JZibraryS.-?-.i?---(»l'.>i; f ^ s r u-;- • v , •..••. / : i t s

•.../•,. .,.>&,, , M"il """ ^

Managing Resources withPRA Partnerships: -A Case Study of Lesoma, Botswana

Published jointly by:

The Program for International DevelopmentClark Univeristy, Worcester, MAUSA

PRA ProjectEgerton UniveristyKenya

September, 1993

This case study is prepared through a grant from the United States Agency for International Development. The data were compiled

during a PRA training course held in Lesoma, Botswana for the Department of Wildlife and National Parks and the USAID funded

Botswana Natural Resources Management Project (NRM-Project Number 623-0251-C-OO-OO33-OO). For additional copies or

information about PRA and community based natural resources management, contact one of the persons or institutions listed on

the back of this case study.

LIBRARY IRCPO Box 93190, 2509 AD THE HAGUE

Tel.: +31 70 30 689 80Fax: +31 70 35 899 64

BARCODE:LO:

Managing Resources withPRA Partnerships:

A Case Study of Lesoma, Botswana

Richard FordClark University

Francis LeloEgerton University

Chandida MonyadzweDepartment of Wildlife and National Parks

Richard KashweekaForum on Sustainable Agriculture

AcknowledgementsWe wish to thank all our colleagues who have

made this case study possible. First and most im-portant are the people and leaders of Lesoma. Theygave generously of their time and energy as well astheir information. The Lesoma Community ActionPlan creates a setting to improve their economicand social well-being; it will also require workfrom all residents. For their commitment and ener-gy, the PRA team expresses thanks. We are indebt-ed to the District Commissoiner of Chobe, theChobe Extension Staff and related officer, TheDepartment of Wildlife and National Parks, as wellas the Government of Botswana.

Second, we thank the US-AID Mission inBotswana that provided the funding and backup forthe training, field research, and follow-up. Withouttheir assistance, the PRA effort would never havebegun. Working closely with the Mission was theproject staff of the Natural Resources Management(NRM) Project, especially the Team Leader, theChemonics Corporation, and the entire project staff.

PRA continues to be indebted to the work of theLondon-based International Institute for Environ-ment and Development and its many friends andsupporters throughout the world who developedthe core methodology ~ Rapid Rural Appraisal —of which PRA is one sub-set. The pioneering workof the RRA methodology has provided a critical setof strategies upon which PRA is based.

In addition, a special vote of thanks is due toEagilwe Segosebe of the University of Botswanafor his assistance in translating the booklet, "Intro-duction to PRA for Rural Resources Management,"into Setswana. The local language materials havebeen invaluable in helping local communities de-velop their own uses and perspectives of communi-ty based development.

Another major contribution has been the edit-ing, formatting, and design of the entire publicationby Lori Wichhart. Her commitment and creativityhave made the case study another major contribu-tion to help others learn about PRA.

We also thank the participants in the PRAtraining course who worked in Lesoma. The groupwas energetic, active, and supportive in our effortsto adapt the approach to the immediate and uniqueneeds of Botswana.

Finally, we wish to include the larger PRAnetwork from Madagascar, Uganda, The Gambia,Tanzania, Nepal, India, The Philippines and manymore for the continued dialogue and exchange ofexperiences in using village resources more effec-tively. PRA has grown considerably in the past fiveyears because of the comitment and creativity ofthis extended family. This case study forms part ofthe continuing dialogue.

Chandida MonyadzweDepartment of Wildlife and National Parks

Richard KashweekaForum on Sustainable Agriculture

Richard FordClark University

Francis LeloEgerton University

Table of Contents

1.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

VI .

VII.

VIM.

IX.

X.

Introduction

Background

About PRA

Data Gathering

Data Analysis

Ranking Problems

Ranking Opportunities

Community Action Plan

Lessons Learned

Epilogue

1

3

7

9

27

33

35

39

43

47

List of Figures

Figure 1. Location Map iv

Figure 2. Sketch Map 12

Figure 3. Transect 14

Figure 4. Seasonal Calendar 16

Figures. Lesoma Historical Narrataive 18

Figure 6. Time Line 19

Figure 7. Livelihood Diagram 20

Figure 8. Trend Lines 22

Figure 9. Institutional Information Inventory 23

Figure 10. Institutional Relationships 25

Figure 11. Lesoma Village Problems and Opportunities 28

Figure 12. Ranking Opportunities 36

Figure 13. Community Action Plan 40

in

Figure 1. Location Map

Angola Zambia

South Africa

0-Area of Enlargement

IV

I. Introduction

Lesoma is a small village in Chobe District, inthe north of Botswana. It is a community of ironiesand untapped potentials.

Though small — less than 300 people ~ it hasan enviable infrastructure including a primaryschool, clinic (with a full time nurse), borehole andstorage tank, standpipes, a poultry business hous-ing several hundred chickens, a bakery, and brick-making facilities. There is also a gravel quarry atthe edge of the village though it employs only ahandful of people from the community. Thoughclose to rich resources of water, wildlife, forests,national parks, and wage employment, Lesoma isa poor community. Though blessed with a poten-tial abundance of water from a nearby river, verylittle is available for horticulture or agro-forestry.Though close to grazing land, very few people owncattle. Though well supported by drought reliefprojects such as government subsidized road con-struction and government grants for small busi-ness, it is a community which has made few selfstarts.

The community has many problems. Mostsevere is persistent encroachment by large game.There is also difficult land access as the village iswedged between the Zimbabwe border to the east

and the Kasane Forest Reserve to the north, west,and south. Poachers from several countries alsovisit the area as it lies astride a major wildlifemigration route between Zambia, Zimbabwe, andBotswana and is only a few kms from the well-known Chobe National Park. Other problemsinclude male out-migration for wage employment;ethnic diversity which sometimes leads to tension,especially between newer migrants and older res-idents; and fragmented community institutions.Figure 11 suggests the full range of problems thatLesoma's residents have identified.

This case study describes how a team ofofficers from Botswana's Department of Wildlifeand National Parks (DWNP), other ministries, andNGOs (Non-governmental Organisations) carriedout a PRA (Participatory Rural Appraisal) inLesoma during June, 1993. The goal of the PRAwas to acquaint workshop participants with amethodology to open negotiations between parkofficers and communities such as Lesoma. Thenegotiations have led to shared action plans thatsupport both conservation and development. Thegoals of the plans are to offer village residents hopeof sustainable livelihoods while protecting bothflora and fauna in the Kasane Forest Reserve andChobe National Park.

II. Background

Lesoma exists because a year-round spring hasrun continuously for as long as the oldest residentscan remember. Legends suggest the spring mayhave served people, wildlife, and livestock forcenturies. It is probable that hunters and gatherers-- the ancestors of the present Basarwa people inthe area — have used the spring for two thousandyears. Pastoral peoples have lived in the area forat least a thousand years. Agriculture has comelate in the life of Lesoma as rainfall is variable,soils marginal, and markets distant.

The village lies a few kms south of one of thefew places in the world where four nations con-verge. To the east is Zimbabwe's Matetse HuntingReserve — Lesoma actually borders the reserveboundary for about 3 kms. A few kms north isZambia at the confluence of the Chobe and ZambeziRivers. North and slightly west is Namibia'sCaprivi Strip — the 19th century vestige of colo-nial negotiations in which Germany bargained fora slice of Africa to connect German SouthwestAfrica with the Zambezi and therefore GermanEast Africa.

The area surrounding Lesoma within Botswanais protected forest reserve. Perhaps another irony

of the small village is its contradiction in landstatus. The Forest Department claims Lesoma liesentirely inside the Kasane Forest and exists onlywith the Department's good will and generosity.Yet the Ministry of Local Government, Lands andHousing assumes the land to be available forprivate holdings and has begun issuing lease titlesto villagers and other citizens who can demonstrateproof of long standing occupancy or who can pay.

Lesoma's recent history is traceable for littlemore than a century. In the 1860s or 1870s, oneof Khama Ill's chief hunters, Maruza, led theKhama on an expedition that passed by Lesoma.Khama III was perhaps the strongest of a long lineof traditional chiefs and the grandfather ofBotswana's first President, Sir Seretse Khama.Rich in game, Lesoma looked inviting. Khamagranted Maruza the land to look after for futurehunts.

Maruza gladly accepted and moved his familywithin a few years. He served as the first chief ofan intermittently settled or sometimes shiftingcommunity. Maruza's granddaughter — Kesetse -- still lives in Lesoma and provided much of thedetail of her grandfather's adventures. Maruza

died at the turn of the century and was succeededby several headmen, including Samkoena, Lesoma,Fanamanja (Nanjwa), Lesoma II, Kelesitse Samati,and eventually, Amos Mkheswa who is the currentheadman of Lesoma's 250 people. The Time Line(Figure 6) offers details. Mkheswa is the firstheadman who is not Basarwa, representing a shiftin community leadership.

This shift in leadership suggests that Lesoma,like many villages in Botswana, is not homoge-neous. The current population represents genera-tions of migration and interaction. Maruza's firstsettlers were Basarwa. Hunting, herding, andgathering still account for a major share of incomefor many of Lesoma's households; the Basarwacontinue to be the largest group in Lesoma. Whilehunting and gathering are slowly disappearing asprimary sources of livelihood, the people arereluctant to embrace fully the agricultural andwage economy of the new Botswana.

For example, the PR A team talked with oneBasarwa family in which an elderly male heads thehousehold. His livelihood comes from marginalfarming and hunting that is sometimes legal. Hiswife brews beer from wild berries collected in theforest, sorghum, and mealies (maize). Two sonswork nearby, though they no longer live at home.One is a labourer for a road construction company;the second works on a large irrigated farm 20 kmaway. While most of the household ekes out ameager existence in the compound, one grandsonhas completed secondary school and is enrolled inan auto mechanics course at the polytechnic inGaborone.

A second important group are Lesoma'sNdebele from Zimbabwe. For example, Mkheswa,

the village headman, is Ndebele. While there havebeen Ndebele in the area for many years, theirarrival in significant numbers in Lesoma was onlyabout 25 years ago. There are also remnants ofgroups who have trekked south from Zambia suchas the Mandakwe and Barotse. From the Caprivistrip come the Balozi; and from farther south inBotswana - in the general area of Francistown —come groups such as the Kalanga.

Indeed, the most commonly spoken languagein the village beyond Setswana is Lozi. Becausethere is great similarity among all the languages,formal communication is not an issue. However,lest one assume that ethnic identity is unimportant,one quickly becomes aware of the many groups,their use of language and customs to preserve theiridentities, and even separate cemeteries for eachcommunity to honor its departed.

Agriculture first appeared in the Lesoma areain the early 1900s. A combination of immigrantsfrom Zambia and Zimbabwe and a Portuguesefarmer seem to have used the land for cropproduction for a decade or so. By the time of WorldWar II, these people had moved away and thePortuguese had either left or died.

Farming began again in the late 1960s with thearrival of the Dube family, led by the father ofcurrent Lesoma resident, Titus Dube. The elderDube ploughed fields near the spring and plantedsorghum, maize, melons, and beans. In thosedays, people of Lesoma who practiced agriculturetended to live on or near their fields, as was thetradition of the Ndebele and the Kalanga. In doingso, they discouraged wildlife from bothering theircrops, especially during the months immediatelybefore harvest.

In the 1960s, a few seasons of good rainfall andthen good rains again in the early 1970s attractedothers and Lesoma began to grow. But the spurtwas short lived. The civil war in neighboringZimbabwe ~ then Rhodesia — spilled across theborder in the mid and late 1970s. Rhodesianpatrols sometimes swept through the area andZimbabwe freedom fighters often sought shelterand food in the village and nearby forests. Pres-sure from the war forced some residents to aban-don their fields and flee the village. Those whoremained left their fields and moved into the villagecenter where they built houses. They felt saferliving together, venturing to their fields only foressential ploughing, planting, weeding, and har-vesting. Crops were not properly guarded againstwildlife, resulting in further declines in food pro-duction. Separation of the homesteads from theagricultural fields — a direct result of the Zimba-bwe civil war — has contributed to declines inagricultural production.

An even greater shock came one night in 1977when a raid and counter raid brought a Rhodesianpatrol to a hill slope one km from Lesoma's center.Three Landrovers from the Botswana DefenseForce came to investigate. Rhodesian troops at-tacked the BDF, killing 15 and wounding others.Botswana was outraged but unable to retaliate atthis incursion. The impact on Lesoma was to drivepeople away one more time.

When peace came to Zimbabwe in 1980,farmers started to return to Lesoma. There hasbeen a steady climb in population ever since,

mostly as a result of in-migration. Figure 8indicates how the villagers see population changesduring the last decade. This rise gives everyindication of continuing as the headman currentlyhas over 1,000 applications for new plots andbuilding permits in Lesoma. For a village of 250people, applications from 1000 new land seekers isa major event.

Yet the new peace has not brought prosperity.Intermittent drought in the mid-80s has depressedfarm production. During years with good rains,elephants and buffalo have helped themselves tothe crops. People have not returned to live on theirfields and, instead, stay in the core village area asnoted on the sketch map in Figure 2. The largegame animals have been left mostly undisturbed toravage the farmers' crops. Ethnic differences haveheightened during these years as newcomers arriveand compete for leadership roles. For example,the current Chairlady of the Village DevelopmentCommittee (VDC) has lived in Lesoma for onlyone year. The problem of land access continues,destined to become more severe as the populationrises and the land area remains the same.

In the context of these problems and resourceaccess conflicts, DWNP determined that a PR Aassessment would be a good step. The goal of thePRA was to develop a data base that the communitycould use to rank its problems in order of severity,consider options available to solve its most intenseproblems, and to develop partnerships with exter-nal agencies that might assist in solving theseproblems.

III. About PRA

Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) uses avery old concept — community participation -- ina structured and flexible way. It builds on thepremise that participation among local communitygroups is an effective way to stimulate both conser-vation and development. PRA first appeared in aformal way in Kenya in the late 1980s, building ontechniques from an earlier research methodologyknown as Rapid Rural Appraisal.1

Since the first PRA was carried out in 1988,much has been learned about the process. It is nowin use in many African nations including TheGambia, Senegal, Mali, Madagascar, Botswana,Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, and Somalia. In India,there are literally hundreds of organisations in-cluding both government and non-governmentalunits using PRA. Other Asian users include The

Philippines, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Indonesia.

PRA works as an entry point for conservationand development in very particular ways because:

PRA Creates Ownership: The concept ofintegrating conservation and development ex-pects people to make significant changes inbehavior in ways that are consistent with theirown priorities and goals. Many of these needsin a community such as Lesoma ~ workingmore closely together, strengthened commu-nity institutions, increased utilisation of sus-tainable forest products, to name but a few —have evolved over many generations.

Individualistic behaviors may have beenappropriate responses when population was

'The literature on PRA is extensive. See RRA Notes published by the International Institute for Environment and Development.For more detail, consult: Elizabeth Oduor-Noah, R. Ford, F. Lelo, I. Asamba, and L. Wichhart, "Implementing PRA," publishedjointly by Clark University's Program for International Development, Egerton University, and the National EnvironmentSecretariat (April, 1992); R. B, Ford and F. Lelo, "Evaluating Participatory Rural Appraisal: Listening to Village Leaders inKakuyuni Location," in Forest, Trees, and People, January, 1991; R. B. Ford, B. Thomas-Slayter, and C. Kabutha, ParticipatoryRural Appraisal Handbook, May, 1989, a field manual for using PRA, World Resources Institute; R. B. Ford, Barbara Thomas-Slayter, and Wanjiku Mwagiru, "An Introduction to Participatory Rural Appraisal for Rural Resources Management," Programfor International Development and National Environment Secretariat, 1989.

small and land available and abundant. Presentcircumstances of rising population, new re-source challenges, and new aspirations forincreased livelihoods require new responses.Households need to join together; land andresource users must have a role in defining theproblems; residents need to feel ownership ofthe solutions, including new technologies andamended land management practices. Forsolutions to be sustainable, village plans mustevolve that local people have proposed inresponse to problems that they perceive assevere;

PRA Builds Partnerships: The PRA ap-proach structures data gathering, problem rank-ing, and prioritizing of solutions into systemsthat lead to community solidarity. Communityaccord enables village institutions to meet onequal ground for discussions with other part-ners in the conservation-development enter-prise;

PRA Provides an Arena for Negotia-tions: The PRA team found people in Lesomadispirited, disappointed, frustrated, and per-haps indifferent in their attitudes toward do-nors, government agents, researchers, NGOs,and concepts of environmental conservation.Their attitude was one of acting alone ratherthan joining together as a community. PRA isbased on the premise that problems of conser-vation and development are larger than indi-vidual households or clusters of householdscan manage and, instead, require collabora-tion among entire communities. Such collab-

oration requires negotiations between andamong resource users as well as with resourceprotectors such as the DWNP. This concept ofnegotiation is fundamental to sustainable de-velopment management.

A PRA exercise consists of eight steps.

1. Site selection, based on priority ofvillage to take action;

2. Preliminary visits and communityorientation;

3. Data Collectiona. Spatial Datab. Temporal Datac. Social-Institutional Datad. Technical Data

4. Data Synthesis and Analysis

5. Ranking Problems

6. Ranking Opportunities

7. Adopting a Community Action Plan

8. Implementation

Full details of conducting PRA exercises are pro-vided in handbooks and case studies listed at theend of this case study. Additional information canbe obtained through contact with sponsoring insti-tutions, also listed at the end of this study.

IV. Data Gathering

The PRA team organised a two week datacollection and analysis exercise with the people ofLesoma, to begin in the third week of June, 1993.The preparatory arrangements included meetingswith the District Commissioner, councillors, ex-tension and technical officers assigned to the area,and contact with NGOs working in Chobe District.Discussions also included the village headman,Amos Mkheswa, as well as leaders of the VillageDevelopment Committee, women's groups, andothers in the village.

The leaders agreed to a launching ceremonyfor the PRA, to be held on Wednesday afternoon,16 June. The afternoon was selected so that villagewomen could come - they did their householdchores in the morning — as well as some of thedrought relief work groups that worked on brickmaking and road construction projects in themorning. The District Commissioner was invitedalong with the appropriate extension officers.

The turnout was on the low side with perhaps60 to 70 people present, of which about 1/3 wereextension staff, PRA team, and NGO officers andabout 2/3 village residents. Perhaps the biggestsurprise was that the initial village response to the

PRA launching was insistence on the part ofseveral villagers that they be paid to come to thedata collection exercises.

This was the first time in the memory of thePRA organisers (Lelo from Egerton Universityand Ford from Clark University) that such arequest had been made. As the team learned later,payment of village residents for attendance atplanning meetings has become a routine Botswanagovernment policy for group meetings such as theVillage Development Committee. We assumedthat the request had less to do with the villager'sview of PRA and more to do with the growingassumption that village improvement was the re-sponsibility of the government, not the people.The implication of this assumption was that if thevillage of Lesoma was to improve its activities inconservation and development, it was the govern-ment's problem and responsibility, not the peo-ples.' We knew from the beginning that theLesoma PRA would be a challenge.

PRA team members explained that PRA wasdifferent and that its goal was for the community todevelop its own plan, not the governments.' ThePRA team leader explained that if the people

received money to make a plan, then the govern-ment would own the plan. On the other hand, if theplan was to be something that the people wouldown, the burden was on village leaders and resi-dents to create a community action plan, indepen-dent of government wages.

The launching closed on a moderately positivenote though it must be stressed that the mood wasfar from enthusiastic. The atmosphere was cau-tious expectation and a bit of curiosity as to howthis business of the PR A would proceed. It isimportant to add that the PRA team distributedcopies of the "Introduction to PRA for RuralResources Management" that had been translatedinto Setswana, the national language of Botswana.There is no question that this distribution helpedbegin building levels of trust and communicationbetween the PRA team and the people.

Sketch map

The first formal data gathering exercise was asketch map. Because there was still time in theafternoon after the launching ceremony, we divid-ed those present (about 40 villagers) into threegroups, sub-divided by three zones within thevillage. Each group picked a shady place withgood sandy soil conducive to drawing maps andbegan to talk about the village layout. Groupsbegan drawing in the sand, initially with sticks andeventually adding pieces of paper, stones, twigs,medicine bottles, and odd bits of glass and tin torepresent different facilities of the village.

The mapping exercise, like the launchingceremony, started slowly. People were reluctantto express themselves and hesitant to committhings to the map. However, within ten to fifteen

minutes, two of the three groups caught on to theidea and began to draw vigorously. Discussionsand even a few disputes erupted about which thingswere where. Much rubbing out and starting overfollowed. Within an hour, the two active groupshad a good representation of Lesoma, includinglocation of the compounds, school, clinic, andfarm fields. The third group did not produce a mapon the first day and, the following day, startedagain on the mapping exercise. By the end of thesecond day, villagers had transferred all threemaps to large pieces of paper; later in the week, asmall group met and resolved differences on themaps (for example, whether there were five orseven standpipes in the community) and produceda synthesis map that appears as Figure 2.

Several things became clear in the 36 hourperiod when the maps were produced. These itemsincluded:

Physical Infrastructure: Lesoma was wellendowed with physical infrastructure, almostall of which was provided by the government.The headman's office, police post, school,clinic, piped water system to standpipes in allresidential parts of the village, housing forgovernment officers, Village DevelopmentCommittee (VDC) buildings, and several smallbusinesses were well constructed. Consider-ing that the community was only 250 people,its infrastructure was amazingly comprehen-sive and well managed;

Transport: road improvements were under-way so transport and communications seemedto be improving. Most of the transport workwas supported by a government-sponsoreddrought relief project, launched the previousyear. However, the discussion surrounding

10

the map exercise noted that even improvedroads did not attract private taxis or vans fromKasane. Lesoma residents wanted cheap trans-port to shops and places of employment in thearea. Villagers felt they were isolated, therebymaking marketing, wage employment, school-ing, and health services difficult.

For example, on several occasions during thetwo weeks of the PRA exercise, team membersused project vehicles to transport sick resi-dents to the hospital in Kasane;

Water: the borehole seems adequate to pro-vide water for the present population. Whilesome complained that pressure was a problemduring some parts of the day, it did not seemto be a major hardship. One group who hadrecently built compounds in the southern partof the settlement noted that they had to walkhalf a kilometer to the nearest standpipe. Theirhouses had been constructed after the watersystem was installed. But this seemed to beonly a handful of families and was limited tothe new settlement area;

Population: map making discussions notedthat population was growing, especially fromin-migration. This phenomena was clear fromthe amount of new construction underway inboth government as well as private houses. Itwas also clear that the new houses were of amuch higher quality than most of the existinghouses. The team learned later that there wasa trend for people living in Kasane — 20 kmsaway - to obtain land rights in Lesoma andbuild "town" houses. This influx of townpeople who had no roots in Lesoma was a newexperience and was creating a new set oftensions in the community;

Employment: the map exercise showed thatemployment enterprises have begun, thoughthey seem to be fragile and unprofitable. Oneexample is a brick-making business, run througha grant from the government, that manufac-tured good quality cement bricks. However,their costs of manufacture were high as weretheir retail prices. Local government projectsbuy the bricks, but individuals building housesgo to the private sector in Kasane for theirbricks. A bakery has also been started througha government grant but it was too early toknow if it would be a profitable enterprise.Private businesses included a poultry housewith several hundred chickens owned by aKasane businessman, a bottle store owned bya recent arrival in the village, and a smallrestaurant run by a local family that seemed tobe generally unprofitable.

Fields Distant from Residential Zone: themap confirmed what the team already assumed~ the farm plots were a kilometer or more fromthe houses, creating a text book example ofhow to invite wildlife to graze in the fields;

Land Limited: the village lies within a forestreserve and borders a wildlife hunting reserve,with little opportunity for expansion. Lack ofnew land opportunities stiffles the people. Forthose whose cultural traditions rely on hunt-ing, gathering, andpastoralism, the tight bound-aries impose restrictions that are not part oftheir past;

Astride Migration Routes: Lesoma's originsrelate to the spring, noted on the sketch map tothe eest, close to the Zimbabwe border. Thespring has been a magnet for wildlife, especial-ly those on migration. As a result, there are

11

Figure 2. Lesoma Sketch Map

* - ^ iivAy

ACACIAWJOODU

GiftAVPL

CLINIC

OLD

12

almost always buffalo and elephant in the areaas well as smaller antelope and bush pigs;

Data Gathering Largely Dependent on Wom-en: the sketch map exercise underscored theimportance of women in the village. Manymen are either working elsewhere or indiffer-ent to village activities. Of the 40 or so whodrew the maps, probably 2/3 were women.

The map exercise worked well in Lesoma. Itidentified a great deal of information. It alsoopened some lines of communication between thePRA team and the villagers. While there was stillconsiderable reservation on the part of several andwhile one group never did produce their map in afinal version, the task started the process of makingthe data a village project rather than a governmentexercise. While there were a number of slowexercises waiting for the PRA team, the sketch mapat least communicated that the team wanted tolisten, sought out the expertise of the community,and was prepared to help the community organiseits information into more effective formats forpresentation to outside groups.

Transect

The second exercise was the village transect.The PRA team divided the village into threesections. Between 30 and 40 villagers participat-ed, mostly women.

The transect provided opportunity for eachteam to walk the length and width of the commu-nity. One group used a vehicle and drove aroundthe perimeter of the village - about 8 or 9 kms.

About 3 kms of this journey were along the borderwith Zimbabwe. It added excitement to encountera heavily armed BDF patrol, mounted on horse-back, looking for poachers. The soldiers won-dered why a group of villagers and extension/NGOofficers were cruising Lesoma's borders. But afew words settled their curiosity and the transectcontinued.

At another point, the group found an elephant,perhaps half a kilometer from the spring and not farfrom the fields. He was happily feasting on someyoung trees and not bothering the crops. But thatmay have been a factor of the time of year (June)when there was nothing in the fields to eat. It didreinforce, however, the immediacy of the problemof wildlife encroachment and the difficulty poorfarmers faced to deal with the game.

Other highlights of the transect included abetter understanding of the water situation in whichthe residential portion of the community was wellsupplied while other areas had nothing. Otherfindings included:

comparative wealth: the upper zone tends tohave more poor families than the lower zonesin and around the village center;

erosion: soil erosion is prominent in the upperand intermediate zones, in part from poor roaddesign and partly from poor water and treemanagement;

transport: several people in the village owncars though owners seem to be concentrated inthe central zone of the village and are largelynewcomers to Lesoma;

13

Figure 3. Transect

1

Soil

Water

Vegetation

Socio-economicIndicators

Achievements inlast five years

Forestry/Agro-forestry

Problems

Opportunities

1

steep slope; blacksandy soil; gullyerosion

no reticulated water

intermittent forestwith grass

a few metal roofsand several grassthatched houses;traditional fencing(using poles); kraalsfor goats

new houses

agroforestry andfuelwood

predators; lack ofreticulated water;gullies

larger water tank;gully control;maintenance ofkraals

gentle to flat slope;sandy/loamy soil

stand pipes

shrubs and sometrees; small grasspatches

few grass thatchedhouses and manymetal roads; school;clinic; kgotla; VDChouses

new VDC houses;bakery; poultry run;bottle store; clinic;kiosks

agroforestry; schoolgarden

predators (wildlife);gully erosion;overgrazing

gully control; campingsite (tourism);reservoir for wateringgame

gentle to flat; loamto clay soils, somegranite gravel

no reticulated water;natural spring

mophane and acacia;shrubs and thatchinggrass; some trees

underdevelopedplots; fuelwood

a few new houses

fuelwood

gully erosion;elephant and buffalodamage to spring

gully control;camping site(tourism); reservoirfor watering game

gentle to steep slope;loamy to clay withgranite

no water

riverine trees;thatching grass

fields; sorghum,maize, pumpkins,beans, and ground-nuts

forest; fuelwood

crop damage byelephants andbuffalos

game culling; relocatefields; fence

14

livestock limited: few families own livestockor, if they do, tend to keep it on cattle postselsewhere. This is partly due to limitedgrazing areas and partly because of predators;

forest utilisation: the transect exercise notedthat there is minimal use of forest resourcesother than for fuel wood, building materials,and some nutrients as in the case of beerbrewing from forest berries. A preliminarysurvey indicated that there were many morepotentials in forest utilisation and agro-forest-ry than households currently had called upon;

wildlife utilisation: there seemed to be har-vesting (both legally and illegally) of smallforest animals, to the point that a significantportion of the village's protein sources maycome from wildlife. There seemed to be noconnection between the village and the largerscale and commercial poaching that was underway in the national park and forest as well asalong the wildlife migration routes;

wage employment: attempts to stimulatewage employment such as VDC loans or thedrought relief program have not been sustain-able as many men are away from Lesoma.

The results of the transect reinforced viewsdeveloped with the sketch map. The communityhad low productivity and little formal employ-ment. Problems identified in the transect includedpredators, water, erosion, and overgrazing.

Seasonal Calendar

The next data exercise was the seasonal calen-dar. While one of the three data collecting groups

was catching up with their map and transect work,the other two groups prepared the seasonal calen-dar. A third calendar came through an interviewwith one elder who had worked for the Departmentof Wildlife and National Parks and who was nowretired and farming in the village. About 25 peopleparticipated in the calendar exercise.

In addition to providing guidelines on whendifferent activities took place in Lesoma, thecalendar stimulated discussion about what time ofyear community problems such as birds and pestswere at their worst. Or were there other problems— such as young men drinking — that were prob-lems all year long?

Findings growing from the calendar exerciseincluded:

drinking: alcohol was an issue in the calendarexercise whereas it was only lightly mentionedduring the mapping and transect. The infor-mation reinforced the need for triangulation inPRA data collection as it was clear that allissues would not necessarily emerge with justone exercise. One needs maps and transectsand many other collecting techniques so thatone exercise can confirm or clarify informa-tion coming from another source. The morewe learned about the problem of drinking, themore complicated it became.

Beer brewing is a good source of income forLesoma's women and an efficient utilisation offorest products, using wild berries to brew thebeer. Yet it has a devastating social effect onmen, especially the younger men who seem tohave no formal wage employment and littleopportunity for agricultural production. As analternative, some young people drink through*

15

AGRICULTURAL AND LIVESTOCK SEASONAL CALENDARLESOMA VILLAGE, CHOBE DISTRICT

ACTIVITY

Rains

Field Prep

Ploughing

Planting

Weeding

Crop Protection

Harvest

Storage

Livestock

Veterinary

Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct ACTIVITY

I PPPPPP PPPPPP

Maize, Sorghums, GroundnutsBeans, Melons

Livestock Diseases |_

Predators £

i xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxBird Scaring, Elephants, Buffalo, Kudu, Livestock, Insects,including Ants, ApNds, Cut Worms

Repair Crop Stores; TransportHarvest From Fields

Store Crop

Herding Livestock

[

IOOOOOC OOOOOCJ

I Castrate, Dehorn

Lumpy Skin I Ticks

Lions and Hyenas

///////// ///////////// I Rains

Field Prep

Ploughing

Planting

Weeding

CropProtect

Harvest

Storage

I Herding | Livestock

Veterinary

TLmp Skin I LivestockDisease

I Predators

3

a01MoSLOa

a

NOV Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct

NOV

(page 2)

ACTIVITY

Hunting

Grass Cutting

Veld Foods

Household

Maintenance

Diseases

Alcohol

Food Available

PROBLEMS

1. Drinking

2. Unable WorkTogether

3. Rainfall(rairtfaitoikJHfetiefor#3)

3. Wilcife Crop Dmage

4. Insects/Quelea

MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES, SEASONAL CALENDARLESOMA VILLAGE, CHOBE DISTRICT

Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct

Porcupine, Spring Hares, Tortoise, Birds Citizen License Holders Kudu, Impala

On Roads; inVatey

Relishes:Delete and Rotwe

Mokolwane, Manila, Motsentseta, Mongongo, Grewia

ACTIVITY

Hunting

Grass Cut

Veld Food

BuHdng, Repairing, and Thatching

Mataria and Flu

j HouseMaintain

Diseases

lAAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA AAAAAA jAlcohOl

IFFFFFFF FFFFFFF FFFFFFF FFFFFFFi Food

FebNov Dec Jan Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct

All Year Long

All Year Long

Very Dry

Especially Severe

During Growing SeasonEspecially Severe

o

I8

Figure 5. Lesoma Historical Narrative

In the 1870s, Khama III left Serowe on a huntingexpedition to the north of the country. Maruza, hischief tracker from Sowa in the Nata area joinedhim. After a long journey, the expedition passedthrough Lesoma to Kazungula where they madecamp. When returning, Khama decided to makeLesoma a permanent hunting ground. He askedMaruza to take charge of the area.

By virtue of his appointment, Maruza became theheadman over all groups living there. It is claimedthat Mandakwe people, from today's Zambia wereliving there, working for white farmers of Portu-guese origin. This seems to have been in the early1900s. It is further claimed that the Mandakwe,resenting Maruza's rule, decided to migrate toImpalila Island, then in the Caprivi Strip.

A few years later, probably in the 1920s, Maruza,due to old age, appointed his nephew, Samkoena,to rule. Samkoena did not rule for long, as he wasattacked and killed by a lion. His brother, Lesoma,succeeded him and ruled from 1927 to 1955.Tseleng Lesoma, son to Lesoma I, took over afterhis father's death and ruled until 1974 when hedied. At that time, the rightful heirs were still

young and Kelesitse Samati, brother-in-law toLesoma II, became headman. He ruled until 1986.

By the 1980s, new legislation concerning capabil-ities of chieftainships required literacy of head-men. Samati was made deputy headman andAmos Mkheswa, an Ndebele by origin, was ap-pointed headman in 1986.Lesoma, though small and hidden, has witnessedconsiderable interaction and many ethnic migra-tions of some of the major groups of the region.Notable among these are the Basarwa (San),Ndebele, Nanjwa, Lozi, and Basubia. Migrationsincluded an Herero group in the early 1930s, andthe Tongas in the late 1930s. The Baherero left forTsienyane, and the Tongas to Kachikau. TheDubeclan left Zimbabwe in 1959 and settled atPandamatenga. Ten years later (1969) they set-tled at Lesoma. Being a literate group, they havehad much influence in the settlement.

The village was one of the highly affected areasduring the Rhodesia War in the 1970s. The tragicevent was the killing of 15 BDFsoldiers in 1977by Rhodesian forces.

out the day. It was not clear whether this wasa large or small number, but it was mentionedseveral times in the discussions so it can beassumed that it is a visible concern for thecommunity;

wildlife devastation: crop destruction bywildlife came up again in the seasonal calen-dar. First hand evidence observed during thetransect; repeated mention during the seasonalcalendar; and later commentary during rank-ing exercises underscored the severity of wild-life encroachments as a major concern for the

community. Some even said that they havehad no crop for the last five years because ofwildlife encroachments into their fields;

rainfall: variable rainfall resurfaced as a prob-lem. The nature of the water problem wasbecoming clear to the PR A team. The bore-hole seemed to work well and provided asteady source of water for those in the villagecenter. Outside of the village center there wasvery little water and the spring was mostlyunusable due to wildlife devastation.

18

Figure 6. Time Line, Lesoma Village, Chobe District

1927-

1955-

1969-

1974-

1870s

1920s

1927

1955

1974

1974

1986

Mid 1970s

1977

1986

Maruza named chief

Maruza handed over leadership to his nephew, Samkoena

Samkoena died from a lion attack; leadership was passed tohis brother, Lesoma. This was the formal naming of the area.

Lesoma I ruled.

Lesoma II

Dube family clears fields; population expands from 8 families.

Kelesitse Samati

War in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia) forced the village to movefrom their fields into a cluster village

Fifteen Botswana soldiers ambushed and killed at Lesoma byRhodesian army.

Amos Mkheswa is appointed headman.

For example, one group visited the spring andwas impressed with the extent of the tramplingfrom elephant and buffalo. Because the ani-mals spent so much time at the spring, the smellof manure was reminiscent of a stable or cowbarn. It was clear that villagers would not beable to retrieve much water from the spring.

Time Line

The PRA team collected comprehensive infor-mation about the history of Lesoma. This effortwas based on the growing awareness of the impor-tance of discrepancies in wealth and class in

Lesoma. Poverty seemed to fall along lines oflength of residence. The long term residents,traditionally relying on hunting and gathering,were losing out to newcomers who had betteraccess to cash income, formal education, jobskills, and even capacities for political action.

One member of the PRA team spent five daysworking on the history and time line. He met withelders (one being the granddaughter of the found-ing headman) and other long term residents. Healso gathered information from other knowledge-able people in the area as a means to check andverify what he learned from the community.

19

Figure 7. Livelihoods Diagram

\

DP.

SmaJK"Ljtfestoc

/Sales

Vroughtslief

— —Farming

HawkersandKiosks

BeerBrewing

GrassCutting

.JJamlic]

Lessons coming from the historical investiga-tion uncovered for the first time the intensity of theethnic varieties in the community and ways inwhich these divisions influenced village action.During the seasonal calendar exercise, one of theproblems identified was inability of the communityto work together. This came through clearly in thehistorical assessment, especially in terms of splitsbetween old line residents and newcomers.

Livelihood Mapping

Another perspective on Lesoma is the people'sunderstanding of their sources of livelihood. Twodifferent groups, totalling about 25 residents, used

different size boxes to indicate large, medium, andsmall sources of livelihood for the community.

Figure 7 indicates the limits of the village.The diagram notes that livelihood sources such asdrought relief come entirely from outside thevillage while beer brewing or kiosks are totallyinside.

The livelihood chart notes that the groupsdefine the principal sources of income for Lesomaas farming, hawkers/kiosks, and grass cutting (forthatch and occasional forage). Other items areconsidered of secondary importance. However,there were virtually no men present for thisexercise so wage remittances, which surely con-

20

stitute an important livelihood for the village, aremissing. The PRA team determined that thisexercise did not provide fully useable information.

Trends

Time was running short for the trend analysis,in part because the seasonal calendar, sketch map,and transect took a great deal of time and yieldedgood information. But it was also clear that thenovelty of the data gathering was wearing off. Atfirst, the PRA team overcame the community'sdemand for wages by showing how data gatheringwould yield interesting results. But we could notmaintain persistent interest and involvement ofwomen for all of the subsequent sessions. Ourdiscussions indicated that many still felt futility atdeveloping an action plan as many noted therewould be no interest from external sources to buildpartnerships. Even so, we had cultivated a loyalcore of about 20 women, most of whom came fromamong long term family residents. While theirchoice of topics to consider for trends was limited,it was indeed revealing. Normally, in assessingtrends, community groups will pick 8 or 10 themesto analyse. Often selected are wage income,education, literacy, health, deforestation, soil ero-sion, livestock diseases, food prices, education, orrainfall.

In the case of Lesoma, groups selected onlythree themes ~ harvests, population, and grasscutting. Reading between the lines, there is muchto learn about Lesoma from these choices. Grasscutting has become an excellent source of off-farmincome for women. The chart notes that less grasshas been available since the late 1980s - a trendthat the women lament. A similar trend is apparentfor crop harvests, also a theme that affects women.

And the village groups noted the increase ofpopulation, largely from Kasane migrations, asopposed to natural increase. Lesoma's women areindeed concerned about these trends.

Institutions

The sessions to gather data on institutionsyielded more interest than the trend lines. Thereis no quick or simple explanation other than it mayhave been the day of the week or the cycle ofhousehold duties carried out that particular time.The discussions on village institutions took twoforms.

The first was to make a list of all institutions inthe community and comment on their history,leadership, management capacity, achievements,and institutional needs. A sample of responses fortwo groups (Village Development Committee andLesoma Clinic) appear as Figure 9. Full state-ments are available from the authors for all 15 ofLesoma's village institutions.

The total list of institutions included:

4 B (Primary School Youth Clubs)Boy ScoutsCrime Prevention CommitteeFarmers' CommitteeKgotlaLand BoardLesoma ClinicNon-formal EducationOmang (identify cards)PTA (Parent Teacher Association5 and CD (Social and Community

DevelopmentSt. John's ChurchVDC (Village Development Committee)Veterinary Department

• Wildlife Committee

21

Figure 8. Trend Lines

Population

1977-79 Decline due to Zimbabwe Civil War

1981 Poulation rise due to in-migration ofnewcomers, mostly from Kasane andKazungula

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

Grass Cutting

1985-88 Enough grass as rains good

1989-90 Less grass due to less rain-fall andanimal distribution; some grass cut atarea 256 as supplement

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 B5 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

Crop Harvest

1978 Good rains, no wild animal problem

1979 Bad rains

1980 Less rain again

1981-82 Moved to new site: drought

1983 Some rain

1984-85 Slightly improving rain

1986 Continued improvement in rain

1987 Drought

1988 Very good rains

1989 Border fence collapse causinganimal problems

1990-93 Increasing problems of elephantsand buffalo

76 77 73 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93

22

Botswana PRA TrainingJune, 1993

Lesoma Village, Chobe District, Botswana

INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION INVENTORY

Institution: Village Development Committee (VDC)

SHistory and Objectives

Started in 1973; responsiblefor initiating communitydevelopment;

The first chairman was Mr.Kayoka who served for twoyears during the time oftension along the Zimbabweborder; the secondchairperson was Mrs. Dubewho served for a short periodof time and then resigned dueto personal reasons;

Leadership andManagement

Consists of knowledgeablepeople from the village;

The elections are held at theKgotla for two year terms;outgoing members and officebearers can stand for re-election;

Current officers include:

ChairmanVice ChairmanTreasurerSecretaryVice SecretaryThree additional members

Committee members areelected on the basis of theirinterest and overallparticipation in villagedevelopment;

Management Capacity

At present, members are paidfor a required number ofmeetings each year; eachmember receives P12.00 permeeting, the ChairpersonPI 6.00;

All members are semi-literateand most live in Kasane;

Although most of the VDCprojects have been achieved,poor attitudes prevail towardunbudgeted meetings;

The VDC has good linkageswith almost all the otherinstitutions in the village andplays a central role in villageaffairs and development;

Achievements Institutional Needs

School;Clinic;Village administrative office;VDC houses for extension

workers;Water distribution system;

Committee earns moneythrough activities such asrenting out the VDC houses;

Need funds to carry outvillage development;

Training of members so as tounderstand function andimportance of the VDC;

Informed training on how tocarry out mini-projects thatcan generate more income;

5ot• • I

1tat

5

3

budget is about P2,000.00;

tot

Botswana PRA TrainingJune, 1993

Lesoma Village, Chobe District, Botswana

INSTITUTIONAL INFORMATION INVENTORY

Institution: Lesoma Clinic

5'3

I|§

History and Objectives

Established in 1983 with avisiting nurse; a FWE wasalso based at Lesoma at thattime but has since resigned;

First enrolled nurse posted in1988 and assisted by a familywelfare educator;

Structure built of cement andbrick with zinc roof;

Objectives

to render health andmedical services;

to give advice to communityon personal hygiene andcleanliness;

Leadership andManagement

The Enrolled Nurse overseesthe clinic, assisted by theGeneral Duty Assistant andthe TSP;

The Nurse renders servicessuch as:

.. weighing children andgiving out rations;..general consultation ofpatients;.. giving advice on personalhygiene to expectant mothers;.. administering injectionsand prescriptions to patients;

Management Capacity

Fair record keeping;

Doctor visits once a monthfrom Kasane;

Midwife visits twice a month;

Eye clinic visits twice amonth;

Psychiatry team visits once amonth;

Special Services Unit visitstwice a month for help toretarded and mentally ill;

Achievements

Underweight childrenutilizing feeding scheme andonly 2 severe cases ofmalnutrition in village;

TB patients come fortreatment;

Though family planning isunderutilized, young peopleare beginning to participate;

Baby clinic for childrenunder 5 well used;

Antenatal and postnatalclinics well attended;

Child mortality rate low andno reported AIDS cases;

Institutional Needs

Communication, such as atelephone or radiocommunication system;

Transport to take patients toKasane;

Need to replace FWE tomake home visits;

Village Health Committee notfunctioning as it should sovillage not guiding clinic tomeet local needs

Figure 10. Institutional Relationships

Crime

1C

St. JohifsCSwxH

25

The second portion of the institutional exerciseyielded very helpful information. It reinforcedsome of the earlier feelings and impressions thatwere beginning to emerge.

Three groups were asked to rank Lesoma'sinstitutions in order of most to least important. ThePRA team cut paper into circles of varying sizes,from large to small. The assignment was to writethe names of village institutions on the circles, withthe most important on large circles and the leastimportant on small ones. Then village residentsarranged the circles in relationship to how groupscooperated in Lesoma

The result is revealing as it shows the VDC tobe central to the community's well-being. Impor-tant satellites to the VDC included the Land Board,Agricultural Extension, the clinic, the school, andindirectly through the semi-important Kgotla, theOmang. Several small groups located at the bottomof the chart show how they are of small importanceand isolated from the main community.

Perhaps the most interesting was the displace-ment of the Kgotla by the VDC as the most impor-tant village group. Before the government-initiat-ed VDC, the Kgotla or public meeting was theprincipal governing body for the village. That theKgotla has slipped in importance suggests how thecommunity presently values institutions. Severalmembers of the VDC do not live in the community

suggesting even more the degree to which Lesomalooks to the outside for development assistancerather than to internal groups and associations.

If the PRA in Lesoma is to have longer termand sustainable impact in solving problems, it willbe mandatory for the village to place responsibilityon internal institutions. This can be done in one ofthree ways:

• restore responsibility to internal groups al-ready established, such as the Kgotla;

• make groups now external to the communitysuch as the VDC more internally accountable;

• create new community units that will be ac-countable to the community and be responsi-ble for initiating PRA actions.

Short of regaining the institutional base withinLesoma and building a stronger sense of ownershipand identity, it would appear that Lesoma willcontinue as a moderately passive and indifferentcommunity with little likelihood of its learning howto solve its own problems.

Following the data collection, the PRA teamspent a day away from the village. The purposewas to compile all of the data in a structured andorganised format, yet without any ranking orsetting of priorities.

26

V. Data Analysis

The first step was to complete sketches anddiagrams for data already collected. This involvedputting the sketch map, transect, and other PR Ainformation on large pieces (one square meter) ofsturdy paper. These were displayed for the com-munity to examine.

The second step was to prepare a chart, onlarge paper and in Setswana, of all Lesoma'sproblems, causes, coping strategies, and possiblesolutions to resolve these problems. In some cases,the solutions came from the community data gath-ering. In other cases, PRA team members knowl-edgeable in specific sectors inserted suggestions oftheir own. The final product appears as Figure 11.The purpose of this chart was to return to thecommunity the record of what they had provided,but organised in a systematic way to elicit discus-sion about the accuracy of the information as wellas begin ranking problems and opportunities. Theranking is essential to develop a plan of action thatmuch of the community will endorse and act upon.

The listing of problems and opportunities is theresult of the data analysis. Some suggested that it

would be good to include community leaders in thisportion of the process. Had the Lesoma PRA notincluded a large training element for the Depart-ment of Wildlife and National Parks, it would havebeen possible. Given that the group was undersome time pressure, it was more convenient to dothe organising independently of the community,especially since it involved no weighting or rank-ing of information.

Once the charts were completed, the team wasready to go back to Lesoma for the rankingsessions. The chart of Problems and Opportunitiesappears as Figure 11. However, one new devel-opment is worthy of comment — use of villagevideo — as described on page 32.

Figure 11 identifies 18 problems that the PRAexercises found in Lesoma. All cannot be dealtwith equally, nor are they even similar types ofproblems. Therefore, it is necessary to find waysfor the community to consider which of thesedilemmas is most severe and which demand themost urgent and immediate attention.

27

to00

Lesoma Village Problems and OpportunitiesBotswana PRA Training Workshop

June, 1993Lesoma Village, Chobe District, Botswana

Problems

Poor Crop Yields

Weak Institutions

Soil Erosion

Causes

low rainfallcrop damage from wildlifepests

ineffective village extensionteams

poor institutionalcoordination

lack of incentives forcommunity members

lack of understanding rolesof institutions on part ofmembers

steep slopesovergrazingdeforestationheavy rains

Present Coping Strategies

.. taking advantage of earlyrains

.. seeking assistance fromwildlife officials

.. scaring animals such asbeating drums

.. early harvesting

.. applying pesticides

continuing efforts toconvene meetings and getinstitutions to function

electing villagers to variouscommittees

avoid allocation of heavilyeroded areas

New Opportunities

. planting drought resistantcrops

. plant short season varietycrops

. fencing of fields (electricwhere possible)

. agro-forestry in compounds

organize village extensionteams with workshops

. organize VDC workshops

. training workshops forfanner committees

. provide incentives forinstitutional members

post extension workers tothe village

gully reclamationtree plantingreduce livestock numbersmove livestock to

other grazing areasavoid tree cutting in the

villageredirect road drainage

system

toc(5

A(AO

a

0)CQ

a.O•a•ao3.3

aM

Problems Causes Present Coping Strategies New Opportunities

Crime

Poor Sanitation

influx of people fromdifferent areas

proximity to borderproximity to rich wildliferesources

lack of employmentopportunities

poaching

few pit latrines

litteringhigh population growthlack of education in

sanitation

.. recent introduction of crimeprevention committee

.. active involvement ofOmang officials

.. responsible committeemembers responsible incrime watch

.. drought relief anti-literproject

.. some toilets appearing,. use bushes

.. strengthen crime preventioncommittee

.. strengthen village healthcommittee

.. organise workshops forvillagers

.. construct pubic toilets

.. organize regular village orward sanitation campaigns

u

3

o|

3

s.so

Poor Transport

Water

Population Growth

poor roadslow traffic volumeisolated settlement

small storage tank and fewstand pipes

in-migrationlittle family planning

. hitch-hiking

. rely on government vehicles

. rely on few private vehiclesfor emergencies such ashealth needs

expand storage anddistribution

increase family planning

construct all weather roadsintroduce public transportprovide public, eg clinic or

kgotla with own transport

underground watercatchment and rooftopcatchment

programs in family planningand village-widedevelopment action

Problems Causes Present Coping Strategies New Opportunities

Unemployment little economic activity incommunity

.. drought relief

.. remittances

Drinking

Lack of Cooperation

Wildlife Menace

Poverty

Overgrazing

.. idleness

divisive ethnic groupsweak institutions

increase in game numberssettlement and residentialpatterns

old ageunemploymentidlenessalcohollimited land access

insufficient landkeeping animals close to

village because of predators

rely on extended families

scaring animals with gunsand noise makers

discussions about fencing

extended family helpprogram for destitutesdrought relief

labor intensive herding

multipurpose coop storesecotourismagroforestrylabor intensive public workssmall scale industries such as

vegetable gardens, poultry,honey, handcrafts

income generation actionstrengthening churches

elect ward leadersbuild on base of extended

families

reopen huntingelectric fencingvillage patrolscomprehensive wildlifemanagement plan

live at fields during growingseason

income generating activitiesactive organizing and work

at ward level

access to forest for grazing,with zones and rotationestablished and enforced

i.o

•o

13A

Problems

Lack of Communication

Land Use Conflicts

Illiteracy

Diseases

Causes

poor equipment

. lack of land due to locationwithin a forest reserve

adults had little chance to goto school

mosquito spoor health

Present Coping Strategies

.. use of private facilities

.. fence fields

.. transfer livestock toborehole #3

.. adult education

.. household spraying andfamily hygiene

Opportunities

.. obtain equipment

.. organize part of forestreserve

.. zoning and zoningmanagement such asherding, drift fences,culling, creating cattleposts

.. village development plan

.. new programs in readingand writing

.. improved community health

.. mosquito nets

ProbI

•

iD.

oortunitie

»o3

remove stagnant waterburn animal dung to keep

mosquitos awayexpanded health facilities

at clinic

Video Shows of Lesoma PRA Exercises

Community Interest and energy for the PRAhad been sagging, from about the fourth day.While a loyal core of women was deeplyinvolved, their number had shrunk to 20.

On the 7th day, while the data analysis wasunderway, the two PRA trainers spent anevening in the village showing an hour and ahalf video. It was based on scenes taken inLesoma over the previous week, includingthe sketch map, transect, discussions, andhousehold interviews. It included perhaps100 people from the village in differentscenes, doing different things.

For the evening show, about 40 showed upto "see themselves in action." Comment andresponse about the video was energetic.

The next morning, when the full PRA teamreturned for the next session, several villag-

ers asked if the video could be shown again.We returned that night. For this presentation,o ver 300 (we counted as people watched thefilm) were present. The event of 300 peoplecoming in a community of 250 suggests thestrength of the many PRA techniques forcommunity mobilization. As the video con-tinued, there were many comments andanecdotes flowing from the audience, manyof which elicited great laughter and counter-comment. It was clear that the video was agreat social event for the village.

The following day, for the continued rankingexercises, at least 80 adults were present.This represented about 2/3 of the adultpopulation of Lesoma and indicated that thevideo had accentuated and dramatized thetopic of PRA.

32

VI. Ranking Problems

The PRA Handbook2 describes several rankingtechniques, including voting, pair wise ranking,and other means to get community consensus onpriorities. Lesoma and the PRA team decided thatpair wise ranking would be the best means for thevillage. Through a series of discussions, presen-tations, and votes on paired choices, the PRA teamled a reinvigorated community - about 60 peoplewere present or half of the adult population --through the ranking exercises.

The high priority topics which the communityselected were wildlife encroachment and agricul-tural production (the two were linked together),land access, health, and water, in that order. Therewas considerable discussion over whether alcoholwas a problem, with a decision that it was not a

"problem" but a "situation" that could be dealtwith through existing community channels.

There was also extended commentary as towhether one of the major problems was the capac-ity of Lesoma's community institutions. The groupdecided that the institutions would become stron-ger as a result of implementing solutions to otherproblems. So institutional problems did not makethe final list of priority needs.

The discussion was extended and vigorous. Itwent on longer than some people wanted and therewere times when the discussion was not alwayspointed toward the topics at hand. Overall it wasfelt that this had been a positive and important task,The PRA momentum was beginning to spread.

2See PRA Handbook sections on Ranking; ibid.

33

34

VII. Ranking Opportunities

Once the high priority problems were identi-fied, a more detailed and intense series of discus-sions ensued. The PR A team made new charts ~in Setswana - designed to link all priority prob-lems to clusters of possible solutions. To constructthese charts, the team referred to the data presentedin Figure 11, Problems and Opportunities. Op-tions for the four problem areas were reconsideredand detailed technical considerations discussed.New thoughts were added on possible solutionsthat the community might wish to consider.

At this point, in a normal PRA, technicalspecialists would be called upon to review thetechnical soundness and practicality of the pro-posed options. However, because the Lesomaexample was a training exercise, we determined tohold off with technical assessments until after theplan and the initial priority solutions were selected.For those using this case study as a guideline tocarry out additional PRAs, bear in mind thefundamental need for technical analysis of thepossible options.

As time was pressing on the group, we deter-mined to rank as many of the opportunities as time

permitted, starting with the highest priority (wild-life encroachment/agricultural production) andworking down the list. Several methods of rankingwere considered, including the Options Assess-ment Chart that appears in the PRA Handbook,relying on the criteria of sustainability, productiv-ity, stability, and equitability to measure desirabil-ity of different solutions.

The PRA team and the community felt thatthey should stay with the pair wise ranking. It hadworked well to develop the list of priority prob-lems; the people felt familiar with it; the PRA teamwas comfortable with the linked system of ranking;and we were confident we could cover severaltopics using the already familiar technique.

When the PRA team arrived in the village,equipped with the ranking charts and related dia-grams, it became clear that this would be a produc-tive session. By the time the ranking began, therewere close to 60 people present, including manymen. The drought relief projects for brick makingand road construction had agreed to suspend workwhile the men attended the ranking sessions. Theloyal core of women had brought more of their

35

friends. And the professionals from the villageincluding the school headmistress, nurse, villagepoliceman, and village court representatives wereall present.

The discussions for wildlife management, asnoted in Figure 12, considered options of openingup wildlife hunting, an electric fence, village-based wildlife patrols, and improved wildlife man-agement (such as DWNP culling animals andproviding improved support services for wildlifemanagement). Discussion revealed that at leasttwo village residents owned fire arms that could beused for hunting; that the people were prepared todo some of the work to construct a fence; that

villagers could act as guides for outsiders whomight wish to pay a price for a trophy hunting; andyoung people in the village would volunteer toserve on wildlife patrols.

Similar discussions followed for the ranking ofland and health. Time did not permit opportunityto rank the villager's desires on water. However,many felt that the pressure for placing water on thepriority list came from a small group that hadrecently located compounds in a new area of thevillage not served by the original standpipes.There seemed to be little objection to postponingthe ranking exercises for water.

Figure 12. Ranking Opportunities

Priorities for Wildlife Encroachment Solutions

Hunting

A

ElectricFence

B

Villas* BandWildlifaPatrol!

c

ImprovedWildlifeMgmt.

D

Hunting

A

ElectricFences

B

A

Villagab»«)WildlifePatrol*

c

A

B

ImprovedWildlifeMgt

D

A

B

C

liii

TotalsA = 3B = 2C = l

36

Ranking Opportunities (cont)

Priorities for Health Solutions - Malaria

Use ofAnimalDung

A

Nat

B

RemoveStagnantWater

C

Use ClinicforTreatment

D

Use ofAnimalDung

A

Net

B

B

RemoveStagnantWater

C

c

B

Use ClinicforTreatment

D

D

D

D

TotalsA = 0B = 2C = l

Prioirities for Land use Conflict Solutions

TotalsA = 2B = 0C = l

ExpandedLand Area

A

LandZoning

B

OrganizeLand Useand Plan

C

ExpandedLand Area

A

LandZoning

B

A

OrganizeLand Useand Plan

C

A

C

37

38

VIII. Community Action Plan(CAP)

The final step in the PRA process is to finalisea Community Action Plan (CAP) which spells outthe steps for implementing the priority solutions.Because the community placed its highest priorityon the wildlife problem, the team created a CAPfor only the wildlife menace.

The document is attached as Figure 13. It isbased on a partnership between Lesoma, as repre-sented by the VDC, and the PRA follow-up team,to consist of one representative each from: (1) alocally-based NGO (Forum on Sustainable Agri-culture), (2) the DWNP, and (3) the NRM project.

The consensus among the PRA training groupwas that there were a number of concrete steps thatboth the community and the follow-up team couldtake to lead to action. These actions are spelled outin column 2 (Figure 13) marked, "Action/Materi-als." Further, there are clear definitions of whowill be responsible for taking action.

But it must be stressed that Lesoma is acommunity with a tradition, at least in recent years,of asking government to solve their problems andsatisfy their needs. The PRA offers a fundamen-tally different approach, one that will lead to much

greater ownership on the part of community insti-tutions as well as satisfaction when some of thetasks are achieved.

Several questions remain such as whether theVDC is the most appropriate group to take the leadfor the community; whether the follow-up team,with the DWNP as the prime liaison to the DistrictExtension Team, is the most effective institutionalmechanism; and whether the role of only one NGOis sufficient to respond to the broad range of needsthat Lesoma identified in its data gathering, anal-ysis, and ranking.

What is clear is that community leaders andresidents expressed resolve and priority for local-ly-generated action at the final two ranking ses-sions. The PRA team felt that if momentum couldbe maintained, at least some of the items of the firstpriority list could be confronted, and perhaps evenresolved.

Further, the team felt that the PRA methodol-ogy held sufficient promise, with appropriate ad-aptation, to meet local cultural, economic, ecolog-ical, and political needs,as well as achieveBotswana's rural development goals.

39

Lesoma Community Action PlanBotswana PRA Training Workshop

June, 1993Lesoma Village, Chobe District, Botswana

Priority One: Wildlife Menace

Opportunity

Hunting

Electric Fence

Village-Based Wildlife Patrols

Action/Materials

Seek technical and legalinformation on what is requiredto make hunting legal, includingwhat hunting or game actionmay now be legal thatcommunity does not knowabout;

Determine how much hasalready been learned aboutextent and cost of fence;

As needed, contact DWNPthrough local game warden toget advice on location and costof fencing;

Determine legal status of localcommunity-based patrols;

Organize volunteers withincommunity;

Who Will Do It

Village Development Committee(VDC), through the office of theDistrict Commissioner to contactDepartment of Wildlife andNational Parks (DWNP) andrequest advice;

VDC

VDC

VDC

Volunteers to come fromcommunity and to receivetraining, as needed;

Timing

Contact for initial consultationand meeting can take placeimmediately;

This is on-going activity alreadystarted in Lesoma though itseems to have slowed downbecause of lack of funds;

Consultation can beginimmediately;

Figure

13.

r-CD»O

aOw

3

iuni

>nA.o2a

Consultation can begin gImproved Wildlife Management Open conversations with DWNP VDC immediately. §

about wildlife and livestock gmanagement inside the |community and, as possible, a |plan for external management to •<consider options such as new nbore hole, diversion fence, §culling, and patrols 3

Note: This is the first priority problem for Lesoma. The next four (land conflict, human disease, communication and transport, and water) will beincorporated into this CAP by Lesoma-PRA follow-up team.

42

IX. Lessons Learned

1. PRA stimulated good participation andconstructive planning among Lesomaresidents

Lesoma, like many rural communities in Afri-ca, has many problems. Most severe in the mindsof the people are encroachments of large game.Discussions and proposals over the last few yearshave produced no concrete action because thecommunity is not united, sufficient funds are notavailable, and the community leadership has beenunable to solve either of these problems.

The information base which PRA developedfor Lesoma in three days of data gathering providesinsight into how the community sees its problemsas well as how it ranks solutions. For example, thePRA team agreed that the greatest need for Lesomawas to focus explicitly on institutional needs. Theranking sessions in the village suggested thatresidents wanted to take concrete action first anddevelop an institutional plan later. The PRAprocess abides by community priorities and as aresult has established the CAP with the wildlifemenace as the first priority.

Listening to the community, guiding groupdiscussions, easing conflict between and amongelements of the community, and building partner-ships between the DWNP and the people have seta new tone in Lesoma. While the two weekexperience of PRA has not solved any problems,it has forged a new spirit of cooperation andestablished a concrete plan that can.

At the concluding session in which opportuni-ties for action were identified, 60 village represen-tatives were present from 9:30 am to noon (out ofa total adult population of about 125). Peoplestayed home from work and rearranged theirhousehold schedules to attend. This percentageand intensity of participation suggests the degree towhich PRA has stimulated Lesoma to take action.

2. Local adaptations of PRA to Botswanapriorities and needs have begun

PRA is not a universal methodology. It mustbe adapted to local cultural, ecological, institution-al, and economic circumstances. This adaptation

43

can only be done in the field, through collaborationamong those who know the local circumstancesand those who are familiar with PRA.

This process has begun in Botswana. In thecase of Lesoma, new ways to focus indirectly oninstitutional needs became a prominent part of theexercise. Modification of the ranking procedurehelped to meet particular needs of communication.Use of portable, battery-powered video presenta-tions in the evening established rapport and trust.Presence of DWNP staff in the community to listento community priorities opened new lines of ex-change and learning.

The Lesoma PRA has established several entrypoints for DWNP, NGOs, and existing extensionstaff to begin negotiations with community groupsconcerning contributions that "inside" and "out-side" groups can make.

Finally a core staff of DWNP, NGO, andextension staff now have a good exposure to theprocess and have been able to see, first hand, howPRA works in the field. While those in the trainingcourse are not yet expert in PRA, they have learnedseveral PRA techniques.

3. Lesoma is prepared to take action andbe a partner in the implementation

The primary purpose of the training coursewas to acquaint the 23 course participants withPRA. Yet we were also able to develop the firststep of Lesoma's CAP, in this case, focussing onthe wildlife menace.

Several of the solutions proposed involvedcommunity residents volunteering time and re-

sources in support of the plan. One part of the planis to develop village wildlife patrols which wouldbe organised through community institutions. An-other is to begin the process of developing awildlife management plan. Still another is toconsider what contributions community groupscan make to fencing.

While the PRA demonstrated that Lesoma wasdispirited, it also found that there were manyresidents who were knowledgeable about theirsituation and full of ideas about how to deal with theproblems. While some of the early PRA exercisesin Lesoma suffered because of indifference - evensuspicion - by the end of the second week, therewere cordial, trusting, and productive relation-ships between the PRA team and the community.

4. Technical assistance and external fol-low-up still required

PRA has not solved Lesoma's problems. Nordoes the PRA process suggest that the communityis now ready to solve its own problems. Instead,PRA has opened a window for negotiations anddiscussions.

Follow-up and sound technical advice areessential. For example, the CAP focusses onpossibilities of selected culling and reopening ofhunting. Such steps require feasibility assessmentsand analysis by DWNP. They also require fullcooperation with community institutions.

The community also has aspirations that do notrelate directly to wildlife, including issues such asland use conflict, health, and employment. ThePRA can help to integrate the different sectors andelements of the community's needs into a single

44

plan in which NGO and government, donors andprojects, and several sector-based ministries canrespond to issues that the community has identi-fied.

5. PRA action plan delineates levels andnature of these duties

Figure 13 contains the first portion of what willeventually become a CAP for Lesoma. A smallfollow-up committee including an NGO, an NRMproject member of staff, and a member of theDistrict Extension Team will coordinate the work.That these three have entered into a workingalliance with the community, with establishedsteps for each member to take, will be the first testof commitment on the part of both "inside" and"outside" players.

There are two pieces to the follow-up. Thefirst is to complete the CAP. In addition to the planfor wildlife, the village had identified land use,human diseases, water, and transport/communica-tion as their chief priorities. An additional dozenproblems were secondary needs. Time during theformal training permitted only one piece of theCAP - wildlife - to be completed. The follow-upteam will work with Lesoma to finish the plan.

Second, initiatives with the wildlife problemcan begin immediately. Yet Lesoma will requirelegal, technical, procedural, and policy guidancefrom the follow-up team to carry out the process.With a road map to guide both team and commu-nity, there are now clearly established and jointlydetermined directions to take, as noted in the CAP.

6. Unique elements in PRA seemed to workeffectively in Lesoma

The PRA team found Lesoma dispirited. Initialmeetings were not well attended nor was participa-tion by those who did come energetic. The PRAdata gathering techniques worked extremely well,over the course of two weeks, to draw out thegroup.

The village sketch map was an excellent open-er. Several of the Lesoma women joined vigorous-ly in the exercise and felt accomplishment at theconclusion. The transect was a good means for theteam to become familiar with Lesoma and for thepeople to learn about the team.The seasonal calen-dar worked well as did the interviews with eldersto learn of the history of the community. Given themultiplicity of ethnic groups in Lesoma, the histor-ical sections proved to be invaluable in shapingstrategies and establishing a working plan.

The team used more farm interviews than arenormally conducted in a PRA. The interviewsagain accentuated the visibility of the team, notedtheir interest in listening, and stressed that thepurpose of the PRA was not to extract data but,instead, to develop a community based action plan.

One of the surprise activities was use of batterypowered video. During the course of the datagathering exercises, a 90 minute video tape wasdeveloped. On two different evenings, teammembers used a small battery operated videoprojector to show the villagers their own PRA. Onthe first night, about 40 attended which the teamthought was quite good. On the second evening -

45

- repeated by popular demand ~ upwards of 300attended including most of the village's 110 prima-ry school pupils as well as over 100 adults.

The video presentation cemented the conceptthat PRA was a two way street - that it listened andfed back, that it helped the community to see itselfin a new way, and that the purpose of the exercisewas to establish a data base for the community thatvillage institutions could use.

Lesoma's PRA exercise is a first step. The

lessons learned suggest many potential uses inBotswana, though additional adaptation will benecessary. Further, if PRA is to become a sustain-able methodology in Botswana, one or more na-tional institutions needs to assume responsibilityfor training, publication of handbooks and casestudies, and field research on new applications ofthe approach. Finally, additional research isneeded to investigate themes not covered in thecurrent PRA literature such as scaling up, dealingwith community stratification, monitoring andevaluation, and implementation.

46

X. Epilogue

Lesoma's beginning is substantial. Feedbackfrom course participants, local administrative of-ficers, village leaders and residents, and NGOofficers suggests that there are many PRA elementsthat speak directly to local needs.

The wildlife menace offers a good example.The problem is larger than any single group cansolve. If the DWNP acts alone, the cost of torestricting elephants and buffalo will be enormousand would not be justifiable on economic grounds.On the other hand, if the community acts alone,there is little hope that they could install a fence orother apparatus strong enough to withstand wild-life pressures. Prior to the PRA exercise, there hadbeen little collaboration between any of the in-volved parties about how, whether, where, andwhen some form of protection might be adopted.

PRA has brought the groups together. Whilethe Lesoma PRA has not solved wildlife encroach-ment, it has put a plan in place;brought the princi-pal institutions into communication with one an-other; set a series of goals that are within reach ofthe many partners; and created a stage upon whichnegotiations among equals can be carried out.

PRA has demonstrated that the primary prob-lem of Lesoma is not necessarily wildlife en-croachment. Rather, it is a deeply seated cluster ofconcerns that relate to political isolation, ethniccompetition, distrust among new and old elementsof the community, skepticism about the ability ofexternal development groups to help, and need forstronger institutional capacities within the village.Resolution of these issues and strengthening oflocal capacities lies within the grasp of Lesoma.

The PRA experience suggests that the mosteffective way to strengthen institutions is to focuson problems the people identify, form alliancesamong interested organizations, and negotiate re-sponses. These solutions require sound economic,technical, social, and ecological data and skills;protracted discussions among all of the interestedparties; and need both internal and external re-sources. PRA, by itself, will solve none of theseissues. However, the collaboration and integrationof institutions, information, resources, technicalexperience, and local ownership that PRA createscan lead to both conservation and development. Ithas worked effectively in other parts of Africa.The opportunity now exists for Botswana as well.

47

Those who wish additional information should read:

Chambers, Robert, Arnold Pacey and Lori Ann Thrupp, eds. Farmer First: Farmer Innovation andAgricultural Research, Intermediate Technology Publications, London, 1989.

Chambers, Robert. Rural Development: Putting the Last First, Longman Scientific and Technical,Essex, U.K. 1983.

Conway, Gordon R and Edward B. Barbier. After the Green Revolution: Sustainable Agriculture forDevelopment. London, Earthscan, 1990.

Davis-Case, D'Arcy. The Community's Toolbox: The Idea, Methods and Tools for ParticipatoryAssessment, Monitoring and Evaluation in Community Forestry, Community Forestry Unit of theFood and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 1990.

Davis-Case, D'Arcy. Participatory Assessment, Monitoring and Evaluation: A Field Manual, Com-munity Forestry Unit of the Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, 1989.

Ford, Richard, Francis Lelo, and Joseph Ayieko. Community Action: Water, Trees, and PRA inPwani. Clark University, Worcester, MA, 1992.

Ford, Richard, Charity Kabutha, Nicholas Mageto, and Karafa Manneh. Sustaining DevelopmentThrough Community Mobilization: A Case Study of Participatory Rural Appraisal in The Gambia.Clark University, Worcester, MA, 1992.

International Institute for Environment and Development, RRA Notes, Number 8 (January, 1990),"Manual on RRA and Related Approaches," pp. 30-35, London.

Isbister, John. Promises Not Kept: The Betray I of Social Change in the Third World. KumarianPress.West Hartford, 1991.

Kabutha, Charity, Barbara P. Thomas-Slayter and Richard Ford. Participatory Rural AppraisalHandbook, World Resources Institute, in collaboration with Kenya's National Environment Secre-tariat, Egerton University, and Clark University, 1990.

Korten, David C. Getting to the 21 st Century: Voluntary Action and the Global Agenda, KumarianPress, West Hartford, CT, 1990.

Mascarenhas, James, et al. eds., RRA Notes, Number 13, (August, 1991) Participatory Rural Ap-praisal: Proceedings of the February 1991 Bangalore PRA Trainers Workshop, IIED, London.

Molnar, Augusta. Community Forestry: Rapid Appraisal, Community Forestry Unit of the Food andAgriculture Organization, Rome, 1991.

Mwagiru, Wanjiku, Barbara Thomas-Slayter, and Richard Ford. An Introduction to Participa-tory Rural Appraisal for Natural Resources Management. Clark University, Worcester, MA,1989. This booklet is also available in the following languages: French, Spanish, Malagash,Somali, Setswana, and KiSwahili (Arabic will be available in 1994).

Odour-Noah, Elizabeth, et al. Implementing PRA: A Handbook to Facilitate ParticipatoryRural Appraisal. Clark University; Worcester, MA. March, 1992.

Rocheleau, Dianne, Land-Use Planning with Rural Farm Households and Communities:Participatory AgroForestry Research. Working Paper No. 36, International Centre for Re-search on AgroForestry, Nairobi, Kenya.

Thomas-Slayter, Barbara P., Politics, Participation, and Poverty: Development Through Self-Help in Kenya, Boulder, Westview Press, 1985.

Thomas-Slayter, Barbara P., M. Dale Shields, and Andrea Esser. Tools of Gender Analysis: AGuide to Field Methods for Bringing Gender into Sustainable Resource Management. ClarkUniversity, Worcester, MA, 1993.