Participación escolar: eficacia política y compromiso

Results in this study suggest that since CBNRM was introduced at Khwai, Mababe and Sankoyo in the mid-1990s, there has been a change of local community attitudes towards tourism development and conservation. These attitudes have been triggered by a number of factors, this include the decentralization of resources to communities which gave them a role to play in the management of biodiversity in their area. In 1998, about 93.7% of the respondents indicated that they did not have a role to play in policy making regarding wildlife management in their local environment (Mbaiwa, 1999). At the time, there was hostility between DWNP and community members in each of the three villages because local people felt that government was denying them access to land and its resources. DWNP was by then regarded by local communities as a policing body whose main duties were to arrest people and prevent them from utilizing wildlife resources which are their God- given bounty (Mbaiwa, 1999). Mbaiwa argues that the government was perceived to have usurped wildlife

resource control and ownership from the local people. As a result, wildlife resources were mostly viewed as government property and not a communal resource, which they assumed mostly benefited the government and tourist industry.

The negative attitudes towards conservation were in 1998 also demonstrated by sentiments of an old woman in Mababe who during an interview said: “my grand child, don’t speak of wildlife in this area if you do not want to die, wildlife game scouts will soon arrive to arrest you and finally will kill you” (Mbaiwa, 1999: 108). Data collection at Mababe and Sankoyo in 1998 was difficult for me since some local community members suspected me to be a Department of Wildlife and National Parks (DWNP) secret agent disguising as a university student on research. Results in this study show that the hostility between DWNP and resident communities has since been reduced such that communities now see DWNP as a partner in conservation. Informal interviews with a DWNP officer at Khwai Gate (Moremi Game Reserve) noted that the hostility between DWNP and the community that existed in 1998 before CBNRM was implemented at Khwai village has been minimized. The DWNP officer further noted that there is now cooperation between Community Escort Guides (CEGs) and DWNP in issues relating to wildlife conservation in the area. The Chairman of the STMT, the Secretary of the Mababe Zokotsama Trust and the Councilor of Khwai also expressed that there is an improvement in the cooperation between the Department of Wildlife and National Parks and members of their communities especially with Community Escort Guides who collaborate with them to enforce conservation laws. The role that communities have in land and its resource management is thus important variable in the development of

positive attitudes towards conservation not only for sable antelope, giraffe and thatching grass but for all the resources. This shows that when people take part in the decision making process of resources around them, they develop positive attitudes towards conservation. Positive attitudes are a stepping stone towards conservation in the Okavango Delta.

Results in this study also show that there has been a change of attitudes at Khwai, Mababe and Sankoyo towards tourism development since the introduction of CBNRM in these communities. That is, in 1998, residents at Khwai, Mababe and Sankoyo had negative attitudes towards tourism development in all the three villages (Mbaiwa, 1999). This was because they derived insignificant or no benefits in the form of employment opportunities and income generation from tourism development. For example, in 1998, a total of 71.6% of the households got no tourist benefits (i.e. income, employment,

improved infrastructure e.g. water supply and roads) in their local environment (Mbaiwa, 1999). In illustrating this problem, a 25- year old man at Khwai made the following remark during an interview in 1998, “how can we get benefits from wildlife resources when we do not have control over them and the use of the land. All belong to the Department of Wildlife and National Parks, who are making a request to us to re- locate from this place and give way to wildlife conservation” (Mbaiwa, 1999: 99). By then, residents’ perceived tourism development in the area as destructive in that tourist took pictures of their children and huts without permission. They also noted that tourist vehicles made noise and some passed across their villages at high speeds. Only 28.4% of the households said they got benefits from tourism since tourists bought their craft work

(e.g. baskets and wood carvings). Tourism, was, therefore, viewed by the people as an economic activity that yielded revenue to the government through the collection of gate fees from game parks and private lodge owners and hoteliers in the area. However, results in this study show that these negative attitudes towards tourism have since changed due to benefits communities derive from tourism development through the CBNRM program. That is, benefits from tourism that accumulate to communities such as employment opportunities, income generation and provision of social services

contribute to the present development of positive attitudes towards tourism development by the communities of Khwai, Mababe and Sankoyo villages.

3.6 Conclusion

Results in this study have shown that the introduction of tourism development through CBNRM at Khwai, Mababe and Sankoyo has led to the development of positive attitudes towards tourism development and conservation (e.g. for sable antelope, giraffe and thatching grass) in the area. Local attitudes towards tourism development and conservation determine whether communities in rich biodiversity areas can or cannot conserve resources in their local area. Previous studies (e.g. Walpole & Goodwin, 2001; Alexander, 2000; Sekhar, 2003; Weladji et al, 2003) used economic benefits to measure local community attitudes towards tourism development and conservation. This study however, argues that it is not only the economic benefits from tourism that contribute to positive attitudes towards tourism development and conservation. Collective action by communities and enhanced social capital also contributes to local attitudes towards

conservation and tourism development. At Sankoyo, Khwai and Mababe, enhanced social capital is demonstrated by the existence of Trusts or Community-Based Organisations which are institutions charged with the responsibility to ensure

community participation in tourism development and conservation. Collective action by communities is shown by their ability to make rules at the kgotla and decide on how they should use resources in their CHA. Collective action is also shown by the employment of Community Escort Guides and the Board of Trustees to enforce rules about tourism development and conservation on behalf of respective communities in their CHAs. Finally, attitudes have changed because of the economic benefits communities derive from tourism which exceed costs. All these factors have created a sense of benefit from and ownership over resources by these communities creating the development of positive attitudes of residents towards tourism development and conservation.

The case of positive attitudes towards tourism development and conservation by local people at Sankoyo, Khwai and Mababe suggest that conditions have been

established to satisfy Ostrom (1990) and Bromley (1992)’s principles of the sustainable management of common property resource. These principles are: the autonomy and recognition of the community as an institution; proprietorship and tenurial rights; rights to make the rules and viable mechanisms to enforce them, and, ongoing incentives in the form of benefits that exceed costs. Therefore, it is not surprising that attitudes of

residents at Khwai, Mababe and Sankoyo have since changed to be positive towards tourism development and biodiversity conservation.

The positive attitudes of residents towards tourism development and conservation are the first building blocks towards conservation of natural resources in the Okavango Delta. This means decentralization of resource management to local communities who live in resource areas is a strong variable that determines local attitudes towards tourism development and conservation. As a result, control and access to resource use should be given to users, who in this case include the communities at Sankoyo, Khwai and Mababe in order to achieve positive attitudes towards tourism development and conservation. Ipara et al (2005) state that there is an intricate link between land and resource tenure and local support for and/or participation in wildlife conservation. The decentralization of wildlife resources to district and local community levels is vital in that it empowers landholders to take control of the resources and manage them so as to maximize returns. This is assumed will oblige them to conserve resources (Barnes, 1998).

Based on the positive attitudes towards tourism development and conservation and the devolution of resource use to communities at Khwai, Mababe and Sankoyo, arguments that people oriented approaches have failed to achieve their main goal of protecting the biological diversity (e.g. Brandon, 1998; Terborgh, 1999) becomes

questionable. These researchers (e.g. Brandon, 1998; Terborgh, 1999) call for a renewed emphasis on authoritarian protection of resources. These kinds of arguments are

advocated by those who point to the fallacy of the “ecologically noble savage”

(Brandon, 1998, Gibson & Marks, 1995; Redford et al, 1998; Terborgh, 1999; Redford, 1991; White & Cronon, 1988; Diamond, 2003; Krech, 1981, 2007; Burch, 2007; Flores, 2007). These scholars argue that the idea of deliberate conservation by local

communities is a myth. Krech (1981), for example, argues that extractive behaviours by local communities demonstrate that conservation occurred as a side effect of low

population density, simple technology, and the lack of external markets to spur over- exploitation (see also Hunn, 1982). “Reinventing a square wheel” as Wilshusen et al (2002) describe arguments towards the government authoritarian approach is simplistic and may cause a further decline of resources in rich biodiversity areas like the Okavango Delta. Further, such central control arguments are made in isolation of the political, social and economic factors in particular areas (Wilshusen et al, 2002) like the positive development of peoples’ attitudes towards conservation at Sankoyo, Khwai and Mababe in the Okavango Delta.

The history of conservation in Botswana is that of negative attitudes of local people towards conservation, wildlife managers and protected areas caused by

authoritarian approaches to resource management (Mbaiwa, 2005). As a result, a return to that hostile era may not only worsen resource decline but its likely to cause increased poverty problems in remote areas like the Okavango Delta. It is from this background that people oriented approached like CBNRM provide an incentive in which

conservation of the remaining and threatened biodiversity can be achieved. However, this does not suggest that CBNRM is a panacea to all the conservation problems in the Okavango Delta. It has its shortcomings and its success has so far been localised to specific communities and areas. As such, CBNRM should be viewed as a small piece in the bigger pie in its contribution to conservation and improved livelihoods in rich biodiversity areas like the Okavango Delta.

4. EFFECTS OF TOURISM DEVELOPMENT ON CONSERVATION IN THE