Economic policies and rangeland degradation in Botswana

Journal of International Development: V01.2 No.4, October 1990 pp.471-499 471

ECONOMIC POLICIES AND RANGELAND DEGRADATION

IN BOTSWANA

JAAP W. ARNTZEN Institute for Environmental Studies, Free University, Amsterdam

Abstract: The author addresses himself to the factors responsible for current trends in Botswana’s rangeland degradation. and what the Government could do to arrest it. He considers the evidence for degradation, its causes and effects. Economic policies to promote the livestock sector - especially the price of meat and livestock subsidies - have stimulated the growth of livestock numbers. At thesame time, there has been no attempt to recover from livestock owners the true economic cost of their activities on the environment. The author is critical of moves towards effective privatization of rangeland use, compared with the former system of communal management.

I INTRODUCTION Rangeland degradation is a world-wide environmental issue. It is,

however, most serious in developing countries because of its prominence and the narrow margins which governments face in attempts to solving it. This paper discusses the relationship between government policies, in particular economic ones, and rangeland degradation in Botswana. The approach and results are considered to be relevant for other developing countries too.

Prevention of rangeland degradation is generally to be preferred above its rehabilitation. There is evidence that the former is generally cheaper than the latter (Dixon et al., 1989). Further arguments in favour of prevention are the accelerating and self-reinforcing nature of rangeland degradation, once it has reached a certain stage, and the possibility of irreversible effects.

There has been growing awareness that a proper study of rangeland degradation and government policies requires a broad and integrated analysis of its causes and effects. The approach adopted in this paper is based on the one hand on adapted multidisciplinary concepts such as the Socioecological Complex (Duncan, 1959; Arntzen, 1989) and the ecological theory of

472 Journal of International Development

economic development (Wilkinson, 1973); on the other hand on Specific economic concepts such as the total economic value’ and marginal oportunity costs.2 Whilst quantification of such concepts is often difficult in practice, particularly with few data as in many developing countries, the concepts provide useful directions to improve existing policies. External factors and distributional aspects will prove important to our analysis. Finally, there are four spatial levels, whose interplay is considered crucial for a proper analysis: the international, national, subnational and local levels,

The structure of the paper is as follows. Section two briefly discusses the concept of rangeland degradation. Section three deals with general developments in Botswana, the role of natural resource in macroeconomic and rural development and that of rangelands in particular. In section four, historical and contemporary evidence is examined on the extent of rangeland degradation in Botswana, followed in section five by a discussion of its causes and effects. Section six discusses in more detail government development policies in general and towards sectors which depend on rangelands. Instruments influencing rangeland management are reviewed. The paper concludes with a summary of the main findings.

2 THE CONCEPT OF RANGELAND DEGRADATION The concept of rangeland degradation is generally loosely used, poorly

defined and interpreted (Abel and Blaikie, 1989). Using the perspective of sustainable development as defined in Our Common Future (WCED, 1987), maintenance of the productive capacity of rangelands is central to the ability of future generations to satisfy their needs. This requires a dynamic, long-term view on rangeland management, which takes the following factors into account. Substantial ‘natural’ variations in productivity may occur (seasonal, annual and spatial), making the measurement of degradation a difficult and elaborate exercise. Short-term overgrazing may be a rational strategy under certain circumstances (Sandford, 1983; Perrings et al., 1988). In this paper man-induced decreases in productivity are considered rangeland degradation when they have a lasting impact on rangeland productivity. It is a broader approach than reserving the term rangeland degradation for ecologically irreversible changes (Abel and Blaikie, 1989). The latter concept is too narrow as productivity impacts can often prove to be economically irreversible prior to the stage of ecological irreversibility. This happens when rehabilitation costs become prohibitive for users or governments (eg., due to a poor economic state).

Economic Policies and Rangeland Degradation in Botswana 473

3 BOTSWANA: GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS 1. General Outlook Botswana is located in semi-arid Southern Africa, land-locked between

Namibia, Zimbabwe and South Africa (Map 1). Its population is approximately 1.2 million. The average population density is only 2. I persons per km2 but densities of up to 60 persons per km2 are found in small districts in Eastern Botswana.

Map 1. BOTSWANA AND ITS DISTRICTS

' . C E N T R A L

C E N T R A L K A L A H A R I , G A M E RESERVE

Source: Amtzen, 1989


The country has a record of high economic growth. After Independence in 1966, annual economic growth averaged 8.8 per cent in real terms; mainly due to mining and to a lesser extent the livestock sector. Economic forecasts predict a slower growth in future in the absence of major new mining ventures and mounting recurrent government expenditures. In rural areas, livestock production is the main source of growth. Alternatives are less profitable and highly risky (eg., crop production) or limited in size and location (eg., formal or informal employment is mostly concentrated in urban areas).

Economic growth has enabled government to rapidly expand public services such as roads, educational and health facilities; the country has small foreign debts and accrued a substantial foreign reserve valued at over 24 months of import requirements. In an attempt to sustain economic growth and to diversify the economy, government launched a number of major development initiatives. Present initiatives include infrastructural improvements and support for some large industrial ventures (Budget Speech 1990).

Economic development has left serious problems such as the increasing inequality between rural and urban areas, urbanisation, insufficient employment opportunities, continued absolute poverty among the majority of the population and problems in diversifying the domestic economy. In addition, the rapid population growth burdens the economy to maintain the present welfare levels.

2. Botswana’s economy depends heavily on non-renewable and renewable

natural resources. During the 1970s, a transformation took place from primary dependence on renewable resources (through livestock and crops) towards dependence on non-renewables (minerals). In 1985 the primary production sector constituted 54.8 per cent of GDP and 81.5 per cent of the exports. The contribution of renewable resources to GDPis estimated to be at least Pula 100 mln. or 7-8 per cent of GDP (Perrings et al., 1988). Given the heavy reliance on primary production, prudent use of mineral revenues and natural resource management should be important economic objectives.

Information on stocks of non-renewable resources, especially for diamonds and fossil groundwater, is limited. Exhaustion of stocks such as coal and copper-nickel appears unlikely in the short term. However, stock values and their economic development potential have been subject to considerable changes as price developments for diamonds, copper and coal have shown. Key issues for sustainable development are therefore the optimal time path of mineral exploitation and the destination of its revenues.

Regarding renewable resources, range degradation has been identified

Economic Development and Natural Resources

Economic Policies and Rangeland Degradation in Botswana 41 5

as the major issue during the village consultations for the National Conservation Strategy; around larger settlements and in some regions, deforestation is also perceived as a major problem.

3. Rangelands and Their Use For a proper rangeland analysis, insight is required into the physical

characteristics of rangelands, the main types of use and the strategies and constraints of users (see Table 1). Rangelands are subject to a number of important processes. For example, their productivity depends on ecological interactions between soil, water and grass. In addition, each resource is governed by different institutional management regimes, which regulate rangeland use. Finally, aggregate rangeland use and productivity interact, but

Table 1. A TYPOLOGY OF RANGELANDS AND THEIR USE

Hardveld Sandveld

Physical Generally reasonable Characteristics availability of surface

water (in wet season) and groundwater

Varying soil types; rocks underneath Rainfall from 400-500 mm .

Very limited surface water; groundwater at great depth only accessible through boreholes Sandy soils down to hundreds of metres Rainfall below 400 mm. and very erratic

-

Primary Range Cattle and smallstock; Variety of wildlife; Users local competition with cattle encroachment

cultivation since 1950s

Characteristics Mostly residents; access Residents are poor Population to rangelands highly and depend on hunting Involved skewed; crop production and gathering; crop

production very harsh; large cattle herds kept

is possible; most families engage in urban employment by absentee owners


the precise nature and impacts are still inadequately understood (Abel and Balikie, 1989).

There is no evidence that economic growth has alleviated rural poverty substantially. In 1974, 45 per cent of the rural population lived below the poverty datum line (PDL); in 1985, the median of rural household income is below the updated - inflation corrected - PDL. This comparison is, however, of limited value because of the drought affecting the 1985 incomes.The main economic activities are livestock production, cultivation and non-farm activities. Households have to weigh the opportunity costs of allocating resources to different sectors. Most rural families engage in a mixture of these activities in order to get a higher and more secure income.

Beef production is most attractive. However, participation in livestock production is beyond the means of an estimated third to half of rural families. Initial investments in livestock and access to water are too high; moreover, there are considerable scale advantages at stake for the large herds through lower per unit production costs, greater drought resilience and better market access. Figure 1 shows that cattle holdership is highly skewed and that inequality increased during the 1980s drought; postdrought data will be

Figure 1. CA"TLE DISTRIBUTION AMONG CATI'LEHOLDERS

100

5- a = 80 0 t 0

k 60 0 a W I J 40

d

I 0 t- U L 0 8

20

0 0 20 40 60 80 100

Source: Arntzen and Veenendaal, 1986


needed to assess whether this is lasting or temporary. Smallstock production is an option for those who cannot afford cattle, but so far few have seized the opportunity. Arable returns are generally lower but also positively related to cattle ownership (as in smallstock ownership). Lack of labour, draughtpower and cash are the most common arable constraints, reflecting a preference to allocate available resources to other activities. Non-farm activities are highly appreciated because of their limited drought susceptibility. However, their size and returns are limited and formal employment is mostly urban based.

Rangelands probably cover over 90 per cent of the country; a basic distinction is made between those in the Hardveld and those in the Sandveld (Table 1). The former are more productive due to better soils and better rainfall.

In the Sandveld, wildlife is still relatively abundant but competition with cattle follows the development of groundwater. The population is generally poorer than the national rural average. Few can afford to keep cattle; many still rely on hunting and gathering, smallstock and very limited cultivation as the physical conditions are generally too harsh. Cattle herds in these areas are generally large, but often owned by absentees from the Hardveld.

Determining the most suitable form of land use has ecological and economic aspects. The fragile nature of the Sandveld and the more selective grazing habits of wildlife may make the latter the ecologically most suitable type of land use. From an economic perspective, the direct contributions of beef production to the rural economy are relatively little and the local population is likely to benefit more from wildlife-based activities. However, data are too limited to reach firm conclusions.

Ecological conditions and income opportunities are more favourable in the Hardveld. These areas are more productive for livestock and crop production and their proximity to urban employment allows families the joint benefits of urban and rural activities.

4. HISTORICAL AND CONTEMPORARY EVIDENCE OF RANGELAND DEGRADATION

Trends in rangeland degradation are generally difficult to substantiate. There is a lack of time series and imperfect understanding and perception of the process itself (its complexity, dynamics and symptoms) and recurrent droughts hamper its identification. These are important reasons for further investigations of the nature of rangeland degradation and for a critical examination of presented evidence. In Botswana, there are three possible sources of evidence of rangeland degradation.

First, quantitative assessments of trends in rangeland productivity. Rangeland productivity is usually measured by carrying capacity figures. The


comparison between actual carrying capacity (ACC) and potential carrying capacity based on sustainable range use (PCC) yields insights into the extent of land degradation. ACC estimates are rare in Botswana and trends cannot be identified. Satellite imagery may offer possibilities in future, but their present use is still largely experimental. The most frequently used PCC estimates (Field, 1978) are exclusively based on average annual rainfall figures. Rangeland dynamics and intraregional variations are supposedly accounted for by the use of ranges of hectares/livestock unit (ha/LSU). In the Hardveld, PCC-estimates range from 12-16 ha/LSU to 16-21 ha/LSU; in the Sandveld, PCC is generally above 21 ha/LSU. Browsing has not been incorporated in Field’s estimate. Obviously, these PCC-estimates provide at best rough indications and have limited value for specific locations and years.

Second, through personal observations. The clearest evidence can be obtained from rangeland users themselves. While they traditionally advanced lack of water as the major constraint to livestock production, lack of grazing is now perceived most important in Eastern Botswana (Opschoor, 1981; Arntzen, 1989). The changed perception cannot be merely attributed to the 1980s drought. Livestock holders in Palapye region unanimously rated grazing bad in 1987 but 55 per cent of them already considered grazing poor prior to the drought.

Frequent complaints about rangeland degradation are also recorded from colonial officers, extension workers and traditional authorities (see eg., Fortmann et a]., 1983). During this century, worries about land degradation concentrate on small districts; since the 1950s degradation is spreading to Western Botswana following the development of groundwater. Campbell and Child (1971) observe that changes were relatively small before 1870 but picked up around 1930 and have been ‘dramatic’ after 1950. The empirical base of most ‘second-hand’ observations is usually not clear, hence their value for our analysis is limited.

Third, by examining developments of competing land use forms. The first step is to assess the total size of rangelands and their accessibility for livestock and wildlife. It has been estimated that the increased accessibility of rangelands for livestock - facilitated by groundwater development -has kept equal pace with increasing livestock numbers between 1930 and 1960, but no room was left for a reduction in stocking rates (Morse et al., 1960; Roe, 1980). It is likely that subsequent livestock increases have led to higher stocking rates. Greater access for livestock led to a withdrawal of wildlife into smaller, less accessible or protected areas. The cultivated area has expanded at a relatively slow rate, and still makes up less than 5 per cent of the country’s surface. However, in small districts cultivation now uses up to 20 per cent of the surface and has reduced rangelands substantially.


1 . ' ' I . ' . I . . . I . . . I ' . . I 24 - -

/ / \ I \

- P o p u l a t i o n 20 - - - L i v e s t o c k -

I I

/ - / I

16 - c n - L

E - 3 - z -

8 -

g 1 2 1 - -

/ /

/ 4 - -

/ 0 - 1 - I . . . I . . . l . . . I . . . I -

The next step is the examination of trends in numbers and composition of wildlife and livestock and in related users' management practices. Information on the number and composition of wildlife is incomplete. During the droughts of the 1960s and 1980s numbers dropped substantially. There is no conclusive evidence of a long-term decline of numbers and species3. Figure 2 shows the trend in livestock numbers during this century; for the sake of comparison, the trend in human population has been added. Human population and livestock units appear closely linked but the increase in total cultivated area was slower and more erratic. The impact of the droughts in the 1960s and 1980s is apparent in Figure 2. As management practices showed few changes, we conclude that pressure on rangelands must have increased substantially during this century.

1 . ' ' I . ' . I . . . I . . . I ' . . I - -

- - - L i v e s t o c k / / \ - - P o p u l a t i o n

I I

I \ / - -

/ I - -

- - /

/

/ - - / - -

1 . . . 1 . . . 1 . . . 1 . . . 1 . . . 1 -

Figure 2. DEVELOPMENT OF LIVESTOCK NUMBERS AND HUMAN

POPULATION (in Livestock Units and Numbers)

100000~

24

20

16 cn L

E 3 z

g 12

8

4

0

Source: Arntzen, 1989

Table 3 compares these PCC-estimates with actual stocking rates by agricultural region. Stocking rates exceed the PCC virtually throughout the country; in small districts by a factor 4. Stocking rates rapidly declined


Table 3. STOCKING RATES AND POTENTIAL CARRYING CAPACITY (PCC)

BY AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT (1980-1986; HectareILivestock Unit or Ha/LSU)

District/Region Stocking Rates Potential Carrylng

1980 1984 1986 Capacity

Southern District: Barolong Ngwaketse South Ngwaketse North

Gaborone Region: South-East Kweneng South Kweneng North Kgatleng

Central Region: Mahalapye Palapye Serowe Mmadinare

Tutume Tati

Francistown Region :

Maun Region: Ngamiland West Ngamiland East Chobe

Western Region: Ghanzi Kgalagadi

4.2 8.9

12.9

4.1 12.9 4.1 8.3

10.8 5.5

n.a. 6.9

n.a. 4.2

n.a. n.a. n.a.

n.a. 7.0

6.6 15.8 10.0

4.0 21.6 3.7 9.0

11.1 6.0

n.a. 7.9

n.a. 5.1

n.a. n.a. n.a.

n.a. 13.5

8.8 12 17.7 16-21 11.6 16-21

3.6 12 23.1 1 6-2 1 4.8 12-16 8.2 12-16

13.6 12-16 6.1 16-21

n.a. 12-2 1 8.9 21

n.a. 12-16 4.7 21

n.a. 12-16 n.a. 12-16 n.a. 8

n.a. 16-27 9.1 21-27

Nore: n.a. = not available; cattle = 0.7 LSU, goavsheep = 0.1 LSU, donkeys/mules = 0.4 LSU Source: update from Carl Bro Int., 1982.


between 1980 and 1986: a reflection of high mortality rates during the recent drought. As the precise drought impact on the ACC is unknown, the net effect on rangeland pressure cannot be assessed. If it would be at all positive, the impact will be considerably smaller than the decline in stocking rates suggests. Table 3 also shows large regional differences in stocking rates; these are persistent as they can be traced back to the 1930s (Arntzen, 1989).

In summary, rangeland degradation cannot be fully substantiated due to lack of time series on rangeland productivity and a limited understanding of the nature and extent of productivity changes; further indepth research and rangeland monitoring are much needed. Based on the presently available data, there are two good reasons to conclude that rangeland degradation does occur: rapidly increasing livestock numbers (Figure 1 and Table 1) far beyond the PCC-figures and the widespread conviction that grass has become the major constraint to livestock development.

5 CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF RANGELAND DEGRADATION Government activities are clearly intertwined with other causes of

rangeland degradation. This section focuses on causes other than government; government activities will be examined in detail in section six. First the causes will be discussed followed by the main effects. In practice, causes and effects cannot easily be separated.

1. Causes Rapid population growth, the attractiveness of the livestock sector and

institutional changes have been the main causes. Population growth is high at around 3.5 per cent per annum and has

accelerated since the 1950s. Figure 2 showed the long-term relationship between livestock units and population numbers. We noted that expanded subsistence cultivation led to a decline of rangelands in small districts but in other regions this phenomenon has had limited impacts; this is a marked contrast with countries such as India (Jodha, 1986).

Beef production became increasingly attractive, especially after access to overseas markets was secured in the 1950s (Hubbard, 1986). The pre- Independence Protectorate Administraton and the Independent Botswana Government perceived that semi-arid conditions offered substantial comparative advantages for beef production over grain. We briefly examine its position relative to other income-generating activities. Because of its relative attractiveness, most private investments proved to be directed towards beef production.

In comparison with grain production, the terms of trade developed favourably for beef production until 1980. Opschoor (1983) found that whilst


in 1933 ten bags of grain sufficed to purchase a cow, at Independence thirteen bags were required for the same transaction and in 1981 sixteen. After 1980, grain prices and prices of goatmeat have risen faster than those of beef (Figure 3). However, the 1980s drought prevents a judgement of the impact of this shift in the terms of trade. The impact is, however, expected to be limited as beef income reached a record level in 1988189. Given rural labour constraints, sectoral labour returns may be a more meaningful indicator of the terms of trade for the population. Opschoor (1983) found the same trend prior to 1980: livestock returns were 2.6 times higher than those for grains in 1966 and 4 times in 1980.

Figure 3. TRENDS IN PRICE RATIOS BETWEEN BEEF AND GOAT

AND BETWEEN BEEF AND GRAINS (1980-1987; 1980 = 100)

1 S O

1.00 0 I c

d 0.5 0

0.00 1975 1980 1985 1990

* Goats - f - Sorghum -0- Maize

Source; Statistical Abstracts.

Non-farm employment offers a good alternative to beef production, but remains limited in size due to competition of large-scale South African companies (through the Southern African Customs Union), the small and scattered domestic market and limited entrepreneurial skills.


Institutional changes are both causes and effects of rangeland degradation. The most important changes refer to land tenure and to resource management in general. Unlike in countries such as Kenya and Zimbabwe, freehold land is only a small portion of Botswana’s surface. Freehold tenure is nevertheless an important issue because it is concentrated in small districts with the highest pressure on rangelands. During the 1970s, leasehold land was introduced within tribal land. Aimed at alleviating pressure on the remaining communal parts of tribal land, the result has been a further increase in pressure on communal rangleands. More details will be provided in the next section.

The increasing role of government in resource management has had mixed effects (Arntzen, 1989). Achievements regarding resource allocation have been satisfactory, but other aspects of resource management have been relatively weak. Resource management became increasingly centralised, sectoral and institutionally complicated. Moreover, ‘modern’ resource managagement did not inherit the ‘cultural authority’ needed for control and enforcement. The result has been a deterioration of resource management.

2. Effects The effects of rangeland degradation may be grouped under three

headings; narrowing options for the majority of owners of small herds; accelerating institutional changes; and negative intersectoral effects. These effects are mutually reinforcing.

Due to increasing pressure on rangelands, traditional management mechanisms were less available to most livestock holders. Underutilised rangelands became hard to find, and - if at all available - were remote and required access to groundwater. The costs involved were prohibitive for herds of less than 40 cattle or 78 per cent of the livestock holders in 1986.*The same holds for modern management techniques such as the provision of fodder and other inputs. In order to limit crop damage inflicted by cattle, herding became more important whilst fencing fields became a necessity; yet, the majority of small and medium-sized farmers are least equipped to act accordingly and therefore bear the brunt of the inflicted damage. No wonder that government anticipates a decline in the subsistence sector in favour of commercial farming (Government of Botswana, 1988).

The main institutional effect has been the defacto privatisation of rangelands. Its impact has probably been more important than the dejure pivatisation of tribal rangelands under the so-called Tribal Grazing Land Policy (TGLP from 1975). Traditionally, small herd owners could obtain access to remote rangelands through family links or through hiring of water from boreholes; these opportunities have rapidly declined to the extent that


fencing of rangelands around privately owned boreholes may be acceptable in the near future. These tendencies have caused a general decline in common- property management. Moreover, communal rangelands become subdivided into two categories: (a) de facto privatised rangelands. These are the domains of the large herds;

direct access to groundwater is a requirement. Stocking rates are below average. Cultivation is nonexistent or restricted to the large herd owners and some employees;

(b) mixed-farming areas. These areas combine cultivation and livestock production for small herds, which has, lost access to groundwater elsewhere and whose owners have to use their labour for crop and livestock production. It is a typical open-access regime. Stocking rates are generally high, and range conditions poor. Rangeland degradation has had a number of mostly negative impacts on

other sectors. The most important and tangible effect has been crop damage by cattle; others are the withdrawal of crop residues on enclosed fields from the stock of communal fodder during the dry season, the confinement of wildlife to smaller areas and commercialisation (e.g., of draughtpower, access to water). Between 60 to 80 per cent of the crop producers in Botswana experience crop damage inflicted by cattle. The incidence ofcrop damage can be cut down by half through fencing of fields. In the Palapye region, we found a strong positive correlation between socioeconomic stratification and fencing; the relationship between crop damage and strata was equally significant but negative (Arntzen, 1989).

Privatisation of crop residues on enclosed fields has received little attention from research, yet crop residues constitute an important source of fodder (Mosienyane, 1983). Here, we also found in the Palapye region a significant difference between socio-economic strata to the effect that 54 per cent of the upper stratum exclusively use crop residues for their own cattle compared with 30 per cent of the middle stratum; no cases were recorded of crop producers without cattle selling their residues.

6 GOVERNMENT 1. General Government Policies Government’s catalytic development efforts are guided by four general

principles, i.e., economic growth, social justice, economic independence and sustainable development. Sustainable development applies here to maintaining natural resources and economic growth. The latter is important because of the recurrent droughts, Botswana’s dependence on few economic sectors and the unstable political situation in Southern Africa. It has been government policy to boost economic growth by means of large-scale mining


ventures, continued support for beef production, and establishment of an adequate infrastructure to sustain economic growth and diversification. Rural development became of interest in the mid ~ O S , but only gained strength during the 1980s.

The government does not yet have an explicit environmental policy. The approval of the National Conservation Strategy is due this year (Budget Speech 1990). Some of the conclusions below may therefore soon be anticipated. Meanwhile, some policy elements have surfaced. Regarding non- renewable natural resources, official policy is that mineral revenues should not be used for consumer goods and that the associated investments should have low recurrent costs for government. This principle concurs with sustainable development in that one-time revenues be used to enhance the stock of physical, human or natural resources capital to the benefit of present and future generations.$ One could, however, go one step further by purposely using such revenues for rehabilitation of depleted renewable resources (e.g., rangelands). Policies towards renewables resources are so far sectoral (e.g., towards livestock, wildlife and water). The forthcoming NCS will provide general principles for the management of all renewable resources in addition to existing sectoral approaches. The most important element of a sound environmental policy is the integration of environmental considerations in all stages of development planning.

The present state of natural resource management may cause a number of important environmental effects of development. Firstly, development activities may generate substantial environmental costs. These external costs can easily be overlooked in policy-making and implementation. Secondly, there may be serious gaps in resource management. Policy outcomes can be suboptimal because of factors such as (a) the lack of clearly defined resource management objectives and priority areas; (b) gaps and inconsistencies in the available mixture of instruments; (c) the neglect of intersectoral effects; and (d) inadequate coordination and enforcement. Thirdly, the emphasis of environmental planning is likely to be curative rather than preventative. In short, one may hardly expect a comprehensive approach towards rangeland management and it is quite possible that on balance development efforts by government in fact aggravated rather than alleviated rangeland degradation.

2. Government has provided extensive support for beef production.

Although the intention has been to expand the sector and simultaneously to improve its quality and productivity, the results of the latter appear limited, certainly in comparison with the expansion which has been achieved (see e.g., Bekure and Dyson-Hudson, 1982). Opportunities for further territorial

Government Policy towards Livestock Production

486 Journal of International DeveIopment

expansion have now largely disappeared, hence further development of the sector requires a clear reorientation and transformation. At present, improved adaptation to droughts, maintenance of animal health standards and conservation of rangelands are considered key issues for sustained livestock production (Government of Botswana, 1985, p.168). Given the rangeland degradation and the marginalisation of small herds, environmental and social dimensions deserve a higher priority (as long as insuffkient alternatives exist). Three elements of a sectoral reorientation have so far been stated: (a) increased attention for smallstock; (b) broadening of the 5-year livestock development plans - the umbrella of government livestock projects because of lessons learned from previous projects and higher priority attached to rangeland problems: and (c) shift in government support to other economic sectors.

The first and third component have led to relative price changes in favour of smallstock and crops (Figure 3). Regarding the second component, the latest project pays considerably more attention to sustained rangeland development. To this end. it includes the strengthening of land-use planning at district level, and a review of the economic incentives/disincentives for sustained rangeland development and community-based rangeland management schemes. The latter involve a promising approach involving bottom-up, participatory grazing management, which have incorporated the lessons from the failures of the communal grazing cells. The latest project achieves a more balanced approach towards leasehold and communal livestock production. It is generally too early to assess the results of these components of the livestock reorientation.

Suggestions for two additional elements of a reorientation can be made: more differentiated policies aimed a t specific socio-cconomic categories and ecological conditions. Livestock strategies and constraints differ fundamentally by sociotconomic stratum. Moreover, ecological conditions may have a distinct impact on actual and potential rangeland use; and the livestock sector should be made responsible for itsexternal costsand the costs associated with foregone future use too (as proposed by Rrrings et al., 1988). Presently the sector does not even meet the full direct production costs due to the large subsidies. Examples of external costs generated by the livestock sector are: the costs of rangeland degradation to other sectors and other livestock holders, the impact on groundwater recharge. nitrate pollution of groundwater, crop damage by cattle, effects on wildlife through a reduction and fragmentation of the area available. Present data do not suffice to make comprehensive estimates of all costs involved. Incorporation of external costs and


foregone future use would, however, provide better directions for sustained livestock development planning. In summary, a transformed livestock sector should be economically

viable, allow room for small herds for the sake of social justice, and sustain its natural resource base.

3. Government Policy Towards Wildlife Until recently, little attention was paid to wildlife in development

planning. Its direct users’ value for the rural economy is substantial. Murray (1978) estimated that subsistence hunting was a major activity for 39 per cent Of the Population in Western Botswana. Such - non-market - contributions arc Often inadequately reflected in traditional economic planning. Interest in wildlife has however rapidly increased, due to: (a) the increased interest for rural development. In Western Botswana, this

inevitably leads to close scrutiny of the potential of wildlife for mral incomes;

(b) the growing awareness of the need to protect migratory routes outside National Parks and Game Reserves; and

(c) the realisation that wildlife constitute a considerable economic value and potential for economic diversification (e.g., wildlife-based industries and tourism). Both option and existence value of wildlife could be considerable. In

policy setting, wildlife has received higher priority also in relation to cattle, particularly in Western and Northern parts. The current National Development Plan recognises wildlife as an underutilised resource with a significant economic value. A dual approach is now worked out: one for National Parks and Game Reserves (on State land; some 17 per cent of the country) which are mostly used for tourism; the second one for tribal land where wildlife is used for tourism, hunting - subsistence and commercial -, etc.

The latter approach has been formalised in the \Vildlife Conservation policy (1986) which considers maintenance of wildlife resources and their better economic use central policy objectives. To this end. wildlife management areas (WMAs) are designated where wildlife use is granted priority over other types of land use. Proposed WhlAs cover around 8 per cent of the country, where wildlife utilisation is assumed to be ecologically and economically more attractive than livestock production. The policy is in its early phase of implementation, hence no conclusions can be drawn as yet. To our knowledge, management plans have not yet been developed for any WMA. Meanwhile however, community-based wildlife utilisation projects have recently started in most districts.

488 Journal of Znrernarional Development

Recreational and subsistence hunting in Botswana is regulated based on a mixture of quota and fees. With the exclusion of National Parks and Game Reserves - where all hunting is illegal - the country is subdivided in Controlled Hunting Areas (CHA). Quotas per species are annually determined based on aerial wildlife counts per CHA; in some cases, a total ban is declared (e.g., elephants). Hunting fees differentiate for the relative scarcity of the species involved and for subsistence versus commercial hunting; hunters from remote areas are entitled to free licenses.

Regarding tourism, a comprehensive policy is in the making. Presently, low-volume, high cost tourism is encouraged in a trade-off between restricting negative environmental and cultural impacts and collecting substantial revenues. Perrings et al. (1988) proposed that entrance fees for Parks and Reserves should a t least cover the marginal users’ costs. Subsequently, fees have been increased substantially but their relationship with the TEC remains unclear. This policy’s spin-offs for rural development are limited, hence some incompatibility with the WMA may exist.

4. Governments throughout the world have traditionally placed the thrust

of environmental planning on regulatory instruments (World Bank, 1987); SO

has the Botswana Government. The main instruments have been land tenure, land- and water-use planning and finally management orders.

Regulatory Instruments for Rangeland Management

Land Tenure Communal land is widely considered as a major contributor to

rangeland degradation. Communal tenure would provide an economic incentive for overstocking because the associated external costs are not directly incurred by range users; simultaneously, it would discourage investments in rangeland management because of lack of security. Substantial criticism has been raised against this so-called ‘Tragedy of the Commons’ (Runge, 1981; Sandford, 1983): (a) communal areas do not necessarily imply an openaccess regime.

Resource management regulations may exist under the so-called common property regime; the theory is inadequately backed by field-work and overlooks a t least one management option, i.e., communal ownership of land and livestock; privatisation programmes do not necessarily lead to higher productivity and better rangeland management (as Botswana’s own experience shows); and

(b)

(c)


(d) there is mounting evidence that increased pressure on communal rangelands, in part generated by privatisation programmes elsewhere, is the major cause of degradation rather than communal tenure itself. Nevertheless the basic idea of the Tragedy of the Commons occasionally

returns, probably because of its appealing simplicity and ideology to decision- makers.

The Tribal Grazing Land Policy (TGLP) from 1975 assumed that leasehold tenure is essential to raise livestock productivity. Leasehold ranches had the dual aim of productivity increases on ranches and alleviation of grazing pressure in the remaining communal areas. Lease periods were 50 years with renewal and inheritance options. In the leases provisions could be made for economic rents (revenues earmarked for improvements of communal rangelands), stock numbers and livestock management stipulations (see CARG, 1983). In practice, leases contained few conditions and rents were set at sub-economic level with a three years grace period (Pula 256/ranch of 6,400 ha). There is no clear evidence that the policy has contributed towards a reduction of grazing pressure in communal areas - probably the opposite has been the case - nor that commercial livestock productivity has increased; ranch development has been slow, and mostly involved absentee ranch owners.6 Probably as a result of these experiences, the Government White Paper on National Policy of Land Tenure (1985) no longer viewed communal tenure as a main cause of rangeland degradation. Instead, the Commission’s attention focused on unrestricted access to communal land for ranch owners (so-called dual grazing rights).’ Dual grazing rights allow ranch owners to move cattle to communal land in case of rangeland degradation on their ranches. In doing so, they cause external costs to already congested communal areas; they also reduce the need to improve on-side management practices (e.g., take-off, extra inputs).

Land- and Water-Use Planning The foundation of modern land-use planning has been laid down in the

Tribal Land Act (1968). According to this act, the Landboards took over most resource management tasks, previously held by the Chiefs; for example, the allocation of land and water rights and land-use zoning. Integrated land- use plans were first prepared during the late 1980s, following the strengthening of the districts’ institutional structure. The new district land- use planning units (DLUPU) became responsible for drawing up integrated land-use plans, to be approved and gazetted by central government. Important merits of systematic land-use planning are first that the land suitability and capability are clearly confronted with present and future use patterns; second, that land constraints are brought home to the population.


Undesired encroachment into rangelands can thus be halted and the land constraint be incorporated in families’ strategies along with socio-economic constraints. It is premature to assess the impact of such land-use plans.

Water-use planning has been restricted to spatial regulations for boreholes. The so-called 8 km. rule stipulates that boreholes be at least 8 kilometres apart; the rule assumes an average PCC of 12 ha/LSU and 400 LSU per borehole. The regulation has been fairly successful in limiting rangeland degradation. For two reasons it has been insufficient. Firstly, the rule does not take into account the considerable spatial and temporal variations in PCC; nor does it recognise that the ACC is often well below the PCC. Second, it does not regulate the number of cattle per borehole. In practice, stocking rates are often considerably higher. Regulations to limit stock numbers have never been successful. The most recent example is government’s decision to establish maximum stocking rates per borehole and set up enforcement mechanisms (Government Paper No.2 of 1982).

Orders The final category of regulatory instruments consists of stock and

conservation orders provided for under the Agricultural Resources Conservation Act. If range conditions are poor, the Agricultural Resources Board and its sub-ordinate District Conservation Committees may issue orders to undertake land conservation measures (e.g., against gullies) or to limit the number of livestock Such orders may be applied to communal as well as leasehold/freehold land. No such orders have ever been issued. This can hardly be attributed to mere implementation and enforcement problems. The commitment for implementation and backing by economic incentives appear to be inadequate.

Regulatory instruments are not necessarily effective. They take a long time becoming operational; others remain unused, probably because there is no real commitment to their implementation. Most important however, regulatory instruments such as stock orders and stock limits per borehole are not supported by economic incentives. The latter could facilitate the implementation and efficiency of regulatory instruments.

5. Economic Instruments Economic instruments receive increasing interest as means to promote

sustainable development (see e.g., World Bank, 1987; Schramm and Warford, 1989). Their neglect in the past has contributed to the environmental problems to date; there are also indications that a proper mixture of economic and regulatory instruments may increase the effectiveness of both. Environmental considerations should be incorporated


in the design of economic instruments in general; in addition, they could also lead to the design of special instruments to promote sustainable development.

In Botswana the favourable financial situation of government and the aim to boost production have led to frequent use of economic instruments, especially subsidies and tax provisions. Environmental considerations have rarely been incorporated; nor have economic instruments been specifically applied to promote sustained rangeland development. The use of grass and water is usually not charged. Recently, suggestions have been made to charge fees for water and grazing(Campbel1 and Cooke, 1985; Abel et al., 1987). This section will therefore deal primarily with the manner in which economic activities, which depend on rangelands, have generally been influenced by economic instruments, directly or indirectly. Short-term and long-term effects are to be distinguished. The former relate to decisions such as the level of off-take whilst the latter focuses on investment patterns shaping the long- term development of the sector. Opportunities of other sectors will be briefly considered in order to assess potential foregone benefits (element of marginal opportunity costs).

The following instruments will be discussed: market prices of inputs and outputs, subsidies and tax provisions.

Output Prices The beef market has two distinct and largely separate segments, the

export market (around 80 per cent) and the domestic market (20 per cent). Knowledge about the domestic market is rather limited.

me Botswana Meat Commission (BMC), which holds the monopoly Over beef exports, sets beef and smallstock prices at the beginning of each year. Prices differ seasonally and for quality grades; the condition of rangelands is not incorporated in the price determination. Producers incur the transport costs to the abbattoirs and quality grading takes place upon entering BMC. Consequently, the sale of cattle from remote areas or cattle in poor condition is relatively unattractive. During droughts it may not be worthwhile to sell cattle to BMC due to their poor condition and the transport costs and risks. Producers and agents such as cooperatives have to acquire quota in order to sell. Both quota and prices are set in order to secure a constant supply of beef to the abbattoirs; the dynamics of carrying capacity are not considered. For example, prices are lowest at the end of the wet season when off-take would require incentives. The knowledge of the majority of farmers about the market procedures is limited (Fidzani, 1985), hampering an optimal response to the changes in market or local environmental conditions. BMC’s focus on favourable international markets and its policy to aim at high producers’ prices have led to beef prices well above the world market level (up


to 32 per cent). The EEC rebate almost equals the average government budget for the livestock sector. Therefore, its destination is a major policy variable. A recent study (McGowan/Coopers and Lybrand, 1987) showed that seasonal and intergrade price differences were unnecessarily large.

Finally, the new Francistown abattoir may have some important impacts on livestock production and rangelands. First, it improves access to slaughtering capacity for Northern Botswana, hence reducing the producers’ delivery costs. This will probably stimulate the off-take of cattle in Northern Botswana. Second, the expansion of slaughtering capacity may relax the application of the present rigid quota system; for example, quotas could be acquired on shorter notice or perhaps they could be made redundant altogether if no excess peaks are likely to occur. Third, if the joint output of the Lobatse and Francistown abattoirs, which export to the EEC, would exceed the EEC quota (19,100 under Lome 3), less attractive export markets have to be used, hence average producers’ prices may decrease.

There is insufficient understanding of short-term and long-term producers’ responses to price changes. McGowan et al., 1987 Conclude that producers would increase off-take when prices increase; their evidence is unclear and they fail to distinguish socio-economic strata. Given the different strategies and constraints, the large and small livestock owners will respond quite differently to price changes.

Large livestock owners are primarily commercial meat producers. They are likely to increase off-take on the short term when prices increase. If the latter is expected to be a longer term phenomenon, they probably increase investments too. The impact of extra investments on rangeland use depends on the nature of investments. If their emphasis is on more cattle rather than better management techniques, grazing pressure is expected to increase (as opening of new rangelands for cattle is generally no longer feasible).

For the majority of small livestock owners, the impact on off-take is less predictable because it is based more on adhoc decisions, particularly sudden cash needs. For this group, livestock serves various purposes and there is a general desire to expand the herd in order to reduce its vulnerability and benefit from scale advantages. Therefore, price fluctuations are expected to draw a limited response from this category of livestock holders. Additional measures such as quota relaxation and better information about markets may be more effective.

Figure 3 showed that crop prices have increased more rapidly during the 1980s. Being part of the Southern African Customs Union and with South Africa generally having a grain surplus, it is difficult to allow grain prices to deviate substantially from South African prices. This is reflected in the present price policy, where crop prices are based on the South African prices;


transport costs to various regions are added on to this base price. In conclusion, prices of smallstock and crops have increased in relation

to beef prices, but it is too early to assess the impact on sectoral developments. There is need and scope for changes in the present beef pricing system in order to promote better rangeland management (adjustment of seasonal and grade differences; use of rebate).

Input Subsidies The livestock sector has traditionally received large subsidies for

veterinary facilities and other inputs such as the bull subsidy scheme and subsidised fodder and bonemeal. According to the Ministry of Agriculture, subsidies constituted 55 per cent of the production costs in the livestock sector in the mid 198Os, substantially lowering the direct users costs (Fidzani, 1985).

The Presidential Commission on Economic Opportunities (1982) held the view that livestock production should no longer be a net recipient of subsidies. The Commission estimated the average net annual inflow of government funds into the livestock sector to be Pula 4.6 mln over the period covering 1977-1981; the average annual EEC rebate amounted to P10.8 mln Over that period. Instead, the commission recommended government support to be used for economic diversification. NDP6 spells out a redirection of agricultural support towards crop production. Crop subsidies have increased rapidly during the 1980s, and now include most arable investments and recurrent practices. Concerns have been expressed about environmental impacts of some subsidy schemes (such as the destumping scheme); only recently, a subsidy scheme has been introduced to promote better arable land management. Although the recent drought makes an adequate assessment not yet possible, it seems questionable whether arable subsidies have tipped the terms of trade in favour of crop production. It seems likely that the livestock sector continues to be a net recipient of subsidies to date (even disregarding the EEC rebate).

It appears that government subsidies have heavily favoured the livestock sector, and probably still do. Environmental factors are rarely considered during the design of subsidy schemes. Moreover, few - if any - subsidies are directly geared towards better resource management.

Tax Regulations Livestock taxation is fraught with technical problems because of the

large numbers of owners of small herds, enforcement problems and ownership-holdership ambiguities. It is, however, a tricky political issue which was, for example, taken out of the terms of reference of the incentives/disincentive study (McGowadCoopers and Lybrandt, 1987). Tax


changes could become acceptable as part of a more comprehensive approach towards rangeland management.

The present tax regulations favour livestock production: export levies remained unchanged since Independence (Fidzani, 1989, income losses from livestock and livestock investments are tax deductable (Perrings et al., 1988). Due (1989) suggests that deductions are also valuable because revenue estimates are based on standard values - below the actual selling price -, whilst expenditures are based on true costs.

6 CONCLUDING REMARKS Rangeland pressure has persistently increased during this century.

Based on the increase of stocking rates well beyond present estimates of sustainable use and the perceived scarcity of grazing, we conclude that rangeland degradation is widespread in Botswana. Botswana’s remarkable economic growth proved no guarantee for sustainable development.

Economic policies of the past aimed at higher livestock production but have - unintentionally - enhanced over exploitation of rangelands (as is the case in many other countries). High prices and substantial subsidies provided strong incentives to increase livestock production. As environmental considerations were hardly incorporated in such policies, external costs to the environment and to other economic activities (eg., wildlife utilisation) were insufficiently taken into account. In addition, substantial social costs emerged in the form of increased marginalisation of small livestock owners. At the same time, natural resource management weakened and strongly relied on regulatory instruments; economic instruments are hardly applied (e.g., water or grazing fees).

This paper shows that Botswana’s policies towards economic activities and natural resources are rapidly changing. The expressed need for a reorientation of the livestock sector and the preparation of the national conservation strategy are encouraging signs. However, results depend on the quality of the plans and their implementation. Based on our results, the solution of rangeland problems requires a comprehensive package of measures; partial efforts are unlikely to succeed. The three most important elements of such a package are the full integration of environmental aspects in livestock development, sufficient attention to sectoral interdependence and finally strengthening of natural resource management.

First, a multidisciplinary, integrated approach towards development planning is needed to ensure that rangeland degradation ceases to be an unintentional side-effect of livestock development. It implies taking note of external effects and foregone future benefits; moreover, it may identify untapped development opportunities offered by rangelands. The allocation


of government resources would benefit from such integration. It raises issues such as the adjustment of macroeconomic planning techniques (e.g., by natural resource accounting or the development of indicators for sustainable in addition to Gross Domestic Product. It also requires institutional adaptations to improve coordination and promote decentralisation. Secondly, sectoral interdependence and trade-offs involve - in the case of rangelands - arable encroachment in rangelands and competition between wildlife and livestock; the latter and the issue of most suitable land use is particularly relevant to Western Botswana. Obviously, economic activities also compete for capital and labour implying that tivestock policies have to be constantly aware of the sector's terms of trade and trade-offs. Thirdly, natural resource management can be directly enhanced by deliberate use of economic instruments. Although it is difficult to forecast the immediate effects in detail, they can be expected to send better incentives to rangeland users; furthermore, they could support the implementation and enforcement of regulatory instruments.

Opportunities exist to modify the price and quota system for beef to promote sustainable use of rangelands; to this end, price and quota variations could incorporate ecological and socioeconomic differences. Government already intends to divert financial support to other sectors in order to promote economic diversification. The concept of sustainable development suggests that part of the mineral revenues could be specifically earmarked to enhance the renewables natural resource base. The introduction of grazing and/or water fees has been previously suggested. Experiences elsewhere show that revenues from such levies could be best utilised at the district o r local level to promote better rangeland management. Regarding regulatory instruments, progress in land-use planning is promising; it seems important that land-use planning fully incorporates water-use planning. Access to groundwater is crucial in analysing and solving rangelands issues.

Finally, there is need for more focused research in order to improve the foundation of livestock policies. Despite considerable research efforts, no time series of land productivity are available; consequently, the exact impact of the recent drought on carrying capacity is not known. Other areas for further research are the in-depth analysis of the nature of rangeland degradation, the ex-ante impact assessment of economic instruments and finally the exploration of the future of rangelands by means of different scenarios.

NOTES 1. Total economic value expands on the direct users value by adding the

option value (future users's options) and the existence value (not related

496

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

Journal of International Development

to specific use). See for further details Pearce et al., 1989.

Marginal opportunity costs (MOC) cover, apart from the marginal extraction costs, external costs and marginal users’s costs (of foregone future use). See for a review Perrings et al., 1988. Increased human activities pose a number of potential threats to wildlife such as reduced mobility. The Wildlife Utilisation Policy recognises the potential contribution of wildlife to rural and national development and its implementation should address such threats.

A herd of forty is a minimal requirement for a stake in a boreho1e;from a hundred onwards, it may be rewarding to have one’s own borehole (Carl Bro Int., 1982). The thresholds to groundwater are considerably lower in regions where wells are in use (Arntzen, 1989).

Clearly, enhancing the future stocks of capital resources is not a sufficient condition for sustainable development as it implicitly assumes full substitution between human, physical and natural capital. In practice, substitution options are limited and knowledge about the trade-offs involved is imperfect. Therefore, there is a case to set standards for future stocks (see also Pearce et al., 1989). The current Range Management and Livestock Development Project does not envisage additional ranches; it only provides support for development of ranches, zoned or allocated under previous projects.

The consultations during the NCS showed that the resolution of this issue is now seen as a testcase for government’s commitment towards solving rangeland degradation.

REFERENCES Abel, N. 0. J., Flint, M. E. S., Hunter, N. D., Chandler, D., and Maka, G.

(1987) Cattle-Keeping, Ecological Change and Communal Manage- ment in Ngwaketse. Gaborone: ILCA, Addis Ababa and Ministry of Agriculture.

Abel, N. 0. J. and Blaikie, P. M. (1989) ‘Land Degradation, Stocking Rates and Conservation Policies in the Communal Rangelands of Botswana and Zimbabwe’, Land Degradaiion and Rehabilitation, 1.

Arntzen, J. W. and Veenendaal, E. M. (1986) A ProJIe of Environment and Development of Botswana. NIR, University of BotswanaALES, Free University, Amsterdam.


Amtzen, J. W. (1989) Environmental Pressure and Adaptation in Rural Botswana. PhD Thesis. Amsterdam: Free University.

Bekure, S. and Dyson-Hudson, N. (1982) m e Operation and Viability of the Second Livestock Development Project. Gaborone: Ministry of Agriculture.

Campbell, A. C. and Child, C. (1971) ‘The Impact of Man on the Environment of Botswana’, Botswana Notes and Records, 3, pp.9 1- 110. Gaborone: Botswana Society.

Campbell, A. and Cooke, J. (eds.) (1985) The Management of Botswana’s Environment. Gaborone: Botswana Society.

CARG (1983) Report on Lund-Use Planning. Gaborone.

Carl Bro Int (1982) An Evaluation of Livestock Management and Production in Botswana with Special Reference to Communal Areas (vols. 1-3). Gaborone: Ministry of Agriculture.

Dixon, J. A., James, D. E. and Sherman, P. B. (1989) The Economics of Drylandr Degradation. London: Earthscan.

Duncan, 0. D. (1959) ‘Human Ecology and Population Studies’, in Hauser, P. M. and Duncan, 0. D. (eds.) The Study of Population: An Invenrory and Analysis, University of Chicago Press, pp.678-7 16.

Due, J. F. (1989) ‘The Tax Structure of Botswana’, The Bulletin, pp.9-16, International Bureau of Fiscal Documentation.

Fidzani, N. H. (1985) A Critical Evaluation of the Botswana Livestock Industry’s Pricing Policy. Paper for EDI/World Bank Program on African Price Policy Case Studies.

Field, D. I. (1978) A Handbook of Basic Ecology for Range Management in Botswana. Gaborone: Ministry of Agriculture.

Fortmann, L., Edzanie, U., Gobotswang, K., Magama, A,, Motswogole, L. and Woto, T. (1983) A Study of Local Institutions and Resource Management in North-East District. Gaborone: Ministry of Local Government and Lands.

Government of Botswana (1975) ‘National Policy on Tribal Grazing Land’, Government Paper No.2. Gaborone: Government Printer.

Government of Botswana (1985) The Sixth National Development Plan 1985-1991. Gaborone: Government Printer.


Government of Botswana (1985) ‘National Policy on Land Tenure’. Government Paper No. 1. Gaborone: Government Printer.

Government of Botswana ( 1986) ‘Wildlife Conservation Policy’, Government Paper No. 1. Gaborone: Government Printer.

Government of Botswana (1988) The Midterm Review of rhe Sixth National Development Plan. Gaborone: Government Printer.

Hubbard, M. (1986) Agricultural Exports and Economic Growth: A Study of Botswana’s Beef Industry. London: KPI.

Jodha, N. A. (1986) ‘The Decline of Common Property Resources in Rajasthan, India, Pastoral Network Paper 22c. London: ODI.

McGowan Int., Coopers and Lybrand (1987) Final Report on Incentives/Disincentives for the Livestock Sector. Gaborone,

Morse, C. et al. (1960) Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland: Report of an Economic Survey Mission. London: HMSO.

Mosienyane, B. P. (1983) ‘Crop Residues for Animal Feeding’, The Bulletin of Agricultural Research in Botswana, 1, pp.3-9. Ministry of Agriculture.

Murray, M. L. (1978) Wildlife Utilisation Investigation and Planning in Western Botswana. Gaborone: Ministry of Commerce and Industry.

Opschoor, J. B. (198 1) ‘Environmental Resource Utilisation in Communal Botswana’, NIR Working Paper No.38, University of Botswana.

Opschoor, J. B. (1983) ‘Crops, Class and Climate’, in Oommen, M. A., Inganji, F. K. and Ngcongco, L. D. (eds.) Botswana’s Economy since Independence, p p . 159- 179, New Delhi: TataiMcGraw Hill.

Pearce, D. W., Barbier, E. and Markandya, A. (1989) Blueprintfor a Green Economy. London: Earthscan.

Perrings, C. Pearce, D. W. Opschoor, J. B., Arntzen, J. W. and Gilbert, A. (1988) Economics and the Environment: A Contribution to the National Conservation Strategy Botswana. Gaborone,

Presidential Commission on Economic Opportunities ( 1982) Final Reporr. Botswana: Government Printer.

Roe, E. (1980) ‘Development of Livestock, Agriculture and Water Supplies in Botswana before Independence’, Occasional Papers No. 10, Cornell University.


Runge, C. F. (1981) ‘Common Property Externalities: Isolation, Assurance and Resource Depletion in a Traditional Grazing Context’, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 63, pp.595- 606.

Sandford, S . (1983) Management of Pastoral Development in the Third World. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.

Schapera, I. (1943) Native Land Tenure in the Bechuanaland Protectorate. Cape Town: Lovedale Press.

Schramm, G. and Warford, J. J. (eds.) (1989) Environmental Management and Economic Development. Baltimore and London: World Bank/Johns Hopkins Press.

WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our Common Future. London: Oxford University Press.

Wilkinson, R. G. (1973) Poverty and Progress. London: Methuen.

World Bank (1987) ‘Environment, Growth and Development’, Project Appraisal, 2, 2, pp.75-87.

Economic policies and rangeland degradation in Botswana

Documents

Transcript of Economic policies and rangeland degradation in Botswana