خ بلند ترجمه
10/11/1388
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 23(2), 2002, 149-166
? Copyright 2002 Department of Geography, National University of Singapore and Blackwell Publishers Ltd
INTRODUCTION
One of the most important features of late
twentieth-century production is the steady
formation of a global economy. The history of
capitalism is replete with examples of this
phenomenon: after all, capitalism was, from its
inception, an international system, and
globalisation a fundamental attribute of 500
years of European colonial domination over
the rest of the world. However, in the last 50
GLOBALISATION AND THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY
IN BOTSWANA
Michael B.K. Darkoh1 and Joseph E. Mbaiwa2
1Department of Environmental Science, University of Botswana,
Gaborone, Botswana
2Harry Oppenheimer Okavango Research Centre, University of Botswana,
Gaborone, Botswana
ABSTRACT
The expansion of Botswana’s livestock industry in recent years is partly a result of moves towards
integration into the global economy. In the colonial period, livestock raising was the backbone of
the national economy and in the post-colonial period remains the mainstay of the rural economy.
Botswana’s export-driven cattle industry has led to the establishment of a well-equipped
infrastructure such as marketing and veterinary services, which rank among the most developed
in Africa. The industry has much support from the government; hence, the cattle population
continues to grow. Even though globalisation has generally had positive impacts on the
development of Botswana’s economy through beef exports, it has also generated some socioeconomic
and environmental problems. Most serious are the continuing skewness of livestock
holdings, increasing income disparities between the rich and poor, and accelerated overgrazing of
rangelands due to overstocking of cattle by both communal and commercial farmers. The erection
of veterinary cordon fences associated with the prevention of diseases and expansion of the
cattle industry to meet export demands have decimated large numbers of migratory wildlife species
in the country, with deleterious effects on the burgeoning tourist industry. As a result, globalisation
is having both positive and negative impacts on the economy of Botswana.
Keywords: globalisation, beef production, pastoral marginalisation, tribal grazing lands policy,
rangeland degradation, Botswana
years, the pace and extent of globalisation has
been unparalleled historically; some observers
hold that the current trend is indicative of the
“Fifth Kondratieff” cycle of the late twentieth
century (Harrington & Warf, 1995:40; Haggett,
2001:592-93). The most obvious features of
contemporary globalisation involve the
massive growth in international trade,
investment, production and consumption,
Darkoh.p65 3 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
150 Darkoh and Mbaiwa
promoted by rapid liberalisation. Most
recently, the move towards a global economy
where national borders cease to matter has
changed the face of the world in which we
live. In particular, the information and
technological revolutions have shrunk the
time-space aspects of social relations, allowing
the economy, politics and culture of one
country to penetrate another. Indeed, the
process of globalisation has not only made
local and national economies increasingly
interdependent, but has unevenly generated
new patterns of costs and benefits around the
world. The development of the world economy
has undoubtedly produced unprecedented
prospects for material progress, but this trend
does not seem to be sustainable (Sideri, 1999).
Many countries’ decision makers are
increasingly linking globalisation with the
negative aspects of world competition and the
problem of unemployment. The perception that
global enterprise and globalisation in general
are giving rise to an intensification of social
problems at both the national and world levels
has elicited defensive pleas to concentrate on
economic regionalisation instead of economic
globalisation (Emmerij, 1997).
There is considerable controversy and
debate on the question of whether globalisation
is a negative or positive phenomenon
(see, for example, special issues of Singapore
Journal of Tropical Geography, 2000, 2001;
also Scholte, 2000). Protagonists argue that it
is a force for the greater good, offering
economic growth and prosperity through
expanded market outlets and opportunities for
the acquisition of new technologies and ideas:
the proverbial fast train to higher levels of
development (Cheru, 1997). Indeed, the current
process of globalisation has offered greater
opportunities for capital and business elites,
which, supported by an advanced communications
and transport system, have enabled a
privileged few to operate at a global scale (Salih,
1997). For some countries, such as the Newly
Industrialised Countries (NICs) of Southeast
Asia, globalisation has opened up access to
affluent markets of the developed world and
lifted them out of the poverty trap. However,
many others, particularly in Africa, have not
been able to obtain or enjoy the benefits of
globalisation. On the African continent, in
particular, the results of globalisation and trade
liberalisation have generally been a worsening
of existing imbalances which have impeded
development and aggravated poverty. The
marginalisation of African countries, as
Daouas (2001:4) has noted, “is reflected in their
small share of world trade (barely 2 per cent)…
and foreign investment (1 per cent)”. Many
African countries have not been able to attract
any significant amounts of foreign direct
investment; their debt burdens have increased
and external assistance dwindled.
Clearly, as Yeung and Dicken (2000) have
pointed out, globalisation is a Janus-like
phenomenon, with dialectically benign and
malign faces. Undoubtedly, a cause for the
dissatisfaction with globalisation stems from
the differing experiences of the process across
countries. When discussing globalisation, it
is no longer possible to talk in terms of a single
process (Scholte, 2000; Mittelman, 2001), let
alone a common experience of the developing
world; even within the poor nations of Africa,
globalisation has seen both winners and
losers. For example, a special issue of Finance
and Development (2001) on “Globalisation and
Africa” emphasised large differences in the
operation and outcomes of globalisation, with
countries such as Mauritius and Tunisia
proactively sustaining rapid strides and
achievements, while several others are
stagnating. However, even within the African
countries making strides, globalisation has
had mixed benefits.
In Botswana, widely seen in Africa as one
of the greatest beneficiaries of globalisation,
national success conceals hugely different
outcomes among the local population. While
pastoralism is the traditional revered
occupation of the people, it has become
increasingly subject to commercialisation and
centralisation. Today, only a handful of elite
farmers, many of them government officials,
Darkoh.p65 4 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
control the major share of the national cattle
herd (Pearce, 1993). These elite have thrived
on a succession of fat loans from the World
Bank to develop giant ranches extending out
to the more arid and fragile marginal lands
(sandveld). Much of Botswana’s beef goes to
the European Union (EU) under special
favoured trading arrangements. However,
despite the national obsession with cattle
rearing, beef exports make up only about 3.1
per cent of export earnings, at present
dominated by diamonds and copper-nickel.
Mining earnings, in turn, are utilised to
subsidise cattle rearing, making the leading
herd owners very wealthy. There is a growing
consensus at the national level that the wealth
generated by the globalisation of beef
production will not of itself improve the lives
of the poor. In other words, economic growth
is essential but not sufficient to ensure equity,
social progress and the eradication of poverty
in Botswana. Furthermore, although the
livestock industry is the mainstay of the rural
household population, heavy reliance on it
has entailed substantial social and environmental
costs, including the displacement of
subsistence farmers and indigenous
communities from their land (Sporton et al.,
1999), and the incidence of desertification and
land degradation (Dahlberg, 1994; Kinlund,
1996; Darkoh, 1999a, 1999b).
The main focus of this paper addresses
the influence of globalisation on the
development of the livestock industry,
specifically cattle and beef, in Botswana from
the colonial period (1885-1966) to the present.
It highlights the fact that the expansion of
the cattle industry has been greatly
influenced by the demands of external beef
markets, especially in Europe, a situation that
has so far directed national livestock policy
formulation and project implementation.
Information contained in this paper is largely
drawn from secondary sources such as
government reports and policy documents,
and journals. Unfortunately, no data is yet
available on the Botswana cattle industry
beyond 1995-96.
GLOBALISATION AND THE
LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY IN
BOTSWANA
The colonial period: 1885-1996
The globalised agricultural economy in many
tropical countries has its roots in the European
colonial period beginning with the expansion
of the Spanish and Portuguese into the
Americas (Murray, 2000). The globalisation of
the cattle industry in Botswana has its origins
from 1885, when it became the British
Protectorate of Bechuanaland. The years
following colonisation were marked by several
changes in the livestock sector. For the first
time in its history, livestock, especially cattle,
became commoditised and sold mostly to
South Africa, the first international market for
Botswana’s beef. The establishment and rapid
expansion of mining in South Africa from the
1870s had led to urban concentrations of
mining and industrial workers at Kimberley and
the Witwatersrand and created a demand for
cheap sources of protein, with meat being the
most convenient form, given its abundance,
acceptability and ease of transport on the hoof.
The main concentrations of cattle in South
Africa were situated remotely from the
expanding Witwatersrand industrial area,
behind the eastern escarpment in Zululand,
Natal and the Transkei, and were also more
prone to tropical cattle diseases than cattle
from the more humid hardveld. Thus, the
Protectorate’s close geographical proximity to
the gold mines of Witwatersrand made it the
most convenient supplier of cattle and beef.
Beef exported to South Africa also served to
meet the running costs of the Protectorate’s
colonial administration.
Between 1905 and 1910, Botswana exported
about 3,000 heads of cattle per annum to South
Africa (Hubbard, 1986); by 1914, the figure
had increased substantially to 12,000 per
annum. The greatest boosts to cattle exports
were witnessed during and immediately after
the First World War (1914-18). Exports of beef
to South Africa escalated rapidly to 19,000
cattle in 1916-17, and 31,000 in 1920-21, mainly
Globalisation and the Livestock Industry in Botswana 151
Darkoh.p65 5 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
because South Africa supplied meat to warring
armies abroad, practically becoming an
exporting country overnight during the war.
By the early 1920s, therefore, Botswana had
become a satellite of the South African
economy. The cattle export industry grew, but
was established within the demands of the
South African market, until then virtually the
only market for exports of Botswana’s beef and
a source of imports, a situation that inspired
plans envisaging the full political integration
of Botswana into South Africa at a later date.
By the 1940s, in response to the increased
demand for meat in the copperbelt mines of
Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia), Southern
Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and the Congo
(now the Democratic Republic of Congo), beef
exports to these markets began, especially from
the Ngamiland area in northern Botswana. The
outbreak of World War II produced an
immediate call from Britain to South Africa for
all the beef it could export. With no surplus
immediately available from South Africa or
Zimbabwe, the appeal reached Botswana, and
arrangements were provisionally made for
Botswana’s cattle to be slaughtered at
Kimberley, Durban or Bulawayo for export to
the United Kingdom (U.K.). This, therefore,
marked another phase of Botswana’s beef
production and export.
The increased demand for Botswana’s beef
by foreign markets had also led to the
introduction of borehole drilling in the country
from the 1930s in order to meet livestock
watering needs, especially in the western arid
regions (Perkins, 1991). Boreholes were drilled
to create a series of trek routes so that cattle
from the remoter districts could be driven to
the railway line or neighbouring territories for
sale (White, 1993). Boreholes were also drilled
to allow stock to be moved from the overgrazed
areas around existing water points into new
and hitherto ungrazed areas. The immediate
result of this drilling programme, which
continued until the mid-1960s with British
Government and United Nations funding, was
that it enabled the Botswana elite to
monopolise the development of new water
sources and, therefore, an ever growing share
of the national cattle herd.
Globalisation in many tropical countries
was, during the colonial era, associated with
the expansion of multinational corporations
(MNCs) and the relocation of labour
intensive production (Turner, 2000). The
colonial powers exploited the agricultural
potential of tropical countries, setting up
extensive plantations. In the Pacific Islands,
for example (Murray, 2000), a colonial division
of labour ensued, with the region providing
primary and agricultural products often
harvested from colonially established
plantations. In Botswana, this characteristic
feature of globalisation was almost nonexistent.
Instead, international trade and the
globalisation of the cattle industry in the form
of beef exports was characterised by the
establishment of cattle ranches spearheaded
by a British corporation known as the Colonial
Development Corporation (CDC). Although
CDC had established the Lobatse abattoir in
the 1920s, because of opposition from South
African beef producers, the abattoir never
functioned until 1955. The re-opening of the
Lobatse abattoir in 1955 was the turning point
heralding the globalisation of the beef
industry and exports to markets not only in
the Southern Africa region, but also in the
U.K. and the then European Economic
Community (EEC). The need to provide for
and secure these markets and the substantial
investment in the abattoir led to further
measures being put in place to meet
environmental standards in the EEC and
protect the livestock industry against
diseases such as foot-and-mouth. These
included annual vaccination campaigns and
the division of the country into quarantine
zones separated by veterinary fences.
The post-colonial period
The activities of MNCs in tropical countries
and the demarcation of large areas of land for
commercial crop production purposes were
associated with changes in the land tenure
152 Darkoh and Mbaiwa
Darkoh.p65 6 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
system in most countries. In Botswana, where
land was largely used for cattle ranching, the
CDC, in 1949, started a network of fattening
and breeding ranches on Crown land at
Odiakwe, Nata and Pandamatenga in northern
Botswana, and in the Molopo in the south;
the Ncojane cattle ranches and the Ghanzi
freehold farms were established during this
period. White (1993) states that all these
attempts were directed to promote the abattoir
at Lobatse. The process of land demarcation
for cattle production was continued even
after Botswana’s independence from the
British in 1966 through various policies and
programmes that resulted in ever-larger parts
of the country being set aside for cattle
farming. Table 1 shows that permanent
pastures occupy the largest area of available
land in the country. The wilderness areas,
covering 31,255 km2, constitute 55.1 per cent
of the total pastureland. Although the
division between permanent pastures and the
wilderness areas used simultaneously by
wildlife and livestock consequently cannot
be determined exactly, the fact remains that
the livestock sector, especially cattle farming,
has been given priority in allocation over
other land uses, such as arable agriculture.
Rangelands in post-colonial Botswana can
be demarcated into those of the sandveld
found in the western and central parts of the
country, and those of the hardveld in the
eastern part. Over the last three decades,
owing to the increasing pressure on the
already crowded communal grazing areas of
eastern Botswana, large herd owners have
been moving westwards, establishing permanent
cattle posts in the Kalahari sandveld,
thus spreading conditions of overstocking and
degradation of vegetation on a large scale in
this fragile arid environment (Darkoh, 1997).
This movement has been facilitated by
economic policies aimed at higher livestock
production to meet external demands and by
the concomitant applications of modern
science and technology to provide veterinary
care and new sources of water by means of
deep borehole drilling (Darkoh, 1997). Figure
1 shows the distribution of cattle and the
direction of grazing pressure in Botswana’s
rangelands.
In the decades immediately after
independence in 1966, the Government’s
budget was characterised by much spending
on the agricultural sector, especially on the
livestock industry (Harvey & Lewis, 1990;
Mbaiwa, 1999). Table 2 illustrates this pattern
of government development expenditure as
reflected in the country’s Five Year National
Development Plans (NDPs) from 1968 to 2002.
However, although considerable government
expenditure and land resources have gone into
cattle production, the industry has not
generated the expected national revenues. At
independence, meat accounted for 97.2 per
cent of exports, yet by 1987, it accounted for
TABLE 1. LAND USE IN BOTSWANA, 1987-88
Source: World Resources Institute (1990:268).
Globalisation and the Livestock Industry in Botswana 153
LAND USE TYPE
LAND AREA (km2)
PERCENTAGE
Cropland (mixed farming)
1,360
2.4
Permanent pasture 44,000 77.6
Forest and woodlands 962 1.7
Other land 10,351 18.3
TOTAL 56,673 100.0
Darkoh.p65 7 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
TABLE 2. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SPENDING ON AGRICULTURE IN NATIONAL
DEVELOPMENT PLANS (NDPs) IN PULA1 THOUSANDS, 1968-2002
Sources: Harvey & Lewis (1990:90); Government of Botswana (1991a, 1997).
NDP 1
1968-73
NDP 2
1970-75
NDP 3
1973-78
NDP 4
1976-81
NDP 5
1979-85
NDP 6
1985-91
NDP7
1991-97
NDP8
1997-
2002
Livestock & animal health
1,501
(59.3%)
4,479
(30.7%)
9,224
(74.3%)
20, 635
(68.6%)
61, 447
(56.6%)
11, 606
(22.8%)
23,200
(18%)
95,751
(28.1%)
Arable farming 262
(10.3%)
351
(6.3%)
754
(6.1%)
3,562
(11.9%)
24,067
(22.2%)
23,830
(46.9%)
46,900
(37%)
113,966
(33.1%)
Research 92
(3.6%)
86
(1.5%)
755
(6.1%)
2214
(7.4%)
4,621
(4.3%)
1,300
(2.5%)
14,600
(12%)
49,547
(14.1%)
Others 678
(26.9%)
633
(11.5%)
1,675
(13.5%)
3,628
(12.1%)
18,418
(16.9%)
14,120
(27.8%)
41,600
(33%)
85,044
(24.7%)
TOTAL 2,533 5,549 12,408 30,039 108,553 52,856 126,300 344,308
Figure 1. Distribution of cattle in Botswana.
Source: Darkoh (1997).
154 Darkoh and Mbaiwa
15P= US$1
Darkoh.p65 8 6/1/2002, 1:11 PM
only 3.1 per cent of the exports (Table 3).
However, despite the decline in its relative
contribution to total exports, the total value of
livestock exports has increased enormously,
representing a real increase in livestock
production. At independence, meat exports
were worth P10.4 million (approximately US$2.1
million), but in 1999, they were worth P140
million (approximately US$28 million).
Agricultural policies designed to meet the
expectations of the beef industry coupled with
the substantial financial support for the
livestock sector and the expansion of borehole
drilling sustained the increase of the national
cattle herd until 1996 (Table 4). While many
boreholes drilled by the government for other
purposes (e.g. domestic use) have also been
made available to farmers, almost all have been
privatised, usually held by syndicates, but
some by individuals (White, 1993).
The cattle industry is dominated by the
traditional sector, which accounts for more
than 80 per cent of the total cattle population
(Figure 2). A significant decrease from 2.7
million cattle in 1990 to 1.8 million in 1993 was
mostly attributed to drought and poor
management, mainly owing to absentee
farmers (Government of Botswana, 1997)
Accurate figures for the cattle population after
1993 are hard to find, though estimates show
TABLE 3. BOTSWANA EXPORTS BY PRINCIPAL COMMODITIES
IN PULA1 MILLIONS, 1966-99
Sources: Colclough & McCarthy (1980:7); Central Statistical Office (1993); Government
of Botswana (2000).
YEAR
MEAT AND MEAT
PRODUCTS
DIAMONDS
COPPERNICKEL
OTHER
1966
10.4 (97.2%)
-
-
0.3 (2.8%)
1976 46.0 (30.1%) 37.0 (24.2%) 52.0(33.9%) 18.0 (11.8%)
1987 83.9 (3.1%) 2,25.0 (84.5%) 118.0 (4.4%) 211.0 (7.9%)
1992 130.0 (3.5%) 2,898.0 (78.9%) 266.0 (7.2%) 380.0 (10.3%)
1993 161.0 (3.8%) 3,339.0 (78.2%) 220.0 (5.1%) 551.0 (12.9%)
1994 182.0 (3.7%) 3,718.0 (74.9%) 259.0 (5.2%) 806.0 (16.2%)
1995 179.0 (3.0%) 3,984.0 (67.0%) 328.0 (5.5%) 1,450.0 (14.3%)
1996 206.0 (2.5%) 5,722.0 (70.4%) 444.0 (5.5%) 1,763.0 (21.6%)
1997 231.0 (2.2%) 7,670.0 (71.8%) 481.0 (4.6%) 2,028.0 (21.4%)
1998 299.0 (3.4%) 6,040.0 (69.5%) 436.0 (5.0%) 1,922.0 (21.9%)
1999 140.0 (2.5%) 4,116.0 (74.5%) 273.0 (4.9%) 998.0 (18.1%)
TABLE 4. BOTSWANA NATIONAL
CATTLE HERD, 1934 -96
Sources: White (1993); Silisthena & McLeod
(1998); Government of Botswana (2000);
Central Statistical Office (2000).
YEAR
CATTLE
1934
1939
1947
1954
1957
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1993
1994
1995
1996
1,189,000
671,000
966,872
1,140,000
1,310,000
1,481,000
2,017,000
2,390,000
2,390,000
2,459,000
2,696,000
1,821,000
2,800,000
2,530,000
2,190,303
Globalisation and the Livestock Industry in Botswana 155
15P= US$1
Darkoh.p65 9 6/1/2002, 1:11 PM
Figure 2. Cattle holdings, 1980-90 and 1993.
Source: Government of Botswana (1997).
that in 1994 the cattle population rose to 2.8
million. According to Botswana’s NDP VIII
(Government of Botswana, 1997), the cattle
population in 1995-96 declined because of an
outbreak of cattle lung disease in Ngamiland
District, where its eradication required over
300,000 cattle (about 12 per cent of the national
herd) to be destroyed.
In general, in part due to the incidence of
drought and diseases, there has been much
slower growth in the number of households
owning cattle. Since the 1970s, when Botswana
acceded to the Lome Convention and obtained
preferential access to and a subsidy from the
European Community (EC), there have been
changes in cattle ownership patterns. For
example, the number of urban-based cattleowning
households, each holding over 40
cattle, increased from 8,000 in 1981 to 10,000 in
1991, while rural cattle-owning households fell
by 20 per cent, from 50,000 to 40,000 (White,
1993). In Botswana, the continuing globalisation
of the beef industry has promoted a
growth in the skewness of livestock holdings.
As shown in Table 5, the proportion of people
without cattle in the traditional sector grew
from 32 per cent in 1981 to 49 per cent in 1995.
These figures show that poorer households
in rural areas are losing access to cattle. The
concentration of livestock wealth in the
hands of the urban elite has also concentrated
political power in their hands, due to the
linkages that exist between wealth, social
status and political influence. The cattleowning
and political elite dominates the
government and administration (Molutsi,
1993; White, 1993; Mazonde, 1996); the great
majority of Botswana Members of Parliament,
Councillors and Land Board members are
drawn from families with significant livestock
holdings, as are the great majority of government
employees at all levels (Mazonde, 1996).
The political elite act in their own economic
interests to increase their control over access
to land and water and to exclude commoners’
animals from the land around their own water
points.
MAJOR LIVESTOCK
PROGRAMMES
Since independence in 1966, the Government
has embarked on several innovative
programmes to promote and support beef
production for foreign markets. A cardinal aim
of these measures is to commercialise livestock
156 Darkoh and Mbaiwa
Darkoh.p65 10 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
production, boost beef exports and likewise,
much needed foreign exchange. A secondary
aim is to protect rangeland from degradation
caused by pastoralist production. These key
programmes are outlined below.
The Tribal Grazing Lands Policy
(TGLP) of 1975
The Tribal Grazing Lands Policy (TGLP) of 1975
was a World Bank-sponsored programme
designed to boost the cattle industry and stem
the problem of land degradation in Botswana.
It can also be viewed as a policy that was
designed to promote globalisation through the
acquisition of communal land for ranching and
beef production to meet the demands of
international, especially European, markets.
The ostensible objectives were to commercialise
livestock production and conserve the
rangelands. The understanding in government
circles was that pastoralist production in
communal areas was inherently unproductive
and ecologically destructive, and therefore,
needed major reform (Mazonde, 1994). For
example, in the hardveld, the eastern more
humid part of the country where three-quarters
of the national cattle herd was located,
environmental degradation had been
attributed to overstocking under traditional
communal grazing systems. Thus, the aims of
the TGLP were to be accomplished by
expanding cattle production into the Kalahari
sandveld through the creation of fenced,
borehole-focused, leased ranches; by 1984, 218
were established.
A large proportion of the traditional sector
communally owned tribal pastures was
parcelled into commercial ranches and leased
to individuals on a 50-year renewable basis.
Much of that “colonisation” was funded by
the World Bank through a US$1.65 million loan
approved in 1972. Even when studies showed
that this ranching programme had yielded a
“negative economic return” (Pearce, 1993) and
despite widespread defaulting on these loans,
in 1995, the Bank approved yet another loan
of US$10 million to the government to create
more ranches on tribal grazing lands. An
underlying assumption of the TGLP was that
the creation of commercial ranches would
automatically remove a large number of cattle
from overgrazed communal grazing lands in
the eastern hardveld, reduce pressure on
these areas and, thus, give the small farmers
who remained the opportunity to improve
their livelihoods (Darkoh & Mbaiwa, 2001).
It was also thought that the granting of longterm
leases (50 years) for TGLP ranches would
ipso facto encourage improved ranching
methods and, hence, better rangeland conservation
and increased livestock production.
Modern management techniques expected to
be applied to TGLP ranches included fencing,
TABLE 5. CATTLE OWNERSHIP IN THE TRADITIONAL SECTOR, 1981-95
(percentage distribution)
Source: Government of Botswana (1997:227).
1981
1990
1993
1995
Farming households with no cattle
32
38
47
49
Traditional farms with 1-40 cattle 41 38 36 25
Traditional farms with 41-100 cattle 18 18 11 16
Traditional farms with >100 cattle
9 6 6 10
TOTAL 100 100 100 100
Globalisation and the Livestock Industry in Botswana 157
Darkoh.p65 11 5/31/2002, 4:08 PM
water reticulation and appropriate stocking
rates.
Despite the ambitious aims and funding of
the TGLP, reports in the late 1980s (McGowan
International & Cooper Lybrand, 1988;
Edwards et al., 1989) revealed that the policy
had failed to meet its objectives; overgrazing
and land degradation were reported to be
common problems in commercial or communal
areas where TGLP activities were implemented.
Edwards et al. (1989) identified the following
factors contributing to poor performance
under the TGLP: farmers’ failure to recognise
the problem of overgrazing and degradation;
their unwillingness to limit numbers of
livestock animals; rural farmers’ inexperience
in co-operative and group ventures and lack
of identification with TGLP projects; and
traditional attitudes which emphasised cattle
accumulation rather than selling or turnover.
Tsimako (1991) notes that the implementation
of the ranching programme has been
problematic due to drought and insufficient
water availability; absentee management and
the lack of cooperation among group
ranchers; poor infrastructure development;
and gross overstocking. Darkoh and Mbaiwa
(2001) point out another of the major problems
with TGLP ranches concerning dual grazing
rights. Commercial TGLP ranch owners did not
give up their traditional grazing rights in the
surrounding communal lands and moved cattle
between their ranches and the communal land
in order to maximise the available grazing. This,
therefore, put even more pressure on the
adjacent communal grazing land, leading to
their overgrazing and degradation.
Overstocking leading to overgrazing and
land degradation was not only a problem in
the communal areas; it also affected the
commercial ranches, despite (or encouraged by)
incentives such as long-term leases and cheap
loans granted for ranch development. The new
ranch owners were not inclined to adopt
modern management practices to encourage
better livestock production, and the generous
World Bank loans to the government-owned
National Development Bank (NDB) were
abused, expended primarily for the drilling of
boreholes rather than the development of
ranch infrastructure (McGowan International
& Cooper Lybrand, 1988; Perkins, 1991). The
failure to adopt efficient management practices
meant that the TGLP ranches were still being
managed like cattle posts, a good example
being the Ncojane ranches, which were
overgrazed, with most of their fences broken
down. White (1993) observes that almost all
the TGLP ranches were overstocked and that
there was little attempt at rotational grazing or
water reticulation. Land disturbance as a result
of trampling around water points was severe
in most of the ranches. The TGLP attracted
large government investments in ranching
and, equally, opportunities for the elite to build
up large herds of cattle with the negative
consequences for TGLP farms and adjacent
communal areas as mentioned.
The changes in the land tenure system with
the setting up of TGLP ranches and allocation
of borehole drilling rights further enforced
increased inequalities in the distribution of
land resources (Barnhoorn et al., 1994). The
elite and the politically influential managed to
get exclusive rights to huge chunks of
rangeland under the TGLP ranch system while
poorer communal farmers had their grazing
land reduced. Some 5,000 farmers, many of them
government officials, controlled the major
share of the national herd and ranches (Pearce,
1993). The policy, it appears, was based on a
misapprehension that the Kalahari sandveld
was an uninhabited wilderness, when in reality,
as Sporton et al. (1999) have pointed out, many
areas designated for ranches under TGLP were
already being used by rural peoples.
The New Agricultural Development
Policy (NADP) of 1991
In the wake of government acknowledgement
that the TGLP had encountered significant
problems and needed modification, the New
Agricultural Development Policy (NADP) was
formulated and adopted in 1991. The
Government of Botswana (1991b:16) White
158 Darkoh and Mbaiwa
Darkoh.p65 12 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
Paper No. 1 stated that this would cover all
production systems. Farmers would be allowed,
where feasible, to fence livestock farming land
(either as individuals, groups or communities)
to improve the productivity of the livestock subsector
and ensure the sustainable use of the
range resources. Farmers were provided with
livestock subsidies such as free vaccinations
and government contributions of 85 per cent
towards the cost of installing boreholes.
Despite these broad aims and incentives,
implementation focused primarily on the
controversial plan to allow the fencing of
communal grazing land, once again, the
rationale was that communal rangelands were
unproductive and ecologically destructive. The
fencing of pastureland by individual farmers or
syndicates around boreholes was encouraged
and thought to be in line with the sustainable
use of grazing lands. However, to date, the
fencing policy has not been fully implemented
even though pilot schemes were planned and
executed in the western sandveld or Central,
Kgalagadi and Ngamiland districts. As a result,
the NADP is failing, due to a lack of implementation
by the Government.
The Services to Livestock Owners in
Communal Areas (SLOCA) of 1980
The Services to Livestock Owners in Communal
Areas (SLOCA) scheme introduced in 1980 was
designed to focus on the development of
livestock infrastructure in another effort to
encourage farmers to adopt new methods and
techniques of livestock production and range
resource management. SLOCA provides grants
to help low-income farmers in communal areas
gain improved access to inputs, marketing,
disease control and essential infrastructure.
This has made it possible for low-income
farmers’ groups and communities to benefit from
such provisions as deticking facilities and the
construction of drift fences to separate livestock
and arable activities during the crop season.
SLOCA covers 90 per cent of the cost of projects
such as fencing development, water reticulation
(borehole drilling and equipping), marketing
infrastructure (handling facilities like auction
sale yards), and fodder production (development
of fodder plots and fodder storage)
(Silisthena & McLeod, 1998). Although the
network of input supply centres was greatly
expanded and funds were earmarked to develop
the co-operative marketing system, no
improvements in livestock management
practices or offtake rates in livestock
production have resulted. The Ministry of
Finance and Development Planning has
explained the poor performance of SLOCA as
resulting from poor extension support and a
shortage of funds.
While SLOCA is generally regarded as a
failure, the scheme should not be viewed mainly
as such, as in many respects it has improved
marketing channels and boosted offtake by
smaller farmers. Silisthena and McLeod (1998)
note that small farmer co-operative societies had
about 30,000 members in 74 cattle marketing
centres across the country and, in 1988,
supplied the Botswana Meat Commission
(BMC) a total of 22 per cent of its annual
purchases of livestock. Veterinary services
provided under the scheme have almost
certainly reduced mortality rates and enabled
the farmers to increase their herd size and
output.
The Artificial Insemination (AI) and
Bull Subsidy schemes
The Artificial Insemination (AI) and Bull Subsidy
schemes are aimed at improving the quality of
livestock. The government has so far established
13 AI camps in communal areas, which farmers
utilise on the payment of a fee. The maximum
number of cows allowed at one time is ten. The
Bull Subsidy scheme assists farmers to improve
their herds with bulls shown to be of above
average quality in performance tests. These bulls,
selected from breeds such as Brahman,
Simmental, Tuli, Tswana and BonsmaraI, are sold
to syndicates and low-income farmers.
The Botswana Meat Commission
(BMC)
From 1955, the BMC has been the main national
institution involved in cattle slaughter and
marketing. The Commission enjoys a statutory
Globalisation and the Livestock Industry in Botswana 159
Darkoh.p65 13 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
monopoly over exports of meat, by-products,
processed meat, canned meat and live cattle
from Botswana. At present, the BMC has three
abattoirs; the largest, in Lobatse, slaughters
about 1,200 heads of cattle per day, another, in
Francistown, 150 small stock per day, and the
Maun abattoir (temporarily closed since 1995
due to an outbreak of cattle lung disease in the
area), 100 cattle a day. With only three slaughter
plants, BMC hardly operates at optimal capacity,
the result of an inadequate marketing
infrastructure and low prices. Nevertheless,
protection from zoonotic diseases and vigilance
in maintaining the quality and safety of beef in
all the three abattoirs has so far been achieved.
In contrast, municipal abattoirs, which slaughter
over 50,000 cattle annually for domestic
consumption, still lack the basic hygiene
requirements and pose a serious health risk.
The BMC sells various quantities of beef as
boneless cuts, bone in carcasses and offal, as
well as hides and by-products. Up to 85 per cent
of the net revenue of the Commission comes
from boneless meat, most of which, as with the
corned beef (that also has a small but strong
local market), is sold to the EU. Offal, hides and
by-products contribute almost equally to the
balance of revenue. Offal is sold in South Africa
(rough ones are sold locally) and hides in the
EU, mainly in Italy and Spain. By-products
include carcasses and blood meal, much of which
is sent to South Africa and a large proportion to
Zambia; tallow is exported to Zimbabwe, horn to
Japan and the U.K., gall to France, hair to
Germany and gallstones to Hong Kong.
GLOBALISATION OF THE BEEF
MARKET
International and European markets
Botswana currently exports beef mainly to the
EU. The BMC owns a meat marketing facility
headquartered in London, with contracts to
market beef from Swaziland and Namibia in
Europe. This facility allows for some flexibility
in marketing to various EU countries. Major
European markets (1994/1995 figures) include
the U.K. (33.4 per cent of total output),
Germany (20.3 per cent) and the Netherlands
(5.5 per cent). With a total population of 370
million and high living standards, the EU is an
attractive market. In Asia, Botswana’s beef
products are sold to Hong Kong.
Notwithstanding the obvious larger market
potential for its beef, Botswana continually
faces difficulties in exporting to EU markets,
the major constraint being the occasional
outbreaks of the foot-and-mouth disease in
the national herd. In the years up to the 1980s,
for instance, this had caused Botswana’s beef
to be excluded from the U.K. and the EC;
however, since the rationalisation policy to
isolate and control the spread of foot-andmouth
outbreaks through the erection of
veterinary cordon fences has been accepted
by the EU, exports have been possible. Over
the period 1991-95, the BMC produced an
average of 20,867 tonnes of beef annually and
exported 19,500 tonnes, about 80 per cent to
markets in the EU.
It should be emphasised that, as part of the
African Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group of
countries, Botswana enjoys preferential access
to the EU under the terms of the Lome II
Agreement; since 1980, these have allowed
duty free access for Botswana’s beef, and a
further 90 per cent levy abatement on exports
of boneless beef, for which the quota stands
at approximately 19,000 tonnes per annum. The
90 per cent levy abatement is transferred from
the BMC to the Government to fund
improvements in the livestock sector, a
dispensation that has facilitated the expansion
of the livestock industry in Botswana.
Regional markets
Access to the Republic of South Africa is
regulated under the terms of the Common
Customs Area Agreement signed in 1969. The
protectionist approach of the South African
Meat Board, which controls the quantities of
meat entering South African markets and also
limits Botswana selling manufactured meat in
the country, is the main constraint to the
expansion of this trade. In 1994/95, South
160 Darkoh and Mbaiwa
Darkoh.p65 14 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
Africa accounted for 14.8 per cent of
Botswana’s beef exports, and Reunion, the
other major beef export market in the region,
for 7.7 per cent; Zimbabwe and Mauritius buy
smaller quantities. Other African states that
are potential markets for Botswana’s meat are
severely hampered by a lack of foreign
exchange and poor communication networks.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF
THE LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY
The globalisation of the cattle industry in
Botswana has resulted in two main
environmental concerns. First, the expansion
and increase in livestock has not been
accompanied by proper rangeland management
techniques to curb overstocking; hence
the overgrazing of pasturelands. Second, the
expansion of rangelands to accommodate the
increasing numbers of cattle and the need for
watering them has reduced the grazing area
for wildlife, now forced into smaller and less
favourable habitats. There has therefore been
a marked contraction of the range occupied
by wildlife, a disproportionate decline in both
biomass and the abundance of almost all
species of large mammal, and their replacement
by cattle (White, 1993).
Any Third World state that aspires to export
beef to international markets, especially in
Europe, is required to meet high standards of
veterinary hygiene and disease management
(Taylor & Martin, 1987). In Botswana, this is
achieved in part through the construction of a
network of veterinary cordon fences and
quarantine camps, dividing the country into
disease control areas between which livestock
movements are restricted. On the one hand,
this strategy has resulted in Botswana being
criss-crossed by a network of veterinary
cordon fences (Figure 3) that make it easy to
isolate livestock in case of a disease outbreak
in any of the areas; some of the major veterinary
fences include the Buffalo, CBPP and Kuke
fences. On the other hand, these fences,
covering thousands of kilometres across the
country, impose an entirely artificial constraint
upon wildlife movements that is historically
unprecedented in terms of its scale, magnitude
and longevity of impact (Darkoh & Mbaiwa,
2001). Migratory wildlife species in the
sandveld depend for their survival on seasonal
migration between rangelands and water
sources. As Perkins and Ringrose (1996)
contend, veterinary fences remain central to
any explanation of the dramatic die-offs of
migratory wildlife species that has occurred in
the country in the last twenty years. Thus,
while the population of the country’s cattle
herd is on the increase, wildlife populations in
Botswana have been in constant decline,
especially over the last two decades (Perkins
& Ringrose, 1996; Mbaiwa, 1999). This ongoing
trend has posed a formidable threat to
opportunities for rural economic diversification.
The rapid expansion of the cattle industry
has also led to land use conflicts with other
socio-economic activities, for example between
the wildlife tourism and the agricultural sectors
(Mbaiwa, 1999). Livestock programmes,
including the erection of veterinary fences, are
carried out without any Social Impact
Assessment (SIA) or Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA). Wildlife is the principal
attraction for Botswana’s burgeoning tourist
industry. Continuing attrition of this resource
could threaten the development of an industry
which has a demonstrated potential to create
jobs and other forms of economic opportunities
on an appreciable scale in remote rural areas.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the globalisation of Botswana’s
livestock industry from the colonial period to
the present has resulted in significant
commercialisation of the cattle industry and
the opening of export markets, initially in South
Africa, followed by regional markets in
Zimbabwe, Zambia and Mauritius, and the EU.
It has also led to a marked increase in cattle
populations and the number of water points
across the country, the progressive fencing of
Globalisation and the Livestock Industry in Botswana 161
Darkoh.p65 15 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
the country into separate veterinary regions,
and increased financial support to the livestock
sector in comparison to other sectors of the
economy. In contrast to other countries where
globalisation has been led by the establishment
of plantations and crop production by agro-
MNCs, in Botswana, globalisation has been
aggressively spearheaded by beef production
controlled by the government and a few elites
while the majority of the rural poor are
marginalised.
The positive impact of globalisation in
Botswana is demonstrated by the increased
wealth of the country resulting from the
international trade in beef cattle exports, which
amounts to more than US$100 million annually.
At independence in 1966, the agricultural
sector’s contribution to the Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) was 40 per cent, and beef
production was the mainstay of the economy
in terms of output and export earnings. Even
though in recent years diamonds have
displaced beef as the country’s chief export,
the livestock industry has been a dominant
force propelling the globalisation of
Botswana’s national economy.
Botswana’s experience of globalisation for
the wider world reveals that globalisation of
the beef industry from the colonial period to
present times has encouraged large-scale
ranching and a strong association between
government policy and large-scale commercial
farming interests. Large-scale ranches have
depended upon the state for their business and
Figure 3. Veterinary cordon fences and dry season wildlife movement.
Source: Wildlife movement data derived from Carter (1982).
162 Darkoh and Mbaiwa
Darkoh.p65 16 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
the state has subsidised the cattle industry.
Agricultural policies in Botswana have been
characterised by overwhelming financial
support for wealthy cattle owners and the
provision of welfare support for the rural poor.
Government support for those engaged in
commercial livestock production is well
documented in the literature (Parsons, 1987;
Harvey & Lewis, 1990:89). There have been
assertions that the quota system regulating
exports under the Lome Convention has
favoured the larger commercial producers
(Pearce, 1993). Indeed, Botswana has been cited
as having one of the world’s greatest disparities
between richest and poorest: the income of the
wealthiest 20 per cent of Botswana’s population
is 24 times that of the poorest 20 per cent, a
ratio exceeded only in Brazil (Pearce, 1993).
Certainly, the dominance of the beef barons in
the government and administration has led to a
strong overemphasis on the livestock industry
in national development plans, while alternative
sectors and activities also utilising the
rangelands, such as wildlife tourism, have not
been given the importance they deserve. In land
use planning and land allocation, a strong
presumption in favour of use by cattle has led
to a steady attrition of the Wildlife Management
Areas. The cattle industry receives a variety of
subsidies, most importantly, a veterinary health
system that is largely free to farmers and paid
out of general tax revenues; many other inputs
are also heavily subsidised. By contrast, the
wildlife resource and tourism sector has
received comparatively low priority both in
policy terms and the allocation of funds. This
is in spite of the fact that this sector has
increased its share of both the export earnings
and government revenues that it generates,
surpassing even the livestock sector share
since the late 1980s (White, 1993; Government
of Botswana, 1997).
Unlike the experience of globalisation in other
agricultural countries (see Goldman & Watts,
1997), the beef industry in Botswana has not
yet ushered foreign multinationals into the
livestock sector. As such, a golden opportunity
exists for the internalisation of the benefits
accruing within the national economy. It is
critical that the traditional sector dominated by
small farmers maintain a central role in the beef
market and that the ensuing benefits of export
growth are spread more equitably throughout
society to avoid the marginalisation such as is
now prevalent. As advocated in Murray’s (2000)
study of Fijian kava production, the further
commercialisation of the small-scale traditional
sector needs to bear in mind the importance of
maintaining subsistence production in order to
meet basic needs and provide security for the
pastoral sector. The case of the marginalised
pastoralists underlines the importance of
bringing local, social and cultural processes into
the equation when looking at the mechanisms
of modernisation and globalisation in poor
nations such as those in sub-Saharan Africa. It
is clear that natural resource utilisation in
Botswana, amongst other things, is expressed
in terms of cattle and beef production and
consumption where factors have linked small
and large producers of beef to state-directed
global production and financial structures.
It has been contended that the socioeconomic
and environmental problems arising
from the globalisation of the livestock industry
in Botswana can be solved by a phasing out of
the livestock subsidies or the Beef Protocol
Agreements with the EU that in effect, also
subsidise the Botswana beef industry (Perkins
& Ringrose, 1996). While this might result in
the development of a livestock industry that is
more sustainable and less harmful to the
environment, it could have some devastating
impacts on the economy as a whole by widening
existing income disparities. Perkins and
Ringrose (1996) however, take the alternative
view that the Beef Protocol Agreements could
provide the essential link between environmental
sustainability and socio-economic
advancement for the majority of the people in
Botswana.
Despite the mixed impacts of globalisation
in developing countries, there are those who
argue that Africa should be encouraged to
become more integrated into the global
Globalisation and the Livestock Industry in Botswana 163
Darkoh.p65 17 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
economy, citing as reasons Africa’s colonial
history and disadvantageous geography, the
heavy economic dependence on exports of
primary products, and microeconomic policy
errors (e.g. Ajayi, 2001). A popular view is that
economic globalisation is not a cause of
continued poverty in Africa but rather an
important solution to it (Gondwe, 2001), one
that offers new opportunities for African
markets as well as the acquisition of new
technologies and ideas that can yield not just
increased but also better living standards. But,
to facilitate Africa’s integration into the global
economy, there needs to be significant reform
focused on the nature and function of the state
with regard to the essential missions of
delivering public services, alleviating poverty,
consolidating the struggle for democracy,
promoting the development of a dynamic
private sector within a liberalised framework and
transport infrastructure, strengthening the role
of civil society, and opening up new avenues
for popular participation in public life – all of
which are found to be wanting, but are crucial
to usefully contemplating any social and
economic changes (Cheru, 1997; N’Diaye, 2001).
For countries like Botswana in Africa, these are
the lessons from the recent financial crises in
Asian and Latin American countries: economic
openness is not enough. Transparent macroeconomic
policies, a stable, rational regulatory
and incentive framework, financial systems with
effective supervision mechanisms, and, above
all, consensus on good governance in the public
and private sectors are required if the emerging
African nations are to take full advantage of
globalisation without precipitating the crises
that have struck other emerging economies.
REFERENCES
Ajayi, S. I. (2001) ‘What Africa needs to do to
benefit from globalisation’, Finance and
Development, 38(4), 6-8.
Barnhoorn, F., Jansen, R., Riezebos, H.T. &
Sterrkenburg, J.J. (1994) Sustainable
Development in Botswana: An Analysis of
Resource Management in Three Communal
Development Areas, Utrecht: The
Royal Dutch Geographical Society, Utrecht
University.
Carter, J. (1982) ‘The fencing controversy’,
Kalahari Conservation Society Newsletter,
1, 2-12.
Central Statistical Office (1993) Statistical
Bulletin, Gaborone: Government Printer.
Central Statistical Office (2000) Agriculture
Statistics: 1996, Gaborone: Government
Printer.
Cheru, F. (1997) ‘The local dimensions of
global reform: Reconciling idealism with
local realities’, paper presented at the 45th
Anniversary Conference on Global
Futures, Institute of Social Studies (ISS),
The Hague, 7-11 October.
Colclough, C. & McCarthy, S. (1980) The
Political Economy of Botswana, Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Dahlberg, A. (1994) Contesting Views and
Changing Paradigms: The Land
Degradation Debate in Southern Africa,
Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainstitutet.
Daouas, M. (2001) ‘Africa faces challenges of
globalisation’, Finance and Development,
38(4), 4-5.
Darkoh, M.B.K. (1997) ‘Trade, environment and
sustainable development’, Malaysian
Journal of Tropical Geography, 28(2), 67-82.
Darkoh, M.B.K. (1999a) ‘Desertification in
Botswana’, in O. Arnalds, & S. Archer
(eds.), Case Studies of Rangeland
Desertification, Reykjavik: Agricultural
Research Institute, 61-74.
Darkoh, M.B.K. (1999b) ‘Desertification and
environmental management in Botswana’,
in M. Salih & S. Tedla (eds.), Environmental
Planning, Policies and Politics in
Eastern and Southern Africa, London:
Macmillan Press Ltd., 181-99.
Darkoh, M.B.K. & Mbaiwa, J.E. (2001)
‘Sustainable development and resource
conflict situations in Botswana’, in M.A.M.
164 Darkoh and Mbaiwa
Darkoh.p65 18 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
Salih, D. Dietz & A.G.M. Ahmed (eds.),
African Pastoralism, Conflicts, Institutions
and Government, London: Pluto Press, 39-
55.
Edwards, O., Amani, H., Frankenberger, T.R. &
Jansen, D. (1989) A Strategy for Future
Development of Agriculture in Botswana,
Gaborone: Ministry of Agriculture.
Emmerij, L. (1997) Economic and Social
Development into the XXI Century,
Washington D.C.: Inter-American
Development Bank.
Finance and Development (2001) Special issue
on ‘Globalisation and Africa’, 38(4).
Goldman, D. & Watts, M. (1997) Globalising
Food, Agrarian Questions and Global
Restructuring, London: Routledge.
Gondwe, G..E. (2001) ‘Making globalisation
work in Africa’, Finance and Development,
38(4), 31-33.
Government of Botswana (1991a) National
Development Plan (NDP) VII 1991-1997,
Gaborone: Government Printer.
Government of Botswana (1991b) New
Agricultural Development Policy,
Gaborone: Government Printer.
Government of Botswana (1997) National
Development Plan (NDP) VIII 1997/98-
2002/03, Gaborone: Government Printer.
Government of Botswana (2000), Statistical
Bulletin 1999, Gaborone: Department of
Printing and Publishing Services.
Haggett, P. (2001) Geography: A Global
Synthesis, Harlow, Essex: Prentice Hall &
Pearson Education Ltd.
Harrington, J.W. & Warf, B. (1995) Industrial
Location, Principles, Practice and Policy,
London: Routledge.
Harvey, C. & Lewis, S. (1990) Policy Choices
and Development Performance in
Botswana, London: Macmillan.
Hubbard, M. (1986) Agricultural Exports and
Economic Growth: A Study of Botswana’s
Beef Industry, London: Keagan Paul Ltd.
Kinlund, P. (1996) Does Land Degradation
Matter? Perspectives on Environmental
Change in North-Eastern Botswana,
Stockholm Studies in Human Geography,
No.7, Stockholm: Almqvist and Wiksell
International.
Mazonde, I. (1994) Ranching and Enterprise
in Eastern Botswana, Edinburgh:
International African Institute.
Mazonde, I. (1996) ‘Botswana: A country in
need of land policy’, Botswana Notes and
Records, 27, 219-29.
Mbaiwa, J.E. (1999) Prospects for Sustainable
Wildlife Resource Utilisation and
Management in Botswana: A Case Study
of East Ngamiland District, unpubl. M.Sc.
Thesis, Department of Environmental
Science, University of Botswana, Gaborone.
McGowan International & Cooper Lybrand
(1988) National Land Management and
Livestock Project: Incentives/Disincentives
Study, Vols. I-III, Gaborone: Ministry
of Agriculture.
Mittelman, J.H. (2001) ‘Mapping
globalisation’, Singapore Journal of
Tropical Geography, 22(3), 212-18.
Molutsi, P. (1993) ‘Botswana’s democratic
institutions: Their strengths and prospects’,
in S. Brothers, J. Hermans & D. Nteta (eds.),
Botswana in the 21st Century, Gaborone:
Botswana Society, 52-71.
Murray, W.E. (2000) ‘Neo-liberal globalisation,
exotic agro-exports, and local
change in the Pacific Islands: A study of
the Fijian Kava Sector’, Singapore
Journal of Tropical Geography, 21(3),
353-73.
N’Diaye, S. (2001) ‘The role of institutional
reforms’, Finance and Development,
38(4), 18-21.
Pearce, F. (1993) ‘Botswana: Enclosing for
beef’, The Ecologist, 23(1), 25-29.
Globalisation and the Livestock Industry in Botswana 165
Darkoh.p65 19 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
Perkins, J.S. (1991) The Impact of Borehole
Dependent Cattle Grazing on the
Environment and Society of Eastern
Kalahari Sandveld, Central District of
Botswana, unpubl. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Sheffield, Sheffield.
Perkins, J. & Ringrose, S. (1996) Development
Cooperation Objectives and the Beef
Protocol: The case of Botswana, A Study
of Livestock/Wildlife/Tourism/Development
Linkages, Metroeconomica Ltd.
Consul-tancy Report B-7-5040/94,
Gaborone: Department of Environmental
Science, University of Botswana.
Parsons, N. (1987) ‘Before the flood: Research
on Botswana up to 1970’, in R. Hitchcock,
N. Parsons & T. Taylor (eds.), Research
and Development, Proceedings of a
Symposium held by the Botswana Society,
Gaborone Sun Conference, 19-21 August
1985, Gaborone: Botswana Society, 34-62.
Salih, M.A.M. (1997) ‘Global ecologism and
its critics’, in C. Thomas & P. Wilkin (eds.),
Globalisation and South, London:
Macmillan Press Ltd, 124-42.
Scholte, J.A. (2000) Globalisation, A Critical
Introduction, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Sideri, S. (1999) ‘Globalisation’s dilemma:
Economic blocks or global economic
apartheid’, European Journal of Development
Research, 11(2), 141-75.
Silisthena, R.M.K. & McLeod, G. (1998)
Botswana: A Physical, Social and
Economic Geography, 2nd edition, Gaborone:
Longman.
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography
(2000) Special issue on ‘Economic globalisation
and the tropical world in the new
millennium’, 21(3).
Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography
(2001) Special issue on ‘Global processes,
local responses: Resistance and compliance
in Southeast Asia’, 22(3).
Sporton, D., Thomas, D.S.G. & Morrison, J.
(1999) ‘Outcomes of social and environmental
change in the Kalahari of Botswana:
The role of migration’, Journal of Southern
African Studies, 25(3), 441-59.
Taylor, R.T. & Martin, R.B. (1987) ‘Effects of
veterinary fences on wildlife conservation
in Zimbabwe’, Environmental Management,
11(3), 327-34.
Tsimako, B. (1991) The Tribal Grazing Land
Policy (TGLP) Ranches: Performance to
Date, Gaborone: Socio-Economic Monitoring
and Evaluation Unit, Division of
Agricultural Planning and Statistics.
Turner, G. (1987) ‘Early Iron Age herders in
northwestern Botswana: The faunal
evidence’, Botswana Notes and Records,
19, 7-23.
Turner, S. (2000) ‘Globalisation, the economic
crisis, and small enterprises in Makassar,
Indonesia: Focusing on the local
dimensions’, Singapore Journal of
Tropical Geography, 21(3), 336-54.
White, R. (1993) Livestock Development and
Pastoral Production on Communal
Rangelands in Botswana, Gaborone:
Botswana Society.
World Resources Institute (1990) World
Resources 1990-91: A Guide to the Global
Environment, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Yeung, H.W.C. & Dicken, P. (2000) ‘Economic
globalisation and the tropical world in the
new millennium: An introduction’, Singapore
Journal of Tropical Geography, 21(3),
225-32.
166 Darkoh and Mbaiwa
Darkoh.p65 20 6/1/2002, 1:07 PM
[نظرها]