perceptions on rights (within local context) that non-riparian communities
have
“The relationship with outsiders is just normal because they are permitted by the
area headman to access natural resources in our area.” – resident of a riparian
village.”
68
“The outsiders are having the same rights over the resources as us as long as
they follow the authority being given from the area headman” – resident of a
riparian village.
7.9 The History of the community as told by them
Mangamba village (inland)
Residents said the village was established in 1974 because of better grazing
areas and fertile soils for farming. They experienced hard times two years ago
when there was a drought, but the last two years’ crops were good. A long time
ago, in 1985, their parents also harvested a lot of crops and the rain was good.
Mukwe village (riparian)
“This area was established by our great-great grandfather. Our forefathers were
born in this area and died here. That’s why we also find ourselves here.” Good
times were in good rain years, and bad times were in years of drought.
Mutsi’ku (Caprivi Game Park): The Mbukushu say they arrived in the Mutsi’ku
area during the colonial times and others moved there after independence. They
moved there for the grazing and fertile soil for the crops. However, the schools
only use English and the San language, not Mbukushu. They want to be
recognised as a tribe settled at Mutsi’ku for many years.
In the past people were moved by the government from what is now the
Mahango Game Reserve in 1934 for easier tax collection purposes. The people
of Kamutjonga village next to Mahango Game Reserve were refugees from
Angola. They were moved into the area which is now the reserve, and then
moved out when the park was created.
7.10 How the river and its resources can help develop community members'
lives
Of all the areas surveyed in the Kavango Region, the Mbukushu area has the
greatest potential for tourism development. This is due to the existence of the
Mahango Game Reserve and the Caprivi Game Park, both of which contain
riverine and woodland habitats with their attendant mammal and bird life. There
are several existing lodges and camp sites along the river on the western bank.
Tourist numbers had declined because of the security situation, but had begun to
pick up again during the time of the survey.
69
Residents are well aware of the potential for tourism to contribute to the local
economy:
“Because of the wild animals here, people travel through Botswana to see them
and they leave the money and see some nice scenery.” – resident of a village in
the Caprivi Game Reserve.
“It’s really important to manage resources in our area because it’s bringing
tourists and promotes tourism activities. Tourists are staying day and night at
Popa Falls, Mahangu Game Reserve and different lodges.” – residents of a
riparian village.
There is considerable potential for greater community involvement in tourism and
its benefits. One private sector lodge owner provided the author with an
impressive list of ideas for tourism activities linked to local communities which
would considerably enhance their income.
There are however, some constraints to better links between the private sector
and local residents. During the formal survey meetings a number of issues were
raised concerning relationships with the private sector. There were some
complaints that workers were exploited by lodges and not paid well enough.
According to chief Mbambo, the attitude of some lodge owners is not always
appropriate: “Some of the lodges try to rule the area like this is their own land.
Some lodges wanted to sell our land.”
There are considerable benefits that could also accrue to local communities from
the protected areas. These benefits could include greater income from tourism,
but could also include access to resources within the protected areas. One
possibility that has already been investigated is the sustainable harvesting of
palm leaves within the Mahango Game Reserve. Hines and Cunningham (1992)
concluded that:
“In eastern Kavango, Hyphaene palms have undergone a massive decline in
numbers, largely through cutting of plants for the ‘palm hearts’. The only large
populations of palms remaining in the area all fall within the Mahango Game
Reserve. Preliminary assessments of the palms (Hyphaene petersiana) in the
Mahango Game Reserve…indicate that there are sufficient palms to support a
sustainable of leaves for basketry. There are 4 discrete areas of palms and
annual leaf production could support up to 1 200 basket makers. Controlled
access to this resource is recommended as a way in which local inhabitants can
profit from the Reserve…Cutting of palms should be made dependent on
registration of basket makers’ associations in each village and the establishment
of artificially planted palm populations outside the park.”
When the Mahango Game reserve was first established, the tribal authority was
promised a share of the income from gate money by the government in
70
exchange for giving up the land for conservation. At the first formal meeting of
the survey we were told that only two such payments were made and then the
arrangement came to a halt. It was suggested at the same meeting that income
from the game reserve could be used by the tribal authority for improving
infrastructure such as inland roads which could also serve as fire breaks.
“Mahango could be our diamonds”, one participant commented.
Trophy hunting takes place within the Caprivi Game Park and within Mahango.
The meat from the hunts is supposed to be distributed by the hunter to local
villages. Residents at Kamutjonga village complained that the meat from the
hunting in Mahango is not distributed properly. MET staff drop off bones stripped
of most of their meat and the villagers suspect that the rangers keep the best
meat for themselves.
The broken promise by government to share the revenue from the Mahango
Game Reserve has left a feeling of mistrust with local people. “If you come with
good ideas, don’t be surprised if we reject them. We learnt our lesson with
Mahango”, said Chief Mbambo at one of the formal meetings of the survey.
In order for residents of the Mbukushu area to fully benefit from wildlife and
tourism, two important actions need to be taken. On the community side,
residents need to form a conservancy in order to provide the framework for them
to receive income from tourism and hunting on their own land. Such an
institutional arrangement would also provide a suitable structure for protected
area staff to negotiate and work with. On the government side, the proposed
policy on parks and neighbours of the MET needs to be approved and
implemented. For a full discussion of possible benefits to communities from
protected areas such as Mahango, and proposals for the MET parks and
neighbours policy see Jones 1997. The suggestion to form a conservancy was
made during the first formal meeting of the Mbukushu area survey. However,
Chief Mbambo told the author during the survey that he is not happy with
conservancy proposals because of the way the conservancy approach is being
applied in the Caprivi Game Reserve. He said the conservancy being developed
there was only for the Kxoe people and was undermining unity among his
people26.
Irrigated small-scale gardens were another suggestion for improving people’s
livelihoods made during the survey. Many such irrigated gardens have been
started by development agencies in the area in the past and nearly all have
failed. Participants in the formal meetings of the survey often referred to the
number of failed development projects in the region and warned that they
expected action from the Every River project, not just words.
26
The stated policy of the NGO working in the Caprivi Game Reserve, Integrated Rural
Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC), follows the legal provisions for conservancies
that state that no-one can be excluded from membership on the grounds of ethnicity or gender.
71
7.11
Management structures that communities would like to see
There is general acceptance of the role of traditional authorities in managing
natural resources. At a riparian village, residents said they were responsible for
the management of natural resources through the traditional authority. There is
also a feeling that local control and authority should be extended:
“We want to benefit from natural resources ourselves, not the government only.
The community are the people who are experiencing the problem – let them
benefit from the resource.” – a resident at a village in West Caprivi. A second
added that elephants and hippos were destroying their crops and that tourists
were paying to see the animals. However, the money goes to the government.
“Why not to the people whose crops are destroyed, because they take care of
the wildlife.”
One village suggested the establishment of a fire committee with the
government.
7.12 The institutional, information-sharing capacity, resources communities
see as needed
Very few suggestions on information needs were gathered during the survey. In
general, villagers wanted information on better management of resources.
7.13 Peoples' views on whether the resource can be developed or kept in its
natural state
From the data presented above, the conclusion can be drawn that residents are
opposed to large scale transformation of the land and its resources because they
depend upon those resources for their survival. They do not view absolute
protection of resources as an option because of their dependence on the
resources for their livelihoods.
7.14 Results of formal meetings during the Mbukushu Survey
First meeting (Popa Falls, 24.08.01)
This meeting was attended by project staff, representatives of the traditional
authority and government officials (see list of participants in Annexe 6).
72
Participants were invited to give short presentations on a) activities carried out by
their organisation and b) their perceptions of resource management issues and
problems. From the various presentations, the key issues and problems were
identified along with some possible solutions. Suggestions and ideas came from
different stakeholders, but agreement was sought from the meeting before an
issue or solution was recorded. The issues and solutions are presented below
(not in any order of priority):
i. Issues concerning the river:
- it is becoming shallower perhaps because of water being abstracted for
irrigation, increased pressure and lower rainfall
- pollution
- declining resources
ii. Failed development projects
- many development projects have been started in the area but have failed
- there is a need for development in the area
iii. Problem Animals
- Predators from the Buffalo area and Mahango Game Reserve kill livestock
- Elephants and other animals from the Buffalo area and Mahango damage
or eat crops
- Crocodiles eat livestock and people
iv. Fire
-
Inland: destroys wild fruits, enters game parks and burns vegetation
On islands in river: destroys resources; caused by Angolans
Cutlines are needed to help prevent fires from spreading
v. Poaching
- a problem in the Buffalo area and the Mahango Game Reserve
vi. Water
- availability is a problem in some areas, particularly inland
- in some inland areas the water quality is not good
vii. Destruction of vegetation
-
in the Mahango Game Reserve
caused by too many elephants
viii. Reeds are declining
73
ix. Lack of co-operation with traditional laws
- Some people do not respect the traditional laws
- Some people do not accept the authority of traditional leaders to issue
fines if people break traditional rules for managing resources
x. No benefits from Mahango Game Reserve
- The tribal authority was promised a share of income from the Mahango
Game Reserve in return for giving the land for conservation
- Income was received for a couple of years in the 1980s and then stopped
xi. No benefits from safari hunting
- Safari hunting takes place in Mahango, but the government gets all the
income
- The meat from the safari hunting is not distributed so that local people can
benefit properly
xii. There is a need for a conservancy
-
A conservancy is required to provide a mechanism for people to benefit
from the game parks and from the safari hunting
xiii. Poor relationships with some lodges
-
Some of the lodge managers and the manager of Shadikongoro do not
respect the local headmen
Some lodges exploit their workers
Some whites at the lodges treat local residents like human beings but some
don’t
Second and final meeting (Popa Falls Malaria Camp, 31.08.01)
This meeting was attended by project staff, representatives of the traditional
authority, government officials, visitors from the Botswana component of the
project and staff members of Namibian partner NGOs (see list of participants in
Annexe 6). A mid survey report back meeting was not held because of the
shortened time during which this survey was held.
The data gathering team reported back to participants on the survey process
(meetings held, instruments used, and villages visited) and reiterated the key
issues from the first formal meeting. A number of issues submitted by one of the
tourist lodges in the area were also presented to the meeting. The team then
reported back on the issues raised during interviews conducted at inland villages
and along the river, including the main resources people depend upon and the
resources that people believed were declining. The participants were then asked
74
to discuss and comment on the findings from the survey. They were then asked
to prioritise what they believed to be the most urgent overall issues that needed
attention.
At this stage, despite attempts by the Chair to move the meeting forward, Chief
Mbambo repeatedly stated that there was no point going further with the meeting.
The key issues had been identified, and there was reason to discuss them
further. Despite a willingness by a number of junior headmen to continue, Chief
Mbambo made it clear the meeting should stop. As it appeared as if there was
little likelihood of prioritising the issues and completing the workshop, the Chair
closed the meeting. This was the only meeting during the whole survey that was
not conducted in a good spirit by senior community leaders.
I.
Issues submitted by fax to the project by the owner of Suclabo Lodge, one
of five lodges between Divundu and the Mahango Game Reserve: 27

The proclaimed nature conservation areas, the Mahango Game Reserve and
the West Caprivi Game Reserve, are deteriorating especially since Cecember
1999. No, or untrained, game wardens resulted in uncontrolled poaching,
shooting and a free-for-all area (including the Special Field Force, the
Namibia Defence Force and the Angolan soldiers)
The river and its islands are endangered by the depletion of fish resources
through the extensive application of nets, hunting with dogs of otters and
other small game. This is mainly done by children.
Strict control or even prohibition of private speed boats on the river needs to
be introduced. The few hippo families left between Popa and the Mahango
Game Reserve need to be protected.
The triangle between Divundu (Prisons), the river, the Caprivi highway and
the Caprivi Game Reserve is of great concern. The area, which used to be a
natural extension for elephants and other game along the river, has in the
past few years been subject to resettlement of people resulting in nearly total
deforestation, bush fires etc. Our urgent plea is to at least proclaim this area
as a conservancy or even include this area as part of the game reserve.
Ten years ago, elephant could be viewed from Suclabo Lodge on the other
side of the river – today one can view trucks on the Caprivi Highway due to
deforestation.
Polluting and littering in Divundu and along the main road to mahango needs
to be urgently addressed. The current status is a disgrace and certainly will
not contribute to attracting tourists. Community awareness programmes
would be of great assistance.
Suclabo Lodge urges the Ministry of Environment and Tourism to review its
decision not to allow boat cruises in the Mahango Game Reserve. Such a






27
These issues were presented during the final meeting, but were not necessarily agreed upon
by all participants. It was clear that some community leaders disagreed with some of the
statements. It was not possible to resolve these disagreements because no representative of the
lodge was present and the meeting was in any case curtailed.
75
boat cruise is one of the main attractions for tourists in places like Victoria
Falls and Chobe.
II.
Main resources people depend upon
a) River area
-
Fish, reeds, water, grass, small wild animals, trees, soil, wild vegetables
b) Inland areas
-
III.
Wild fruits, water, trees, grazing, small wild animals, birds, thatching grass,
soil
Key issues from interviews
a) River area








Problem animals (crocodile, hippo, elephant, lions, hyenas)
River getting shallower
Decrease in reeds (at Mukwe access to reeds is cut off by the Mission
Small wild animals declining
At Mutjiku (on the east bank of the river) a number of issues were identified:
 Access to the wild fruit collecting area north of the Caprivi highway used
by the Kxoe San has been closed by the Namibian Defence Force (as a
result of its proximity to the Angolan border)
 People have settled in the core area left by the Kxoe (as a conservation
area not to be settled in) south of the Caprivi highway
 People from the west bank of the river collect resources on the east bank
in the Mutjiku area
 Women’s access to palm leaves has been restricted by the Namibia
Defence Force
 The Mbukushu in this area do not get drought relief, but the Kxoe receive
drought relief
At Kamutjonga there were the following problems:
 Outsiders cut poles and grass and then just leave them to waste
 Problems related to living next to the Mahango Game Reserve include a
lack of access to resources and problem animals
At Mukwe, the traditional leadership had allocated land for a lodge, but
nothing had happened
At Kangongo there was a need for cutlines to prevent fire and for gardens to
produce vegetables (this was added during the meeting)
b) Inland
76




Lack of water
Fire
Lack of infrastructure and services such as schools and clinics
At Kambimba there were the following problems:
 The grazing area is getting too small because of an increase in livestock
numbers
 Wild animals such as elephant, kudu, and monkeys eat crops
8. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1
Survey process
The survey process, adapted from previous socio-ecological surveys in Namibia,
proved appropriate for meeting the needs of the project, and proved flexible
enough to be adapted to the needs of each survey area within Kavango.
The information-sharing component, where community leaders and government
officials gave short presentations during formal meetings, was an important
aspect of the survey. The report has not included much of the material provided
by government officials or NGOs, because part of their presentations covered
their activities in the area or for example, information about conservancies or
community forests. However, the provision of such information at a gathering of
senior traditional leaders proved to be very valuable. For example, during one of
the formal meetings of the Gciriku survey, the presentation by an NGO on its
activities was followed by a lively discussion. This led to advice from the
traditional leaders on how the NGO could improve its activities and make them
more practical and therefore more useful to the community. During the first
formal meeting of the Central Area Survey, a MET official provided information
on the conditions for establishing a conservancy and the potential benefits. A
member of the Sambyu traditional authority responded by saying: “This
information has been lacking. We only heard it today. This is good and useful
information but why has it not already been conveyed to the traditional
authority?”
The project was thus able to provide a useful platform for the sharing of
information and the exchange of ideas and views between different stakeholders
right from the outset. This formed an important step in trying to build a common
understanding of the issues concerning the river and its resources.
Some concern might be expressed at the lack of good data gathered in relation
to residents’ views on the rights of out of basin users, upstream and downstream
users and the rights of non-riparian users. To some extent the data gatherers
might not have been probing well enough to explain these issues. On the other
hand, it appeared across the region that residents mainly thought in terms of
local “outsiders” or tourists when responding to questions on these topics.
77
8.2
Agreement with the aims of the project
There was almost unanimous agreement with aims of the project during the
village interviews and formal meetings. The only real caveat was that something
must happen and that the survey must not result in talk only. “We are only going
to say the project is good when we see the progress.” And: “Don’t you get
information then keep it for yourself, rather bring it back for progress” – quotes
representative of peoples’ attitudes on this issue.
Recommendation
Simply by carrying out the survey, the project has created expectations
amongst community leaders and members. At the same time, the
Kavango region is littered with failed development projects. It is therefore
strongly recommended that project partners find the appropriate
mechanisms and resources to implement the further phases of the project
and ensure that some lasting processes are put in place that can assist
residents in sustainable natural resource management. It is particularly
recommended that additional time and funding are sought to carry project
activities beyond the current end of project timetable.
8.3
Dependence on natural resources
Residents of Kavango still rely heavily on renewable natural resources for their
livelihoods. The consolidated resource use tables presented in Annexes 1-4
show the variety of resources that are used for economic, cultural, social and
religious purposes. Fish, reeds, wild fruit trees, timber trees, thatching grass,
small wild animals, grazing and water are among the most important resources
people depend upon. Even though all residents are involved in the cash
economy, many people fall back on the gathering of wild fruits in times of
hardship. Some families are benefitting from the commercialisation of such
resources as thatching grass and poles cut for construction purposes. A number
of people are also benefitting from the sale of carved or woven crafts made from
renewable natural resources. There is potential for the expansion of such
activities where there are sufficient quantities of the resources available for
continued sustainable exploitation.
78
Recommendation
Any future income generation activities that emerge as a result of the
survey and the project, should focus on those natural resources with
sufficient potential to sustain harvesting at commercially exploitable levels.
Local individual and community involvement in tourism should be strongly
promoted as a way of increasing income and increasing local control over
land and resources.
8.4
Conditions for community action and mobilisation
An important aspect of planning future project activities will be an assessment of
whether the right conditions are in place for project interventions to be
successful. The following issues are examined with this assessment in mind:
Community cohesion
Data from the social linkages instrument interviews shows that communities
believe themselves to be very cohesive and cooperative internally across, age,
gender and class groups. This does not necessarily extend always to natural
resource use where some residents said there was a need for much greater
cooperation in managing and conserving resources.
Constraints to community “mobilisation”
Participants in the survey themselves identified some problems that might be
encountered in “mobilising” the community. They mentioned social problems
such as drinking and “laziness”:
“Fighting happens everyday because of alcohol and I personally would like the
sugar company to stop producing laziness and fighting. It is like a disease which
is killing us.” – resident of an inland village in Sambyu tribal area. “Unavailability
of employment opportunities causes theft and laziness.” – resident of an inland
Sambyu village.
Identification of problems
However, a positive condition for action and mobilisation is that residents of the
region and their leaders clearly acknowledge the problems that exist regarding
natural resource use and in many cases are aware of the causes of the
problems. This makes it much easier to work with people to develop solutions
and implement those solutions. People realise that many resources are declining
and want to conserve them. In many cases proposals from the community
involve some form of institutionalised conservation through conservancies and/or
79
community forests. These ideas are very much linked to support for the idea of
localised rights and control over resources.
For example: Resident of a village near Rundu - “We do not want our children to
see animals only in magazines and pictures. The government or NGOs should
support us to bring back the animals and provide a place for conservation. We
will be responsible for the management of the natural resources ourselves.”
Constraints in the Mbukushu area
In many ways the Mbukushu area has the greatest potential for future project
activities, given the existing protected areas and wildlife-based tourism. However,
there are a number of constraints to promoting community action. The Mbukushu
people are divided between supporters of the incumbent chief, Erwin Mbambo
and a former chief, Alfons Majavero. Chief Mbambo and his senior headman did
not appear to welcome the project and its proposed activities.
In general Chief Mbambo’s contribution to the final meeting of the survey was not
positive and he gave the impression that he does not wish to work with the
project. Particularly during the second meeting of the survey he was very
defensive of his position on a number of issues. Some of his Senior Headmen
refused to acknowledge that local people were responsible for the decline of
various resources and blamed whites for the decline in wildlife along the river for
example. This attitude was in sharp contrast to that shown in all other areas
visited and all other formal meetings held during the survey. In these meetings,
traditional leaders and community members themselves identified the role of
local residents as well as outsiders in the decline of natural resources. The
Mbukushu area was also the only one in which it was not possible to find
solutions to the problems identified.
It was clear to project staff that various statements by Chief Mbambo and his
Senior headmen had a political motivation. This was possibly partly due to the
fact that Chief Mbambo has in the past been unhappy with IRDNC’s position on
his claim to be the traditional leader of the Khwe people in West Caprivi. IRDNC
has accepted the claim by local people that they have their own chief and do not
owe allegiance to the Mbukushu Chief. It is also possibly partly due to the fact
that two elections have been held in the Mbkushu area where local residents
elected Alfons Majavero as chief. The government still recognises Chief Mbambo
and IRDNC is not in a position to say who is supported by the majority of
residents. It is clear however, that a substantial number of Mbukushu people do
not support Chief Mbambo and do in fact support Mr Majavero, and that there is
a de facto dispute over the chieftanship. For this reason, IRDNC invited Mr
Majavero to the formal meetings of the Mbukushu survey and gave him the
opportunity to give a short presentation. Chief Mbambo subsequently strongly
80
objected to this, arguing that Mr Majavero had also been given the status of a
chief in the meeting by IRDNC.
In contrast to the attitude of Chief Mbambo and his senior headmen, villagers
and local headmen welcomed the project and were prepared to work with project
staff. Indeed during the final meeting of the survey some of the junior headmen
were keen to engage in prioritising problems and finding solutions, but the
discussion was curtailed by Chief Mbambo.
Recommendation
In the circumstances described above, it is unlikely that the project will be
able to work fruitfully in the Mbukushu area. It is recommended that the
project wait until the disputed chieftanship has been resolved or that other
leaders in the area (such as the regional councillor) request further
involvement before any attempt is made to work in the area.
8.5
Implementing solutions
The surveys demonstrate a high degree of awareness among community leaders
and community members about the main issues and problems concerning
natural resource use associated with the river. The results of the formal meetings
held during the survey also demonstrate that there is a high degree of awareness
of possible solutions for the problems.
Constraints to implementation
However, community members and traditional leaders express frustration that it
is difficult to implement the solutions. Everyone spoken to during the survey, from
villagers to regional councillors, agree on the need to prevent unwanted veld
fires, yet such fires continue to rage throughout the region each year. It is also
becoming increasingly difficult for local communities to control resource use by
outsiders, who tend to cite a constitutional freedom to go where they want in
Namibia and use what they want. Outsiders tend to ignore the rules of traditional
authorities. Further, these authorities also say it is increasingly difficult to
exercise control over their own communities. In the past, the traditional
authorities would, for example, levy fines for careless starting of veld fires, but
now there are people who refuse to pay or threaten legal action against
traditional leaders who try to enforce traditional laws. Some traditional authorities
seem more able than others to exercise control.
In some areas, such as at Kasivi in the Mbunza area, villagers have started their
own natural resource management committees under the leadership of the
traditional authority. The Kasivi committee in particular seems able to exert
81
control over local resources and appears to be an example of what can be
achieved at local level with determination and commitment of the villagers and
traditional authority.
.
The ability of headmen and local committees to control use of natural resources
appears in some cases to be linked to the support and cooperation received from
the central government departments and the police. Control is more effective
where the central government officials and the police support the traditional
authority. However, there is also a feeling that traditional leaders’ authority is
undermined when vehicles belonging to central government departments are
seen being loaded with timber or other resources that have been illegally
gathered by officials.
Opportunities for implementation
A major opportunity for implementing solutions is that communities understand
the need for conserving their resources and are proposing the establishment of
local community conservation areas.
Many specific areas were proposed during the survey for this type of
conservation. Table 8 sets out the areas proposed, the type of institution
proposed and the resources which residents want to conserve.
Table 8. Areas proposed for some form of community conservation in Kavango
Area
Type of protection & status
Resource to be conserved
Mukuvi-Shinyungwe & 20 km
Community forest, currently
Mainly woody vegetation
inland. Gciriku area.
being negotiated.
Land adjoining south western
Conservancy, currently being
Wildlife, woody vegetation
corner of Kaudom Game
negotiated. Delayed due to
Reserve
border disputes between
Gciriku and Sambyu.
Shamvura, Gciriku area
Community “nature reserve”.
Floodplain near Shamvura,
Proposed by owner of
fish, reeds, trees, etc.
Shamvura, Mark Paxton and
discussed with local headman.
Kasivi/Nkorowere, Mbunza
Fenced ponds controlled by
Fish
area
villagers.
Kasivi, Mbunza area
Conservancy. Villagers report
Riverine habitat, fish, wildlife
area visited by whites in ’92
who suggested a
conservancy. Headman keen
to proceed.
Samagaigai to Shakambu,
Conservancy. Proposed by
Wildlife, woody vegetation
Sambyu area (west of
traditional leadership.
Kaudom GR)
Nyondo area near Mangetti
Conservancy. Proposed by
Wildlife
Game Camp, Kwangali area
traditional leadership
Mangetti Game Camp,
Conservancy/community
Wildlife, woody vegetation
Kwangali area
game reserve. MET intends to
hand over to Kwangali tribal
82
Ntara, Gcwagi, Mahenzere,
Kwangali area
Kahenge to Marema, Kwangali
area
Mpanda, Tjoha, Mpuku
omuramba, Kwangali area
Siphugu, Kwangali area
Omuramba Nzinze to Mpungu,
Kwangali area
Siyena, Kwangali area
Mbambamusi, Kwangali area
Nkurenkuru (around ELCIN
school), Kwangali area
authority. Under discussion.
Not identified yet. Proposed by
traditional leadership.
Not identified yet. Proposed by
traditional leadership.
Community forest? Proposed
by traditional leadership.
Community forest? Proposed
by traditional leadership.
Conservancy? Proposed by
traditional leadership.
Community forest? Proposed
by traditional leadership
Community forest? Proposed
by traditional leadership
Conservancy. Proposed by
headmaster and other
residents. Assistance being
sought for establishing
conservancy.
Palm trees, thatching grass
(marenge), fish ponds, edible
water vegetation
Thatching grass (marenge),
fish ponds
Trees
Trees
Trees, wildlife?
Wild fruit trees
Wild fruit trees
Wildlife? Trees?
Recommendation
The project should continue to work with local communities in Kavango
through building on the identification of problems and solutions begun
during the survey. The project should focus on assisting communities to
implement practical solutions tailored to local circumstances. This should
involve the strengthening of the capacity of traditional authorities in their
enforcement of traditional laws regarding natural resource management.
Recommendation
Future activities that emerge as a result of the survey and the project
should focus on localities where residents and leaders have identified
resources and specific areas of land in need of conservation. Existing
community cohesion and commitment to conserving resources should be
used as criteria for choosing where further work can be carried out.
8.7 Cultural, religious and social significance of the river to local communities
Most uses of the river and its associated resources mentioned by respondents
were economic in nature. However, it was clear that throughout the region,
residents place an aesthetic value on resources such as trees and wildlife. There
is an interest in conserving these resources for future generations, not only for
future economic use, but also for enjoyment of their existence.
83
Residents reported the use of a number of resources such as reeds and palm
leaves for religious purposes, wild animals for certain feasts and ceremonies and
other resources for various cultural purposes. In the Mbukushu area, the sacred
burial island for chiefs represents the most striking example of the cultural and
religious significance of the river for local people that was reported.
8.8 Concern over the status of the river and its associated resources
Throughout the region, respondents reported the decline of various resources.
Although there is some local differentiation, in general the resources that are
declining are: Fish; reeds; trees; grazing; and a certain type of thatching grass
found near the river (“marenge”). A number of reasons are given the perceived
decline in resources. Among the most important of these reasons are the
increased human and livestock populations which are leading to over utilisation
of the resources and deforestation as more fields are cleared for cultivation.
A major concern of Kavango residents (as in Botswana) is the drying of the river.
Survey participants in all areas said the river seemed to be getting more shallow
and that the resources directly associated with the river, such as small wild
animals, reeds and other vegetation were declining. There is a varied
understanding of the causes of the decline in the health of the river. Some
respondents pointed to silting of the river because of inappropriate ploughing
methods, some spoke of “increased pressure” on the river because of increased
human and livestock populations and others mentioned issues such as pollution.
Some respondents wondered whether there was some form of blockage of the
river upstream in Angola. Others linked the drying of the river to low rainfall in the
past years.
Recommendation
Information on the causes of the decline in the health of the river and on
the causes of the drying of the river should be provided to residents in
order to help the identification of appropriate solutions and future activities.
8.9 Who is using the resource and who has control
Throughout the region the main users of resources are local residents. However,
there is an increasing tendency for “outsiders” to claim use rights and many
outsiders harvest resources without seeking permission locally. At the village
level, all residents appear to have equal access to resources according to their
need and no villages reported that local elites had established control over
specific resources or used more than their “share”. The exception is where
individuals have fenced off parcels of land to establish their own cattle ranches.
84
Not only is the grazing lost to the rest of the villagers, but often access to other
resources such as palm leaves or fruit trees is denied to others by the individual
rancher.
The right of the traditional authority to allocate land through the Land and
Farming committee appears to be generally accepted. However, there is both
acceptance and contestation of the right of traditional authorities to control
access to and use of natural resources. There is also overlapping authority over
natural resources between traditional authorities and central government
departments that have responsibility for issuing permits for the use of certain
resources. The example was given on several occasions during the survey of the
forestry department giving permits for cutting trees. The individuals who had
obtained the permits would then cut trees without the permission of the local
headman or would cut trees that local residents wanted to conserve. There is
clearly a desire for local control over resources to be strengthened.
8.10
Institutions and governance
Many of the issues concerning institutions and governance are covered in the
section above, regarding control of resources. Throughout Namibia there is an
institutional gap below the Regional Councils because there are no statutory
bodies that are part of the government administrative system at local level apart
from municipalities. The constituency development committees and village
development committees are essentially platforms for regional councillors and
others within the state apparatus to consult with local communities. They do not
provide local residents with any decision-making authority, and the degree to
which these bodies are really functional varies across the region. Where they are
functional, they also need to be taken into account when planning further project
activities. The constituency level committees can provide an important link
between the local village and the regional council. At the regional level, the
revived Regional Development Coordinating Committee has the potential to play
an important role in shaping development within the region.
Although it is becoming increasingly difficult for the traditional authorities to
enforce traditional laws, these institutions continue to receive considerable
respect and support at the local level. They control land allocation through the
land and farming committees and remain the local entry point for outside
development interventions.
The emergence of new institutions over the past few years will create three
different layers of decision-making body, all with some level of authority over
natural resources: the traditional authority; community-based institutions (water
point committees, conservancies, community forest committees); and institutions
linked to the regional government structure (village development committees,
constituency development committees). Alongside these institutions, the
85
government departments responsible for various sectoral issues will still continue
to exert authority over natural resources to varying extents.
Already there is a need for greater co-operation between traditional authorities
and regional and central government in the enforcement of traditional laws and in
clearly defining the roles of these different institutions. Once conservancies and
community forest committees are established, there will be an even greater need
for the clear definition of roles and responsibilities and the promotion of
cooperative approaches to natural resource management.
Table 9 provides a generic list of local level institutions and their functions.
Table 9. Local institutions of the Kavango Region and their roles and responsibilities
Institution
Roles and responsibilities
Regional
Development
Coordinating Coordination of development activities at
Committee (RDCC)
regional
level
(includes
government
departments, traditional leaders and NGOs)
Constituency Development Committee (CDC)
Coordination of development activities at
constituency level.
Makes
development
proposals to RDCC.
Village Development Committee (VDC)
Coordination of village development activities.
Makes proposals to CDC.
Traditional Authority
Overall responsibility for land allocation,
making and enforcing traditional laws, dispute
resolution
Land and Farming Committee
 Reviews applications for land and grants
approval for land acquisition
 Settling of land disputes
 Plans for viable land utilisation and
conservation of natural resources
 Advises the chief on land management and
administration
Natural resource management committees
Water Point Committees
Church groups
Youth groups
School board committees
Political parties
Women’s groups
Health committees
Responsibility for managing local resources;
control of access to resources & control of
harvesting techniques
Management of village water use; maintenance
and operation of infrastructure
Various religious activities, assistance to the
needy
Promoting the interests and voice of the youth
School governance
Electioneering, party organisation, etc.
Promoting the interests and voice of women
Local health education, cooperation between
villagers and health authorities
86
Recommendation
The project should continue to work through local traditional authorities as
the entry point for future activities. Where there are existing local level
natural resource committees, these should be supported. The project
should also help to promote co-operation between the different layers of
decision making from village through to regional council and central
government departments.
8.11
Traditional knowledge and management systems
Throughout the region there is considerable knowledge of the uses to which
resources can be put, a high degree of awareness of the need to conserve
resources and a good knowledge of appropriate management practices.
However, the application of traditional harvesting techniques (e.g. fish traps) is
being replaced by modern techniques (e.g. mosquito nets) that are leading to
unsustainable harvesting.
Traditional rules exist for the use of a number of resources, but are often ignored.
There is some ambiguity in the reporting of traditional laws with some residents
saying they exist and others saying they do not. This could have more to do with
the fact that rules are being ignored than with their existence.
No areas are kept “off limits” except government conservation areas or land
allocated to development schemes. No areas are kept fallow and no rules were
reported for the use of birds, reptiles amphibians or insects.
8.12
Understanding of the rights of other resources users
In general there is a willingness to share the river and its resources with other
users, as long as permission is obtained locally. In most areas, there is
cooperation and resource sharing between riparian and non-riparian
communities, but non-riparian communities feel isolated and neglected by
government. In a few cases they claim they are denied access to resources by
riparian people.
Respondents had difficulty in conceiving of categories of resource users such as
people upstream or downstream or out of the basin. They tended to think in
terms of “outsiders” in a more localised sense (people from Kavango, but not
from their own village) or as tourists.
Resource sharing with Angolans across the river was common in the past, but
has been curtailed recently because of the security situation.
87
The proposals for abstracting water from the river to supply Windhoek were not
widely mentioned during the survey. However, the apparent lack of awareness
and concern might stem from a perception that people were able to stop the
development and that the project has now been shelved28. According to previous
work in the region carried out by SIAPAC (1998), opinion at the time was strongly
against the proposed abstraction of water. The main concern was the effects on
the river, which people already felt was “much lower than in the past”.
Recommendation
The project should provide information to residents explaining the needs
and roles of the various groups of resource users within the river basin.
8.13 History of the community
There was insufficient time to devote to detailed histories of each village. It is
clear however, that considerable movement of people has taken place within the
region and is still continuing. People have moved into Kavango from Angola in
the past for various reasons and a new wave of immigrants was received during
the past two years because of the war in Angola. People are also moving from
the overcrowded river to open up new lands for cultivation and livestock in the
interior.
8.14 How the river and its resources can help develop community members'
lives
There is considerable potential for increasing the contribution of the river and its
resources to supporting local livelihoods. Residents have a number of ideas
including fish farming, irrigated gardens, tourism, craft making, sale of thatching
grass, timber harvesting and processing etc. Nearly all of these have been
promoted by various development agencies in the past and in most cases there
have been only a few success stories. Currently, the most successful activities
are the craft making supported by the Rossing Foundation, the sale of thatching
grass to various middlemen and the irrigated garden supported by Shankara. In
order for communities to gain the most out of resources such as wildlife, tourism
and forest products, they need to form institutions such as conservancies and
community forest committees in order to gain greater rights and control over the
resources.
28
In fact, the proposals are on hold due to better rainfall and a resulting increased supply of
water for Windhoek over the past few years. If the situation deteriorates again, government will
reconsider implementing the proposals.
88
Recommendation
Research should be carried out to understand why so many development
projects in Kavango have failed and to understand the success factors of
those that are working. These lessons should inform the development of
future project activities (and might have wider application for development
projects in general).
Recommendation
Communities should be supported in the formation of conservancies and
community forests as these are the best existing mechanisms for them to
gain increased rights and control over their resources.
8.15
Management structures that communities would like to see
Throughout the region there is a desire to see greater local control over natural
resources. Usually this desire is expressed in the suggestion to form some type
of local committee under the auspices of the traditional authority. The following
are the types of committee mentioned by residents:
Natural resource management committee
Forest Committee
Conservancy
Fire Committee
Fishing Committee
8.16
Information and capacity building needs
Communities are requesting information on modern resource management
techniques and information on the need to avoid over utilisation of resources.
They are also looking for training in certain activities. Specific issues mentioned
were:
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
vi.
Appropriate methods for sustainable fish harvesting
Fish farming
Contour ploughing, conserving trees and grasses to prevent silting of river
Problems caused by burning and how to prevent unwanted fires
Development of irrigated vegetable gardens
The need to conserve wild animals (especially preceding any plans for reintroductions linked to conservancies)
vii. Training in furniture making and carving
viii. Information on appropriate harvesting of fruit trees
89
ix. Information on management of grazing areas and land use planning
x. Information on how the river was in the past and why it should be
conserved now (especially targeted at the youth)
Only one request for specific capacity building in relation to conservancy
formation was received. Clearly, given the number of suggestions for community
conservation areas, there will be a need for considerable capacity building
support if the various plans and ideas for community conservation areas are
implemented.
Recommendation
Information materials produced by the project should focus on providing practical
advice on specific issues, rather than broad-based environmental awareness.
Capacity building should focus on support for the establishment of community
conservation areas/institutions.
8.17 Views on whether the resource can be developed or kept in its natural
state
It is clear that residents are opposed to large scale transformation of the land and
its resources because they depend upon those resources for their survival. At the
same time, their dependence on the resources results in opposition to the
absolute protection of resources (i.e. no use allowed). As noted above, there is
concern at the decline of certain resources and a desire to establish community
conservation areas to ensure that resources do not disappear.
Recommendation
Project partners should support approaches and activities that promote
the sustainable use of natural resources rather than the prohibition of use
of these resources.
90
REFERENCES
Brown, C. J. and B. T. B. Jones (eds.). 1994. Results of a socio-ecological
survey of the West Caprivi Strip, Namibia: A strategic community-based
environment and development plan. Ministry of Wildlife, Conservation and
Tourism. Windhoek.
El Obeid, S. and J. Mendelsohn. 2001. A Preliminary Profile of the Kavango
Region in Namibia. Every River has its People Project, Namibia. Namibia Nature
Foundation. Windhoek.
Hay, C. J., Naesje, T.F., Breistein, J., Harsaker, K., Kolding, J., Sandlund, O. T.
& van zyl, B. 2000. Fish populations, gill net selectivity, and artisanal fisheries in
the Okavango River, Namibia. Recommendations for a sustainable fishery.
NINA-NIKU Project Report 010: 1-105. Trondheim.
Hines, C. J. H. and A. B. Cunningham. 1992. Proposal: Harvesting of palm
leaves in the Mahango Game Reserve. Unpublished report. Ministry of Wildlife,
Conservation and Tourism. Windhoek.
Jones, B. T. B. 1997. Parks and Resident Peoples. Linking Namibian Protected
Areas with local communities. Research Discussion Paper No. 24. Directorate of
Environmental Affairs. Windhoek.
SIAPAC. 1998. Social Impact Assessment of the Kavango River-Grootfontein
Supply Link to Provide Water to the Central Area of Namibia. Department of
Water Affairs. Windhoek.
Personal communication:
Romanus Kahengutji, Information Officer, MET, Kavango. Rundu. 17.05.01.
Daisy Nheta, Directorate of Forestry, Kavango. Rundu. 17.05.01.
Charlie Paxton, Craft Development Programme, Rossing Foiundation. 16.05.01.
Mark Paxton, Managing Director, Shamvura Trust. 16.05.01.
91
ANNEXE 1.
Consolidated list of natural resources used by residents of the
Gciriku tribal area
92
ANNEXE 2
Consolidated list of natural resources used by residents
of the Central Area
93
ANNEXE 3
Consolidated list of natural resources used by residents
of the Kwangali tribal Area
94
ANNEXE 4
Consolidated list of natural resources used by residents
of the Mbukushu tribal Area
95
ANNEXE 5
Rundu Floodplain Concept Development Plan
96
ANNEXE 6
Participants in the formal meetings of the survey
List of participants in the formal meetings of the Gciriku Survey
Participants at 1st meeting, at Shankara, 14.05.01
Erich Afrikaner
Florentine George
Andreas Haita
Simeon Hengari
Brian Jones
R. S. Kahengutji
Kashoro Kameta
Nanyamba Katemba
Don Bosco Likua
W. Mangundu
Joseph Mavara
Lister Mbamba
Anton Mbambangandu
Paulinus Muhako
Gideon Mukuve
Edward Muronga
Antonia Ngangate
Daisy Nheta
Charlie Paxton
Mark Paxton
M Shampapi
B. Shindimba
Kasian Shiyambi
Johnny Shivute
Johannes Simbombo
Veronica Sindjenge
Terence Spyron
Sandi Tjaronda
Dorothy Wamunyima
SIAPAC
Data gatherer
MET - DoF
MET - DoF
IRDNC (Chair)
MET - DRM
Senior Headman, Mabushe
MLRR
Lihepurura Trust
Chief Councillor, Gciriku Traditional Authority,
Nyondo
Chief Councillor, Gciriku Traditional Authority,
Mabushe
MAWRD – DEES
Headman, Ndonga Linena
MAWRD - DEES
Data gatherer
Senior Headman, Ndiyona
Data gatherer
MET - DoF,
Rossing Foundation Craft Project
Shamvura Trust
Deputy foreman (sub-headman), Ndonga
Linena
Senior Headman, Ndiyona
Gciriku Hompa
IRDNC
MAWRD - DEES
Data gatherer
Shankara Project
IRDNC
IRDNC
97
7.14
Participants at 2nd meeting. Shankara, 21.05.01
Florentine George
Andreas Haita
Brian Jones
R. S. Kahengutji
Kashoro Kameta
W. Mangundu Shikusho
A. Mbamba
Lister Mbamba
Gideon Mukuve
Edward Muronga
Arnulf Ndango
Daisy Nheta
Charlie Paxton
M Shampapi
Kasian Shiyambi
Johnny Shivute
Johannes Simbombo
Veronica Sindjenge
Terence Spyron
Sandi Tjaronda
Dorothy Wamunyima
7.15
Data gatherer
MET - DoF
IRDNC (Chair)
MET - DRM
Senior Headman, Mabushe
Chief Councillor, Gciriku Traditional Authority,
Nyondo
Headman, Ndonga Linena
MAWRD – DEES
Data gatherer
Senior Headman, Ndiyona
Katere Villager
MET - DoF,
Rossing Foundation Craft Project
Deputy foreman (sub-headman),
Ndonga
Linena
Gciriku Hompa
IRDNC
MAWRD - DEES
Data gatherer
Shankara Project
IRDNC
IRDNC
Participants at third 3rd meeting. Shankara, 28.05.01.
Fransiska
Florentine George
Andreas Haita
Simeon Hengari
Brian Jones
Romanus Kahengutji
Anton Mbamba
Lister Mbamba
A. S. Mbango
M. T. Mpareke
Agnes Muhako
Paulinus Muhako
Gideon Mukuve
Edward Muronga
Antonia Ngangate
H. Ngasia
Daisy Nheta
Rossing Foundation Craft Project
Data gatherer
MET-DoF
MET-DoF
IRDNC (Chair)
MET-DRM
Headman, Ndonga Linena
MAWRD-DEES
Farmer
MAWRD-DRWS
Rossing Foundation Craft Project
MAWRD-DEES
Data gatherer
Senior Headman, Ndiyona
Data gatherer
NAMPA
MET-DoF
98
Charlie Paxton
Johnny Shivute
Kasian Shiyambi
Terence Spyron
Veronica Sindjenge
Dorothy Wamunyima
Rossing Foundation Craft Project
IRDNC
Gciriku Hompa
Shankara Project
Data gatherer
IRDNC
List of participants in the formal meetings of the Central Area Survey
Participants at 1st meeting. Rundu, 11.06.01.
Berthold Lucian
Colin Christian
Michael Gende
Florentine George
Moses Haingura
Andreas Haita
Lorenz Haupindi
Johannes Joachim
Brian Jones
R. S. Kahengutji
Rebbeka Kambundu
Alfons Kaundu
John Livingi
Walter Masita
Paulinah Munango
David Mutumbelwa
Kassian Nekongo
Antonia Ngangate
Daisy Nheta
G. M. Ntusi
Helvi Ntusi
Charlie Paxton
Samuel
Johnny Shivute
Michael Sibalatani
Erastus Sigweda
Edward Sikerete
Veronica Sindjenge
Sixtus Sintango
Senior Headman, Karukavisa
Eco-Plan/Lux Development Rundu Flood Plain
Project
Assistant Headman, Mupapama
Data gatherer
Senior Headman, Kaisosi
MET – Directorate of Forestry
Headman, Tjivi-Tjivi
Treasurer, Land and Farming Committee,
Sambyu
IRDNC (Chair)
MET – Directorate of Resource Management
Senior Headwoman, Nkarapamwe
Hompa, Mbunza
MAWRD - Directorate Rural Water Supply
Assistant Headman, Kasivi
Secretary, Mile 30
Regional Economist/Development Planner,
Kavango Regional Council
Secretary, Kasivi
Data gatherer
MET – Directorate of Forestry
Secretary, Land and Farming Committee,
Mbunza
Headwoman, Mile 30
Rossing Foundation Craft Project
Headman, Sauyemwa
IRDNC
MET – Directorate of Resource Management
Senior headman, Kapako
Traditional Chief’s Councillor, Sambyu
Data gatherer
Member of Mbunza Land and Farming
Committee
99
Alfons Siyere
Matteus WaKadumu
Dorothy Wamunyima
Chair, Land and Farming Committee, Sambyu
Kavango Region Farmers’ Union
IRDNC
Participants at 2nd meeting. Rundu, 18.06.01.
Michael Gende
Florentine George
Lorenz Haupindi
Johannes Joachim
Brian Jones
R. S. Kahengutji
Rebbeka Kambundu
Nanyemba Katamba
Alfons Kaundu
John Livingi
Walter Masita
Kassian Nekongo
Antonia Ngangate
M. P. Shikongo
Johnny Shivute
Edward Sikerete
Veronica Sindjenge
Dorothy Wamunyima
Assistant Headman, Mupapama
Data gatherer
Headman, Tjivi-Tjivi
Treasurer, Land and Farming Committee,
Sambyu
IRDNC (Chair)
MET – Directorate of Resource Management
Senior Headwoman, Nkarapamwe
MLRR
Hompa, Mbunza
MAWRD - Directorate Rural Water Supply
Assistant Headman, Kasivi
Secretary, Kasivi
Data gatherer
MAWRD
IRDNC
Traditional Chief’s Councillor, Sambyu
Data gatherer
IRDNC
Participants at 3rd meeting. Rundu, 22.06.01.
Michael Gende
Florentine George
Moses Haingura
Andreas Haita
Johannes Joachim
Brian Jones
Romanus Kahengutji
Rebbeka Kambundu
J Livingi
S Martin
Walter Masita
Antonia Ngangate
Daisy Nheta
Johnny Shivute
Edward Sikerete
Assistant Headman, Mupapama
Data gatherer
Senior Headman, Kaisosi
MET-Directorate of Forestry
Treasurer, Land and Farming Committee,
Sambyu
IRDNC (Chair)
MET-Directorate of Resource Management
Senior Headwoman, Nkarapamwe
MAWRD – Directorate of Rural Water Supply
MAWRD
Assistant Headman, Kasivi
Data gatherer
MET-DoF
IRDNC
Traditional Chief’s Councillor, Sambyu
100
C Sikopo
Veronica Sindjenge
Alfons Siyere
Dorothy Wamunyima
MET – Directorate of Resource Management
Data gatherer
Chair, Land and Farming Committee, Sambyu
IRDNC
List of participants in the formal meetings of the Kwangali Area Survey
Participants at 1st meeting. Nkurenkuru, 16.07.01.
Florentine George
Antonius Hamunyara
J. K. Hambyuka
Markus Hamutenya
Brian Jones
Romanus Kahengutji
Eva Nangolo Kakukuru
Pius K. Kapikara
Karl Kasiki
J Livingi
Sisindi Mbambero
R.E. Muremi
Antonia Ngangate
Rudolf Ngondo
M. Nyambwe
Lucia Shiimi
Johnny Shivute
Veronica Sindjenge
Dorothy Wamunyima
Data gatherer
MAWRD
Senior Regional Councillor, Mpungu
Constituency
Secretary, Kwangali Tribal Authority
IRDNC (Chair)
MET-Directorate of Resource Management
Headwoman, Kakuro
Member, Land and Farming committee,
Kwangali Tribal Area
Headman, Tondoro
MAWRD – Directorate of Rural Water Supply
Headman/Chief’s Councillor, Mayenzere
Senior Regional Councillor, Kahenge
Constituency
Data gatherer
Senior Chief’s Councillor, Katjinakatji
Headman/Chief’s Councillor, Simanya
MAWRD
IRDNC
Data gatherer
IRDNC
Participants at 2nd meeting. Nkurenkuru, 26.07.01
Florentine George
J. K. Hambyuka
Markus Hamutenya
Brian Jones
Romanus Kahengutji
Eva Nangolo Kakukuru
DSR Kambinda
Data gatherer
Senior Regional Councillor, Mpungu
Constituency
Secretary, Kwangali Tribal Authority
IRDNC (Chair)
MET-Directorate of Resource Management
Headwoman, Kakuro
MAWRD – Directorate Veterinary Services,
Nkurenkuru
101
Pius K. Kapikara
Stefanus Karora
Hiskia Karufere
Sisindi Mbambero
Likas Mukungu
R.E. Muremi
Markus Muti
Benjamin Muyeu
Antonia Ngangate
Rudolf Ngondo
M. Nyambwe
Markus Shindju
Johnny Shivute
Veronica Sindjenge
Dorothy Wamunyima
Member, Land and Farming committee,
Kwangali Tribal Area
Foreman, Siurungu
Acting Headman, Kahenge
Headman/Chief’s Councillor, Mayenzere
Unemployed youth
Senior Regional Councillor, Kahenge
Constituency
Vegetable gardener, Nkurenkuru
Foreman
Data gatherer
Senior Chief’s Councillor, Katjinakatji
Headman/Chief’s Councillor, Simanya
Representative of Kankudi
IRDNC
Data gatherer
IRDNC
List of participants in the formal meetings of the Mbukushu Area Survey
Participants at first meeting. Popa Falls, 24.08.01.
Edward Damu
Anton Dihako
Florentine George
Neil Jansson
Brian Jones
Romanus Kahengutji
Muthitu Kamanga
Petrus Kaveto
K M Konrad
Maboy Kushonya
P K Kutenda
J Livingi
Peter Lenhardt
Alfons Majavero
Ngore Maketo
Erwin Mbambo
John Mbangu
Kathumbi Mukerenge
B M Mushongo
Peter Ndundu
John K Ngoshi
Moyo Nyambi
Benedictus Nyangan
Secretary
Senior Headman
Data gatherer
Manager, Ngepi Camp
IRDNC (Chair)
MET-Directorate of Resource Management
Junior Headman
Senior Headman
Junior Headman, Dyogha
Junior Headman
Teacher, MBESC
MAWRD – Directorate of Rural Water Supply
Teacher, MBESC
Traditional leader
Senior Headman
Fumu, Mbukushu
Senior Headman
Senior Headman
MWACW, Mukwe
Community member
Junior Headman
Junior Headman
Junior Headman
102
Paulus Rukavo
Johnny Shivute
Veronica Sindjenge
Dorothy Wamunyima
Junior Headman
IRDNC
Data gatherer
IRDNC
Second meeting. 31.08.01. Popa Falls Malaria Camp, 31.08.01.
B R Sekhute-Batungamile
Chris J Brown
Christopher Buchane
Edward Damu
Anton Dihako
Florentine George
Brian Jones
Romanus Kahengutji
John Kamwe
Jon Kangoro
Muyhero Kapinva
Mateus Kathumbi
P Kaveto
K M Konrad
Peter Lenhardt
Ngore Maketo
Mary Makutela
Mutuka Mango
B Mbamba
Erwin Mbambo
Mupo Mbambo
Tracy S Molefe
Felix K Monggae
Sharon Montgomery
Oswald Moroshi
Sonja Mouton
K Mudumbi
Pius Nauyoma
John K Ngoshi
Maboki Nihoko
Moyo Nyambi
Robert Papuro
Katarina Perrolf
Asie Ria
Steve Rothert
Paulus Rukavo
Joyce Shapata
Loveness Shitaa
Kalahari Conservation Society
Namibia Nature Foundation
MET – Directorate of Forestry
Secretary
Senior Headman
Data gatherer
IRDNC (Chair)
MET-Directorate of Resource Management
IRDNC, Caprivi
Senior Headman
Headman, Kamutjonga
Senior Headman
Junior Headman, Dyogha
Teacher, MBESC
Senior Headman
Mayuni Conservancy, Caprivi
Fumu, Mbukushu
Kalahari Conservation Society
Kalahari Conservation Society
DRFN
Secretary, Kangongo
Namibia Nature Foundation
Senior Headman
Station Commander, Mukwe Police Station
Junior Headman
Junior Headman
SIDA/Swedish Embassy, Harare
IRDNC West Caprivi
American Rivers
Junior Headman
IRDNC, Caprivi
IRDNC, Caprivi
103
Johnny Shivute
Veronica Sindjenge
Helen Suich
Paulus Thifafure
Dorothy Wamunyima
IRDNC
Data gatherer
MET – Directorate of Environmental Affairs
Village Chair, Development Committee,
Divundu
IRDNC
104
ANNEXE 7
Socio-Ecological Survey
Focus Group Discussion Instrument:
Natural Resource Use Mapping
Version 6 (Final)
Every River Has Its People Project
Prepared and Administered by SIAPAC
for the Namibia Nature Foundation
on behalf of the Every River Basin Committee
and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism
Facilitator: Label the notes and tapes clearly before you begin.
participants and date.
Mark community, area,
In addition to your usual equipment, make sure you have the following available when you start
the focus group:
1) a few packets of blank cards for writing resources down
2) something that would help the participants represent quantities of things
3) your base map and the overlap map
Strata
Hompa for Area
Headman for Comm.
Community
Date
Start Time: ___________ Finish Time: ___________ Total Time: _______________
FGD Leader
FGD Assistant
Other:
1)
Focus Group Discussion participants:
____ - 1 ‘general’ community members
____ - 2 community opinion leaders
____ - 3 poorer households
____ - 4 non-poor households
____ - # other __________________
[Introduce yourself and explain study briefly] My name is _________ and I am
from an organisation called Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation. Let me
explain why I have come to talk to you today. I am working for a project called the “Every River
Has Its People” project. The overall aim of the project is to promote the sustainable management
of natural resources in the Okavango River Basin for the benefit of basin residents and the
different countries through which the river flows. We want to promote and facilitate the effective
participation of all stakeholders in natural resource decision-making and management. The aim
105
is built on the idea that people should be able to manage their own affairs and make their own
decisions, within the context of their own developmental needs and the needs of the country.
As part of overall consultations and field investigations, a field team has been commissioned to
carry out a detailed socio-ecological survey about people and natural resource attitudes and
utilisation in the Kavango Region. We have spoken to a number of communities in the region
and would like to discuss these issues with you as well. The project is new and wants to
understand the problems people face, before it decides on how it can help people.
At the outset we would like to thank you for your participation in this consultative exercise, and
to underline how we value your opinions and insights. Thank you.
Introductory Questions
2)
We would like to start by asking you your names, and a few other things. [get name,
occupation, position in community for opinion leaders, education,
age, etc.]
[FACILITATOR:
3)
TURN RECORDER ON NOW]
At the outset, we would like to hear your opinions of the project’s aim.
following:
Consider the
3a)
General comments.
3b)
Agreement or disagreement with the aim.
3c)
Agreement of disagreement with the idea that people should, to the extent possible,
be responsible for the management of their own resources on their behalf.
3d)
The relationship between local needs and national needs.
3e)
The relationship between Namibian needs and regional needs (the needs of
neighbouring countries that share the river with Namibia).
Natural Resource Use Mapping
[Facilitator:
Ask the participants to prepare an overview map of the
area including the most salient features such as schools, health
facilities,
rivers
(dry
and
otherwise),
forests,
grasslands,
waterpoints/water sources for humans and livestock, settlements, areas
that cannot be accessed because of fencing or borders, etc., and
whatever else they feel is important.
Once this is done put it down
where the group can see it, and ask the following questions.]
4)
In an effort to better understand where natural resources are obtained in this area, and
which are used for various purposes by the ‘average’ homestead in your community, we
would like you to prepare a map showing key resource use zones for your community. In
this Natural Resource Utilisation Mapping exercise, we will first be asking you to consider
where you and other community members access various natural resources. We are
interested in resources such as veld products, firewood, thatching grass, birds, fish, insects,
reptiles, amphibians, rocks, grasses (for grazing and for other uses), sands, rocks, clays, etc.
106
5)
6)
4a)
For each of these main resource areas, please indicate which types of resources are
accessed by the average household. [Facilitator:
Probe for the
following resource types:
plants (inc. plants, bushes,
grasses for grazing and non-grazing uses, trees, etc.);
animals; fish; reptiles/amphibians; invertebrates; birds; and
clay/stones/sand dirt. Have them list the resources on blank
cards (in local language, translated into English as well),
and sort these cards into the varied locations where they
access natural resources.
Obviously, multiple cards for the
same resource may have to be prepared, because they may be
found in more than one location.]
4b)
Is there variation across the dry and wet seasons?
4c)
We assume that there are some areas that are ‘off limits’ for natural resource
harvesting for a number of reasons. Please draw these on the map, if there are any,
and explain why they are off limits, and how they were declared off limits.
4d)
Please indicate which of these resources are used for cultural, economic, religious
and social purposes, respectively.
What about use of veld products, firewood, thatching grass, birds, fish, insects, reptiles,
amphibians, rocks, grasses (for grazing and for other uses), sands, rocks, clays, etc. by
traditional doctors. Please add their use zones to the map.
5a)
For each of these main resource areas, please indicate which types of resources are
accessed by the traditional doctors. [Facilitator:
Probe for the
following resource types:
plants (inc. plants, bushes,
grasses for grazing and non-grazing uses, trees, etc.);
animals; fish; reptiles/amphibians; invertebrates; birds; and
clay/stones/sand dirt. Have them list the resources on blank
cards (in local language, translated into English as well),
and sort these cards into the varied locations where they
access natural resources.
Obviously, multiple cards for the
same resource may have to be prepared, because they may be
found in more than one location.]
5b)
Is there variation across the dry and wet seasons?
5c)
Please indicate which of these resources are used for cultural, economic, religious
and social purposes, respectively.
What about use of veld products, firewood, thatching grass, birds, fish, insects, reptiles,
amphibians, rocks, grasses (for grazing and for other uses), sands, rocks, clays, etc. by
carvers and basketmakers. Please add their use zones to the map.
6a)
For each of these main resource areas, please indicate which types of resources are
accessed by carvers and basketmakers. [Facilitator:
Probe for the
following resource types:
plants (inc. plants, bushes,
grasses for grazing and non-grazing uses, trees, etc.);
animals; fish; reptiles/amphibians; invertebrates; birds; and
clay/stones/sand dirt. Have them list the resources on blank
cards (in local language, translated into English as well),
107
and sort these cards into the varied locations where they
access natural resources.
Obviously, multiple cards for the
same resource may have to be prepared, because they may be
found in more than one location.]
6b)
Is there variation across the dry and wet seasons?
6c)
Please indicate which of these resources are used for cultural, economic, religious
and social purposes, respectively.
Rules and Regulations Surrounding Resources
7)
8)
9)
What are the ‘rules’ surrounding access to and utilisation of natural resources in this
community, if any? Consider the following:
7a)
Rules about access to and utilisation of flowers, plants, bushes, grasses and trees
7b)
Rules about access to and utilisation of animals
7c)
Rules about access to and utilisation of fish
7d)
Rules about access to and utilisation of reptiles and amphibians
7e)
Rules about access to and utilisation of birds
Do the rules surrounding access to and utilisation of natural resources in this community
vary depending on any of the following:
8a)
availability/shortage of the resource: flowers, plants, bushes, grasses, trees;
animals; fish; reptiles and amphibians; birds
8b)
economic, social or cultural importance of the resource to the overall community:
flowers, plants, bushes, grasses, trees; animals; fish; reptiles and amphibians; birds
8c)
economic, social or cultural importance of the resource to ‘powerful’ people in the
community: flowers, plants, bushes, grasses, trees; animals; fish; reptiles and
amphibians; birds
8d)
importance of the resource for tourism: flowers, plants, bushes, grasses, trees;
animals; fish; reptiles and amphibians; birds
8e)
the extent to which these resources are shared with other communities/other users:
flowers, plants, bushes, grasses, trees; animals; fish; reptiles and amphibians; birds
We assume that rules are set by local authorities, by Government, and by history and
tradition. Is this true? If so, please tell us a little about rules set by each that apply:
9a)
rules set by traditional authorities
9b)
rules set by Government
108
9c)
10)
rules that are simply ‘understood’ by community members, arising from history and
tradition
Have there ever been any conflicts arising from resource use among community members?
10a) [If no conflicts have arisen] Why do you think your community has
been successful in avoiding such conflict?
10b) [If no conflicts have arisen] Even if conflicts have not arise, what about
ill feelings?
10c) [If conflicts have arisen] What was the conflict/were the conflicts about?
10d) [If conflicts have arisen] Was the conflict resolved and, if so, how?
10e) [If conflicts have arisen] Over what resources have these conflicts arisen?
[Enum: Probe to see if the resources are considered to have
been in short supply at the time, or whether they were
relatively abundant.]
10f)
[If conflicts have arisen] What about conflicts across ethnic groups within
your community, if there are different ethnic groups?
11)
Sometimes some natural resources are left fallow so that they can recover, that is, they are
left alone by themselves for some time. Are there some resources which are left fallow in
this area?
12)
What resource shortages is this community increasingly suffering from, if anything?
[Facilitator: Probe for shortages by type:
plants (inc. plants,
bushes, grasses for grazing and non-grazing uses, trees, etc.);
animals; fish; reptiles/amphibians; invertebrates; birds; and
clay/stones/sand dirt.]
12a) Why have these shortages come about? [Facilitator: Go beyond terms
such as ‘overuse’.
Get details on what happened with regard
to local use, outside use, lack of management, lack of
enforcement of local rules, etc.
Discuss changes over the
long-term (e.g., trends, population growth, etc.) and shortterm (e.g., drought)]
13)
Looking at your use maps, which of these resource areas or resources are ‘shared’ with
other communities, and which are exclusively your own?
13a) [If some resources or resource areas are shared] Are there any
rules about how these are shared?
i)
[If there are rules] How were these rules ‘created’?
ii)
[If there are rules] How are these rules enforced?
iii)
[If there
happens?
are
rules] What is someone breaks these rules, what
109
13b) [If some resources or resource areas are shared] Have there ever
been any conflicts arising from shared use?
i)
[If no conflicts have arisen] Why do you think your communities
have been successful in avoiding such conflict?
ii)
[If no conflicts have arisen] Even if conflicts have not arise, what
about ill feelings?
iii)
[If conflicts have arisen] What was the conflict/were the conflicts
about?
iv)
[If conflicts have arisen] Was the conflict resolved and, if so, how?
v)
[If conflicts have arisen] Over what resources have these conflicts
arisen?
[Enum:
Probe to see if the resources are
considered to have been in short supply at the time, or
whether they were relatively abundant.]
vi)
[If conflicts
groups?
have
arisen] What about conflicts across ethnic
13c) [For communities near or on the Okavango River] In what respects
are riverine resources near this community shared with outside users living some
distance from this area, but coming into this area to access these riverine resources?
i)
Do these ‘outside users’ have the same rights of access as your community to
these resources?
ii)
Should these ‘outside users’ have the same rights of access as your community
to these resources? If not, why not?
13d) [For communities near or on the Okavango River] What rights do people living
upstream and downstream of your village have to use the river and its resources?
13e) [For communities near or on the Okavango River] What rights do people living
outside the river basin (e.g. in Grootfontein or Windhoek) have to use the river and
its resources? [Probe by using the example of the government wanting to take water
from the river to supply Windhoek)
13f)
[For communities away from the Okavango River]
In what respects
does your community, given that it’s some distance from the Okavango River,
access riverine resources that are close to a riverine community?
i)
[If they access these resources] What are the rules surrounding
such access?
ii)
[If they access these resources] What conflicts have arisen, if any,
in this regard?
iii)
[If they access these resources] Has your community ever been
denied access to riverine resources? If yes, what happened? Why did it
110
happen?
[Int:
Get examples.
See if there is
relationship
between
shortages
of
resources
restricted access.]
iv)
14)
any
and
[If they access these resources] Have there been conflicts
surrounding your community’s access to riverine resources?
Sometimes the sharing of resources across communities is done so that risk can be
lessened. For example, another community may have access to resources during a time of
drought that you have run out of. Do your natural resource use and management systems
accommodate such sharing?
[Int: Probe for past examples of such
sharing, probe how it has helped communities cope.]
[Int:
Map the shared locations on a larger map]
14a) [If such sharing occurs] How regularly has this occurred over the past few
years? [Int: probe regarding whether this only occurs on a rare
basis or under special circumstances, or whether it is quite
common.]
14b) Has this type of sharing ever led to conflicts or ill-feedings? If so, please describe.
Natural Resource Access Distribution
15)
We have spoken about where natural resources are located, and how they are used by
‘average’ households, as well as by traditional doctors and carvers and basketmakers. We
would now like to ask you how access to these resources vary, if at all, across gender of
household head, how poor or well off a household is, how influential a household is in
your community, and whether a household is from a ‘minority’ ethnic group such as the
San. Consider the following:
15a) Are there differences in the types of resources different households access?
15b) Are there differences in reliance on natural resources to meet household needs?
15c) Do some households have preferential access?
16)
Overall, what resources would you consider all community members have equal access to,
equal ‘rights’ to, and what resources is their differential access based on the importance of
the household in the community?
17)
[For communities along the river] Given proximity to Angola, we assume that resource
sharing occurs across the border. Please describe use of natural resources by Angolans in
your area. [Int: Do for dry season and for wet season]
18)
Finally, we have spoken quite extensively about the rules, regulations and understandings
surrounding resource access and use. Keeping in mind in which respects and for which
resources rules are strong and effective, and where they are weak and ineffective or even
non-existence, consider the following:
18a) sustainability of resources, that is, their continued availability for your children, and
your children’s children, etc.
111
18b) how sustainability is affected by the effectiveness of rules, regulations and
understandings.
Closing
19)
Do you have any other comments?
Thank them for their time and valuable inputs!!!
112
ANNEXE 8
Socio-Ecological Survey
Resource Tables Instrument
Version 5 (Final)
Every River Has Its People Project
Prepared and Administered by SIAPAC
for the Namibia Nature Foundation
on behalf of the Every River Basin Committee
and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism
Strata
Hompa for Area
Headman for Comm.
Community
Date
Start Time: ___________ Finish Time: ___________ Total Time: _______________
FGD Leader
FGD Assistant
Other:
Participants:
____ - 1 ‘general’ community members
____ - 2 community opinion leaders
____ - 3 poorer households
____ - 4 non-poor households
____ - # other __________________
[Introduce yourself and explain study briefly] My name is _________ and I am
from an organisation called Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation. Let me
explain why I have come to talk to you today. I am working for a project called the “Every River
Has Its People” project. The overall aim of the project is to promote the sustainable management
of natural resources in the Okavango River Basin for the benefit of basin residents and the
different countries through which the river flows. We want to promote and facilitate the effective
participation of all stakeholders in natural resource decision-making and management. The aim
is built on the idea that people should be able to manage their own affairs and make their own
decisions, within the context of their own developmental needs and the needs of the country.
As part of overall consultations and field investigations, a field team has been commissioned to
carry out a detailed socio-ecological survey about people and natural resource attitudes and
utilisation in the Kavango Region. We have spoken to a number of communities in the region
and would like to discuss these issues with you as well. The project is new and wants to
understand the problems people face, before it decides on how it can help people.
At the outset we would like to thank you for your participation in this consultative exercise, and to
underline how we value your opinions and insights. Thank you.
113
Tables
We would like to ask you about different natural resources you commonly use in this community.
We would like you to group your responses into the following categories: 1) flowers, plants,
bushes, grasses and trees; 2) animals; 3) fish; 4) reptiles/amphibians; 5) invertebrates; 6) birds;
and 7) dirt, sand, and clay. We would like to begin with flowers, plants, bushes, grasses and
trees.
Flowers/Plants/Bushes/Grasses/Trees
Flower/Plant/Bush
Use
/Grass/Tree
English Name:
Local Name:
Animals
Animals
English Name:
Local Name:
1 - eaten
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/
tribute
5 - other (specify)
Use
1 - eaten
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/
tribute
5 - other (specify)
Period of Use
1 – year round
2 – dry season only
3 – wet season
only
4 – rarely
Period of Use
1 - year round
2 - dry season only
3 - wet season only
4 - rarely
Part Used
1 - Bark
2 - Leaf
3 - Flower
4 - Seeds
# - Other (specify)
Part Used
1 - Meat
2 - Skin
3 - Bones
4 - Blood
5 - Organs
6 - Fur
# - other
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of bags:
# harvests per
month (could be a
fraction):
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of animals:
# harvests per
month (could be a
fraction):
Fish
Fish
English Name:
Local Name:
Reptiles/Amphibians
Reptiles/
Amphibians
English Name:
Local Name:
Use
1 - eaten
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/
tribute
5 - other (specify)
Use
1 - eaten
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/
tribute
5 - other (specify)
Period of Use
Part Used
1 - year round
2 - dry season only
3 - wet season only
4 - rarely
1 - Meat
2 - Scales
3 - Internal Organs
# - other
Period of Use
Part Used
1 - year round
2 - dry season only
3 - wet season only
4 - rarely
114
1 - Flesh
2 - other (specify)
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of fish:
# harvests per
month (could be a
fraction):
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of reptiles/
amphibians:
# harvests per
month (could be a
fraction):
Birds
Birds
English Name:
Local Name:
Use
1 - eaten
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/
tribute
5 - other (specify)
Period of Use
Part Used
1 - year round
2 - dry season only
3 - wet season only
4 - rarely
1 - Meat
2 - Feathers
3 - Internal Organs
4 - Eggs
5 - Skin
# - other
Dirt/Sand/Stone/Clay
Dirt/Sand/Stone/Clay
English Name:
Local Name:
Use
1 - construction
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/tribute
5 - other (specify)
115
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of birds:
# harvests per
month (could be a
fraction):
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of sacks:
# harvests per month
(could be a fraction):
ANNEXE 9
Socio-Ecological Survey
Focus Group Discussion Instrument:
Social Linkages
Version 5 (Final)
Every River Has Its People Project
Prepared and Administered by SIAPAC
for the Namibia Nature Foundation
on behalf of the Every River Basin Committee
and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism
Facilitator: Label the notes and tapes clearly before you begin with. Mark community, area,
participants and date.
Strata
Hompa for Area
Headman for Comm.
Community
Date
Start Time: ___________ Finish Time: ___________ Total Time: _______________
FGD Leader
FGD Assistant
Other:
1)
Focus Group Discussion participants:
____ - 1 ‘general’ community members
____ - 2 community opinion leaders
____ - 3 poorer households
____ - 4 non-poor households
____ - # other __________________
[Introduce yourself and explain study briefly] My name is _________ and I am
from an organisation called Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation. Let me
explain why I have come to talk to you today. I am working for a project called the “Every River
Has Its People” project. The overall aim of the project is to promote the sustainable management
of natural resources in the Okavango River Basin for the benefit of basin residents and the
different countries through which the river flows. We want to promote and facilitate the effective
participation of all stakeholders in natural resource decision-making and management. The aim
is built on the idea that people should be able to manage their own affairs and make their own
decisions, within the context of their own developmental needs and the needs of the country.
As part of overall consultations and field investigations, a field team has been commissioned to
carry out a detailed socio-ecological survey about people and natural resource attitudes and
utilisation in the Kavango Region. We have spoken to a number of communities in the region
116
and would like to discuss these issues with you as well. The project is new and wants to
understand the problems people face, before it decides on how it can help people.
At the outset we would like to thank you for your participation in this consultative exercise, and to
underline how we value your opinions and insights. Thank you.
Introductory Questions
2)
We would like to start by asking you your names, and a few other things. [get name,
occupation, position in community for opinion leaders, education,
age, etc.]
[FACILITATOR:
3)
4)
TURN RECORDER ON NOW]
At the outset, we would like to hear your opinions of the project’s aim.
following:
Consider the
3a)
General comments.
3b)
Agreement or disagreement with the aim.
3c)
Agreement of disagreement with the contention that people should, to the extent
possible, be responsible for the management of their own resources on their behalf.
3d)
The relationship between local needs and national needs.
3e)
The relationship between Namibian needs and regional needs.
As a final introductory question, please tell us a little about this community. Consider the
following:
4a)
When and why it was established.
4b)
How long this community has existed.
4c)
Tell us a bit about the ‘hard times’ and ‘good times’ this community has faced, and
what has let to these times being hard or good.
Social Organisation
5)
Consider the social and cultural linkages your households have within your own community
here as well as elsewhere in the area. Do any of the following ‘bind’ you together with
others in this area:
5a)
shared leadership (political, traditional, opinion leaders)
5b)
shared problems and shared respect for problem-solving channels
5c)
shared ‘fate’ arising from similar vulnerabilities, similar economic situation
5d)
shared language and shared culture (inc. shared ceremonies)
5e)
shared religion/belief system
5f)
other (specify)
117
6)
7)
8)
8)
What about differences you have within your own community and in the wider area.
Where, in short, are the social and cultural ‘gaps’ that undermine cohesiveness in this area:
6a)
economic power
6b)
gender
6c)
leadership
6d)
social class
6e)
ethnicity
6f)
race
6g)
religion
6h)
other (specify)
Regarding these linkages and differences, do you consider your community to be relatively
‘cohesive’ and capable of making important community-supported decisions that affect your
lives, or is the community not very cohesive? [Int: Conduct this as a general
discussion. Then, move on to the specifics in the next question.]
Consider the following aspects of cohesion:
8a)
local cohesiveness, ability to look after each other, protect each other, respect each
other, and solve own problems
8b)
effectiveness of local services, local authority outreach and willingness to local
communities to work with these services and report problems
8c)
degree to which people interact across ethnic groups, age (inc. youth-adult
relations), social/income class, and gender in community
8d)
existence and effectiveness of community-based organisations
8e)
extent of ‘cohesive institutions’ in the area such as churches, local clubs, etc., and
the extent to which these are cohesive across various community members rather
than conflict points
8f)
extent of social pathologies present in the area and the implications arising thereof
[Int: probe for overcrowding, personal insecurity, attacks,
theft, fighting, harassment of women, harassment of children,
alcohol abuse, drug abuse, prostitution, etc.]
8g)
extent to which new arrivals predominate in the area, that is, the area has a fairly
high level of in-migration, and the effects of this in-migration on the sense of
‘community’
Economic Organisation
9)
Think about your ‘economic lives’, that is how you make a living in terms of travelling to
work, looking for employment, purchasing goods, trading items, producing items for sale,
118
producing items or trading with ‘middlepeople’, offering employment, loaning or giving funds
or goods, etc. Could you please identify how you go about your ‘economic business’, on a
daily basis and over the course of the year, within and outside these areas. [Int: Have
them consider their various economic interactions broken down into
the following categories]
10)
11)
9a)
employment or seeking employment
9b)
purchasing for household consumption
9c)
sales, trade and ‘sharing’ economic resources with family members
Specifically with reference to the sharing of economic benefits across immediate and
extended family members within the area, please consider how benefit sharing occurs.
[Int: Probe for patterns of resource sharing with these other
households in ‘good times’ or, if this has not happened to date,
hypothetical sharing if things improved. Probe for impacts in terms
of the following:
•
‘safety net’ sharing so that hunger and poor nutrition are
averted;
•
sending loans or gifts (cash or in-kind) arising from the
needs of a ‘linked’ household in terms of needed major
consumptive or investment uses (e.g., school fees, school
clothes, money to access health services [traditional or
formal services], money to pay for services, business start-up
capital, etc;
•
receiving loans or gifts (cash or in-kind) arising from the
needs of their own households for particular major consumptive
or investment uses (e.g., school fees, school clothes, money
to access health services [traditional or formal services],
money to pay for services, business start-up capital, etc;
•
sharing of opportunities for economic advancement.
Finally, if you had to rank order the social services most urgently needed in this
community/area, what would you rank first, second, etc. from the following:
•
health facility
•
primary school
•
secondary school
•
pre school/day care
•
transport (taxis and buses)
•
housing
•
reticulated water
•
other
119
Closing
12)
Do you have any other comments?
Thank them for their time and valuable inputs!!!
120
ANNEXE 10
Socio-Ecological Survey
Traditional Doctor Resource Use Instrument
Version 3 (Final)
Every River Has Its People Project
Prepared and Administered by SIAPAC
for the Namibia Nature Foundation
on behalf of the Every River Basin Committee
and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism
Strata
Hompa for Area
Headman for Comm.
Community
Date
Start Time: ___________ Finish Time: ___________ Total Time: _______________
FGD Leader
FGD Assistant
Other:
[Introduce yourself and explain study briefly] My name is _________ and I am
from an organisation called Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation. Let me
explain why I have come to talk to you today. I am working for a project called the “Every River
Has Its People” project. The overall aim of the project is to promote the sustainable management
of natural resources in the Okavango River Basin for the benefit of basin residents and the
different countries through which the river flows. We want to promote and facilitate the effective
participation of all stakeholders in natural resource decision-making and management. The aim
is built on the idea that people should be able to manage their own affairs and make their own
decisions, within the context of their own developmental needs and the needs of the country.
As part of overall consultations and field investigations, a field team has been commissioned to
carry out a detailed socio-ecological survey about people and natural resource attitudes and
utilisation in the Kavango Region. We have spoken to a number of communities in the region
and would like to discuss these issues with you as well. The project is new and wants to
understand the problems people face, before it decides on how it can help people.
At the outset we would like to thank you for your participation in this consultative exercise, and to
underline how we value your opinions and insights. We understand that your use of natural
resources is your ‘competitive edge’ as a traditional doctor, so we will certainly not make your
comments public. Rather, your responses will be grouped with other responses. Thank you.
Tables
121
We would like to ask you about different natural resources you commonly use in your work as a
traditional healer. We would like you to group your responses into the following categories: 1)
flowers, plants, bushes, grasses and trees; 2) animals; 3) fish; 4) reptiles/amphibians; 5)
invertebrates; 6) birds; and 7) dirt, sand, and clay. We would like to begin with flowers, plants,
bushes, grasses and trees.
Flowers/Plants/Bushes/Grasses/Trees
Flower/Plant/Bush
Use
/Grass/Tree
English Name:
Local Name:
Animals
Animals
English Name:
Local Name:
1 - eaten
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/
tribute
5 - other (specify)
Use
1 - eaten
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/
tribute
5 - other (specify)
Period of Use
1 – year round
2 – dry season only
3 – wet season
only
4 – rarely
Period of Use
1 - year round
2 - dry season only
3 - wet season only
4 - rarely
Part Used
1 - Bark
2 - Leaf
3 - Flower
4 - Seeds
# - Other (specify)
Part Used
1 - Meat
2 - Skin
3 - Bones
4 - Blood
5 - Organs
6 - Fur
# - other
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of bags:
# harvests per
month (could be a
fraction):
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of animals:
# harvests per
month (could be a
fraction):
Fish
Fish
English Name:
Local Name:
Reptiles/Amphibians
Reptiles/
Amphibians
English Name:
Local Name:
Use
1 - eaten
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/
tribute
5 - other (specify)
Use
1 - eaten
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/
tribute
5 - other (specify)
Period of Use
Part Used
1 - year round
2 - dry season only
3 - wet season only
4 - rarely
1 - Meat
2 - Scales
3 - Internal Organs
# - other
Period of Use
Part Used
1 - year round
2 - dry season only
3 - wet season only
4 - rarely
122
1 - Flesh
2 - other (specify)
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of fish:
# harvests per
month (could be a
fraction):
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of reptiles/
amphibians:
# harvests per
month (could be a
fraction):
Birds
Birds
English Name:
Local Name:
Use
1 - eaten
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/
tribute
5 - other (specify)
Period of Use
Part Used
1 - year round
2 - dry season only
3 - wet season only
4 - rarely
1 - Meat
2 - Feathers
3 - Internal Organs
4 - Eggs
5 - Skin
# - other
Dirt/Sand/Stone/Clay
Dirt/sand/stone/clay
English Name:
Local Name:
Use
1 - construction
2 - medicine
3 - decoration
4 - ceremony/tribute
5 - other (specify)
123
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of birds:
# harvests per
month (could be a
fraction):
Quantities Each
Harvest & # of
Harvests/Month
# of sacks:
# harvests per month
(could be a fraction):
ANNEXE 11
Socio-Ecological Survey
Venn Diagram Instrument
Version 5 (Final)
Every River Has Its People Project
Prepared and Administered by SIAPAC
for the Namibia Nature Foundation
on behalf of the Every River Basin Committee
and the Ministry of Environment and Tourism
Facilitator: Label the notes and tapes clearly before you begin with. Mark community, area,
participants and date.
Strata
Hompa for Area
Headman for Comm.
Community
Date
Start Time: ___________ Finish Time: ___________ Total Time: _______________
FGD Leader
FGD Assistant
Other:
1)
Venn Diagram participants:
____ - 1 ‘general’ community members
____ - 2 community opinion leaders
____ - 3 poorer households
____ - 4 non-poor households
____ - # other __________________
[Introduce yourself and explain study briefly] My name is _________ and I am
from an organisation called Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation. Let me
explain why I have come to talk to you today. I am working for a project called the “Every River
Has Its People” project. The overall aim of the project is to promote the sustainable management
of natural resources in the Okavango River Basin for the benefit of basin residents and the
different countries through which the river flows. We want to promote and facilitate the effective
participation of all stakeholders in natural resource decision-making and management. The aim
is built on the idea that people should be able to manage their own affairs and make their own
decisions, within the context of their own developmental needs and the needs of the country.
As part of overall consultations and field investigations, a field team has been commissioned to
carry out a detailed socio-ecological survey about people and natural resource attitudes and
utilisation in the Kavango Region. We have spoken to a number of communities in the region
and would like to discuss these issues with you as well. The project is new and wants to
understand the problems people face, before it decides on how it can help people.
124
At the outset we would like to thank you for your participation in this consultative exercise, and to
underline how we value your opinions and insights. Thank you.
Introductory Questions
2)
We would like to start by asking you your names, and a few other things. [get name,
occupation, position in community for opinion leaders, education,
age, etc.]
[FACILITATOR:
3)
TURN RECORDER ON NOW]
At the outset, we would like to hear your opinions of the project’s aim.
following:
Consider the
3a)
General comments.
3b)
Agreement or disagreement with the aim.
3c)
Agreement of disagreement with the contention that people should, to the extent
possible, be responsible for the management of their own resources on their behalf.
3d)
The relationship between local needs and national needs.
3e)
The relationship between Namibian needs and regional needs.
Community/Area and Organisational Structures
4)
We would like to know something about the organisations, groups and key players that
exist inside your community/area today that are actively involved in the “life” of the
community. “Life” can mean social life, development, political, religious, educational,
economic, etc. At the same time, it can also reflect the importance of the various actors in
dictating what can and cannot occur in your community/area, for better or worse. [Int:
Ask them to name the organisations, groups, key players. For people
have them give the name of the position, such as chief or teacher,
not the name of the person. If it is not obvious what the
organisation or person is or does, please probe. Consider the
following.]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5)
chief or headmen
church leaders
health professionals
school teachers
farmers groups/co-operatives
women’s groups
youth groups
political parties (inc. local chapters)
trade unions
Government organisations or officers
non-governmental organisations or staff members
other (specify)
To gain an understanding of the relative influence of the organisations, groups, key players
to the community/area in terms of local socio-economic status of household such as yours,
125
we are now going to give a “score” or “grade” to each. Please provide a number between 3 to +3 as follows:
-3
-2
-2
+1
+2
+3
6)
very negative influence,
moderately negative influence,
slightly negative influence,
slightly positive influence,
moderately positive influence, and
strongly positive influence.
More specifically, consider the relative influence of the organisations, groups, key players
to the community/area in terms of natural resource access and use. Please “score” or
“grade” each as before:
-3
-2
-2
+1
+2
+3
very negative influence,
moderately negative influence,
slightly negative influence,
slightly positive influence,
moderately positive influence, and
strongly positive influence.
Recommended Changes
7)
What structural changes would have to take place in terms of power and influence in this
community/area in order for community benefits from natural resource access and use to
be maximised, and reach as many community members as possible across gender, age,
and social classes? [Int: After the general discussion, probe for the
possible creation of ‘facilitating’ local structures, such as
community-based organisations, or non-governmental organisations,
direct Government extension officer placement in the area, etc.]
Closing
8)
Do you have any other comments?
Thank them for their time and valuable inputs!!!
126
ANNEXE 12
Terms of Reference for the Basin-wide consultant
TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR A SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL SURVEY OF THE
OKAVANGO REGION
1.
SYNOPSIS
Every River Has its People is a project designed to enhance the participation of
communities living in the Okavango River Basin in management plan processes
for the basin through:
-
Increasing the capacity of communities and other local stakeholders to
participate effectively in decision making about natural resources of the
Okavango River Basin, particularly those related to water resources, at local,
national and regional levels and,
-
Developing mechanisms to promote and facilitate the participation of
communities and other local stakeholders in natural resource management
and decision making, particularly those related to water resources, at local,
national and basin-wide levels
The project seeks to ensure that the project is an appropriate one that is
supported by the communities and whose significance the communities will
understand. The project also seeks to ensure that communities provide input into
the project design and determine its direction in order that they participate in it to
the fullest extent. It is therefore proposed that the initial phase of the project
implementation be a “Socio-ecological Survey” that will be conducted within the
communities in order to:
- introduce the project and related issues to communities and other partners
- develop a shared understanding of resources in the area
- develop a shared understanding of the issues, aspirations, problems around
the basin as well as a shared set of actions within the scope of the project to
solve the problems
- start the process of building trust of relevant stakeholders
- develop a common vision with communities and relevant stakeholders for
what will be accomplished in this project and how the results will contribute
towards the larger long-term goal for the Okavango River Basin
- gather information about the communities’ utilisation of and perception of the
role of the Okavango River Basin resources in their lives.
- gather information about community perception of the role of the Okavango in
their lives
- gather information on indigenous management practises and knowledge
127
-
-
-
identify gaps in understanding about the Okavango River Basin and define
information needs and determine the appropriate approach to education and
capacity building
identify local institutions, e.g., tribal leadership structures and government
extension officers that form part of communities' capacity to participate in
natural resource management
agree on roles and responsibilities of different community and other
organisations in achieving the vision for the project
The survey will be implemented in Namibia and Botswana with national
consultants and project partners overseeing the implementation of the projects in
the respective countries. The region-wide Consultant will be responsible for
ensuring that the national-level activities are coordinated and harmonised
between countries are to the degree appropriate and that the output of the
surveys in both countries is consistent with the objectives. Further, the regionwide Consultant will ensure the careful alignment of work through regular
communication and comparing of methodology and results, consequently
supporting and facilitating synergy between the two national teams in the
implementation of the surveys.
In Botswana the survey will be implemented by three coordinated teams, who will
work simultaneously to collect data in 18 communities in and around the Delta
over a period of three months. Each team will be made up of four surveyors. Two
of the surveyors will be people with experience in community liaison and who will
focus on collecting qualitative information related to resource use, condition,
people’s attitudes and perceptions etc., while the other two will be enumerators
whose primary responsibility will be to collect demographic data. Coordination
and supervision of the teams will be the primary responsibility of the Project
Coordinator, based in Maun. The three teams will collect, collate, and report on
the data generated through the survey. The information is to be gathered through
a combination of participatory techniques and conventional data collection
methods. A national consultant will be responsible for the training the teams,
literature review and producing the report of the surveys.
In Namibia, the survey will be undertaken by a team with skills and experiences
in social, institutional, ecological and land-use issues, based on the procedures
developed over the course of past similar surveys in five different regions of
Namibia. The "social" survey team will hold meetings with the Regional Governor
and his Councillors, chiefs, headmen and other leaders in each focal area. It will
then hold meetings with selected communities, where after it will meet with
individuals and with small focal groups. The "ecological" survey team will visit all
important habitats within each focal area, with emphasis on important, productive
and threatened ecosystems, areas with endemic species, important biodiversity
hotspots, areas with known or expected red-data species and areas that offer the
potential for wildlife, tourism and other natural-resource-based production. This
128
work will be directed from the results obtained from desk studies by the
ecological team prior to the start of the survey.
2.
STUDY AREA
The region-wide Consultant will be responsible for covering the work done in the
Kavango/ Caprivi region in Namibia and the Okavango Delta region in Botswana.
3.
SCOPE OF WORK
With guidance from the project partners through meetings with a Steering
Committee, the region-wide Consultant is expected to carry out the following
work at the various stages of survey development and implementation as
specified below:-
i) Survey Preparation
 The national consultants will design the initial draft of questionnaires. The
region-wide Consultant is expected to review and comment on the format and
content of questionnaires (and/or other relevant tools) that will be used to collect
demographic information. This information will include household size and makeup, education, age; income, occupation, sources of remittance, livelihoods;
natural resource use; languages spoken in the home and ethnic affiliations etc.
Quantitative info on the number of people drawing water out of the river, size of
fields etc. is also required.
 The national consultants will be responsible for the design of participatory
methodology tools. The region-wide Consultant is expected to review and
comment on the format and content of these tools which must cover collecting
qualitative data and an inventory on people’s attitudes, perceptions, and visions
on the natural resources and the river. The tools could include focus group
discussions, interviews etc. The project will require information on:
-
cultural, religious, social significance of the river to people living within the
basin
perception of communities on the state of the resource
who is using the resource, how and who has control
institutions and governance within the community
traditional knowledge and management systems of natural resources
perceptions on rights that people upstream and downstream have
perceptions on rights that out of basin resource users have
perceptions on rights (within local context) non-riparian communities have
consequences of their use of the resource
the history of that community as told by them
129
-
how the river and its resources can help develop community members’ lives
management structures that communities would like to see
the institutional, info-sharing, capacity, resources communities see as needed
people’s views on whether the resource be developed or kept in its natural
state
ii) On the job training
The region-wide Consultant will ensure that as part of the survey exercise,
survey team members receive on the job training. This training could include
observing survey staff and providing guidance and constructive criticism where
necessary. The region-wide Consultant will also participate in the survey
planning workshops as well as team training workshops.
iii) Oversight Of Portion Of Survey Implementation
The region-wide Consultant will oversee and be involved with certain periods of
data collection and related survey work conducted in the field to ensure quality
results. This would likely entail accompanying teams into the field for the first
community surveys, and participating in feedback sessions to share results with
communities.
iv) Ongoing Input
The consultant will review the ongoing analysis and interpretation of the findings
carried out by the national consultants, and facilitate the integration between
social and natural resource sectors as well as coordination between institutions.
v) Survey Write Up.
The region-wide Consultant will contribute to and review the national survey
reports on the results and outcomes of the survey, which work will be the primary
responsibility of the national consultants.
vi) Any other aspects which the Consultant considers necessary for the
success of the survey.
The discussion of these should be reflected in the inception report.
4.
REPORTING PROCEDURE
At the initial stage, the region-wide Consultant is required to prepare an inception
report indicating the approach to be used for the surveys for review by the
partner NGOs before beginning the surveys.
The region-wide Consultant is to produce one interim report midway through the
survey period. The midterm report should assess effectiveness of:
130
a) questionnaires and other survey tools developed
b) teams conducting the surveys
c) overall strategy.
The report should also detail the problems encountered in the coordination and
harmonisation of survey implementation in both countries and the solutions
proposed to counter these. Significant personnel issues should also be covered.
Finally the interim report should include recommendations for changes in
strategy, if appropriate.
At the end of the survey period the Consultant is to produce a final report
evaluating the level of success of the survey in achieving the set objectives and
make recommendations on how the output of the surveys can be incorporated
into subsequent phases of the program implementation.
5.
TIME SCHEDULE
While the concurrent implementation of the surveys in both Namibia and
Botswana would have been the ideal, due to the situation of conflict in
Kavango/Caprivi area, the survey exercise in Namibia will be delayed indefinitely
until it is safe. There will therefore be a time lag between implementation of the
surveys in the two regions. Innovative ways therefore need to be found to
address both the approach and the timing issues and the consultant is to discuss
how they plan to address this situation in the inception report.
The region-wide Consultant will work with the project for a period of a total of fifty
(60) working days over the implementation of the surveys in Botswana and in
Namibia as follows:
a)
Ten (10) days of this period will be spent in participating in preparation
planning of the Socio-Ecological Survey as well as reviewing the
questionnaires, the sample design and participatory tools to be used for
collecting data in Botswana and another ten (10) days in Namibia for the
same purpose.
b)
Ten (10) days will be spent in the field checking on and overseeing the
data collection and reporting work conducted by the field teams in
Botswana and another ten (10) days in Namibia. Of the ten days spent in
each country seven (7) will be spent on the initial survey observation while
the remaining three (3) will be spent in feedback observation sessions.
Ten (10) days will be spent in reviewing the report produced by national
consultants and writing up the region-wide consultant’s report.
131