Kutlwano Mulale Mulalek@mopipi.ub.bw

1. ECONOMICS OF LAND DEGRADATION– SUSTAINABLE LAND MANAGEMENT IN KGALAGADI RANGELANDS 8th July 2014 Natural Resource Governance in Kgalagadi Rangelands Kutlwano Mulale Mulalek@mopipi.ub.bw

2. Introduction • The direct use value of a resource is most important to the poor and it is the • main determinant of people’s attitude towards a resource (Arntzen, 2003). • For the communities living in or adjacent to WMAs, the direct use value of • wildlife is most important (Arntzen, 2003). • Therefore, if wildlife does not generate direct use values for the local • communities they are unlikely to appreciate, conserve or consider it as an • alternative land use option.

3. Use value of wildlife vs livestock Problem: Degradation in the Mabogo cattle-post area is caused by land annexation for the WMA KD15 and crowding of boreholes. Farmers claim that their migratory kgengwe areas are now within the WMA where they cannot go and camp with their livestock. Solution: farmers suggested that KD15 be reduced to a wildlife ranch of about 20 x 20 km and the rest of it released for grazing and suggested extension of the community grazing land by moving back the boundary of KD15 by about 20kms. Source: UNDP-GEF PRA IN KHAWA, 2013

4. Increasing the Value of Wildlife as alternative land use • Child & Wojcik (2014) suggest that wildlife should be treated the same way • as livestock – the benefits of livestock sales go directly to the farmer and • the farmer has full discretionary use over this income. • If wildlife is to be valued by local communities then it should be treated in • the same way. • Establishment of effective institutions will ensure that land is allocated in the • best way to the highest valued land use – institutions that help get the price • right by internalizing the costs and benefits of any land use so that the • land holder makes the best choice between them.

5. The rights over wildlife management and use in communal areas is held by • the community – through CBNRM. • Experience in Botswana and elsewhere shows that community governance • is characterised by inefficiency and elite capture. • For CBNRM to be effective, rights need to be accompanied by accountable, • transparent, equitable and efficient governance – this calls for capacity • building

6. Example: CBNRM at Khawa

8. CBNRM benefits to households • Khawa Kopanelo Development Trust • 2006 –paid P240.00 as benefits to households • Source of revenue – hunting safaris, donor funding & of late • Khawa Sand Dune Challenge • BORAVAST: All income comes from donor funding • NB Currently Khawa Kopanelo Development Trust has no • employees due to financial constraints – manager & escort • guides had to be relieved of their duties

9. Possible community benefits from protected areas Moswete (2009): although stakeholders have a high regard for the KTP as a Transboundary Protected Area, they are concerned about low levels of local participation in park activities and lack of collaboration between KTP management and residents. This has denied local communities the opportunity to benefit from the park. The model of KTP seems to be more conservation-oriented than community-oriented (Moswete, 2008).

10. TGLP Ranches/CHA Source: Perkins, undated

11. Tourism attractions – Khawa, Bokspits & Struizendum

12. South African Side of the KTP • The Khomani San in South Africa own 25,000 hectares on the KTP • southern boundary through a “contract park agreement” allowing them to • carry out cultural practices, hunt, collect veld products, and conduct • ecotourism ventures ( such as walking safaris, overnight trails, camp sites, • lodges etc.)

13. Introduction Source: Khomani San Tourism Development Plan, 2010

14. Introduction Source: Khomani San Tourism Development Plan, 2010