Partnership between a private sector ecotourism operator and a local community in the Okavango Delta, Botswana: the case of the Okavango Community Trust and Wilderness Safaris

Abstract

The majority of Africa is characterised by high levels of poverty, high population densities and limited economic development. Botswana is, however, different in having the highest gross domestic product per capita in Africa, relatively low population densities and high levels of socio-economic development. Inequality, however, remains high. A community-based natural resource management programme was introduced in 1989 to ensure that local communities benefit from the country's abundant natural resources, with the hope that they will then protect them. Partnerships between the private sector and local communities evolved from this. Okavango Wilderness Safaris, a private sector ecotourism operator, has relationships with three community trusts: Okavango Community Trust (OCT), Sankuyo Community Development Trust and the Khwai Development Trust. This paper looks specifically at the partnership with the OCT. Based on ecotourism staff and non-staff interview results, an analysis of this relationship reveals that there are socio-economic benefits to be received, but the distribution of these is limited. Socio-economic benefits to individual community households can be substantial, but overall community benefit distribution needs to be reassessed. Overall socio-economic impacts of the partnership are examined and suggestions for enhancing private sector/community relationships are put forward, based on the interview results and personal observations.

Keywords:

• ecotourism
• private sector
• community trusts
• conservation
• development
• Botswana

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Wilderness Safaris for supplying accommodation, transport and access to the area of study. Special thanks to Derek de la Harpe and Grant Woodrow and Okavango Wilderness Safaris Finance Department in Botswana, for assistance in collecting the financial data and giving clarity on the lease and other joint venture information. The author gratefully acknowledgements receipt of tuition funding from Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA), through the Environmental Policy Research Unit at the School of Economics, University of Cape Town. The author wishes to also thank two anonymous reviewers for valuable comments and advice on the earlier versions of this paper.

Notes

1. Traditionally, ‘fortress conservation involved the creation of protected areas, the exclusion of people as residents, the prevention of consumptive use and minimization of other forms of human impact’ (Adams & Hulme, 2001, p. 10).

2. Attempt was made to always interview the household head. If this was not possible, the next oldest person who was available was interviewed.

3. For more information on Wilderness Safaris, see www.wilderness-safaris.com.

4. Main Income 1: Farm-related income (included all sales of crops, livestock, etc.);

Main Income 2: Tourism-related income (included all those employed by OWS, as well as those receiving income from the sale of crafts to tourists, etc.);

Main Income 3: Environment-related income (included the collection of reeds and any other income derived directly from the environment);

Main Income 4: Formal employment (main household income source was from formal employment, other than tourism employment);

Main Income 5: Casual labour/piecework (included all non-formal employment); and

Main Income 6: Government grant/pension (Snyman, 2013).

5. Casual labour was largely guards at cattle posts.

6. A number of authors (Ashley & Roe, 2002; Boudreaux & Nelson, 2011; Lapeyre, 2011; Scherl et al., 2004; Spenceley & Goodwin, 2007) have stressed that tourism is one of few activities able to generate income in impoverished agriculturally marginal rural areas.