the role of tourism in natural resource management in the okavango ...

and the compensation provided is generally so small that it is not worth reporting the
damage. Of the respondents that did report crop damage to the DWNP, 4.2 percent
were compensated and were happy with their compensation, 24.2 percent were
compensated and were not happy with the compensation, while 44.2 percent stated
that they had never been compensated (Mbaiwa, 1999).
The main reason given for dissatisfaction with compensation is that the amount of
money they receive is generally very little, and the DWNP takes a very long time to
pay this out. The DWNP is also often reluctant to award compensation as they
stated that some of the areas where people are practicing crop production are
wildlife areas (such as in the Khwai area) and hence damage is to be expected.
According to the DWNP Annual Report for 1996/1997, government compensation
rates for the period were only Pula 100 for crop damage for a minimum of one
hectare. Most of the crop fields in these villages are less than one hectare and
hence many of the farmers do not qualify for compensation (Mbaiwa, 1999).
The local communities have suggested several ways which can be used to reduce
the problems related to crop damage by wildlife in the area. These include erecting
electric fences around their fields (common view at Mababe and Sankuyo),
increasing compensation money, stop crop farming altogether as it cannot operate in
wildlife areas (view common at Khwai) and the reduction of elephant populations
and the killing of problem animals (Mbaiwa, 1999).
7.2.3.2 Livestock Farming and Wildlife Management
There is also conflict, but to a lesser degree, between livestock farming and wildlife
management in the Okavango Delta. Livestock ownership in the Okavango Delta is
generally low, and as such, only 37.9 percent of the 95 individuals interviewed by
Mbaiwa in the villages of Khwai, Mababe and Sankuyo own livestock, which
comprises mostly goats and donkeys (Table 7.6).
297