The Effects of Veterinary Fences on Wildlife Populations in Okavango Delta, Botswana

Abstract

This article examines the effects of veterinary fences on wildlife populations in the Okavango Delta, Botswana. Using data from secondary data sources, findings indicate that the existence of veterinary fences in the Okavango Delta contributes to the decline of wildlife species in Botswana. Veterinary fences are erected to control the spread of livestock diseases in order to protect the European Union beef market where Botswana's beef is largely exported. Migratory wildlife species such as wildebeests, zebras, giraffes, buffalo, and tsessebes have their migratory routes blocked by veterinary fences and hence die from dehy- dration and entanglements in the fence. Those that get trapped by the fence often become easy kill targets for poachers. Some of the animals have been observed walking along the fence trying to cross. The erec- tion of veterinary fences indicates that the expansion of livestock production into wildlife areas threaten the survival of wildlife in Botswana. To address the problem, an integration of wildlife production with other sectors such as agricultural development should be made a priority at national and local policy levels. This means that the principles of sustainability should be given priority in the erection of veterinary fences in wildlife areas.

Full text

Introduction
Some of the largest populations of wild animals in Africa
are found in Botswana (see figure 1). These wild animals
include elephants, buffalo, zebras, lions, impalas, kudu,
giraffes, red lechwe, and many other small species scat-
tered all over the country. Although Botswana’s rangelands
have supported a variety and abundance of wildlife
resources for hundreds of years, recent studies such as
those by Lomba (1991), Mordi (1991), Campbell (1995),
Perkins (1996), Perkins and Ringrose (1996), and
Albertson (1998) pointed out that Botswana’s wildlife pop-
ulations are in a constant decline (see figure 2).
Perkins and Ringrose (1996) stated that Botswana’s
abundant wildlife resources have been on decline since the
1960s (see table 1). Spinage (1991) also argued that
DECEMBER 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 17
SCIENCE and RESEARCH
The Effects of
Veterinary Fences on
Wildlife Populations in
Okavango Delta, Botswana
BY JOSEPH E. MBAIWA and ONALETSHEPHO I. MBAIWA
Abstract: This article examines the effects of veterinary fences on wildlife populations in the Okavango
Delta, Botswana. Using data from secondary data sources, findings indicate that the existence of veterinary
fences in the Okavango Delta contributes to the decline of wildlife species in Botswana. Veterinary fences
are erected to control the spread of livestock diseases in order to protect the European Union beef market
where Botswana’s beef is largely exported. Migratory wildlife species such as wildebeests, zebras, giraffes,
buffalo, and tsessebes have their migratory routes blocked by veterinary fences and hence die from dehy-
dration and entanglements in the fence. Those that get trapped by the fence often become easy kill targets
for poachers. Some of the animals have been observed walking along the fence trying to cross. The erec-
tion of veterinary fences indicates that the expansion of livestock production into wildlife areas threaten the
survival of wildlife in Botswana. To address the problem, an integration of wildlife production with other
sectors such as agricultural development should be made a priority at national and local policy levels. This
means that the principles of sustainability should be given priority in the erection of veterinary fences in
wildlife areas.
Joseph E. Mbaiwa Onaletshepho I. Mbaiwa
PEER REVIEWED

although Botswana has one of the
most comprehensive game laws in
Africa, there are fears about the
sustainability of wildlife resource
utilization, as wildlife populations are
in a state of constant decline.
With the exception of the ele-
phant and the gemsbok, table 1
shows that almost all other wildlife
species have been declining. Species
that are mostly affected include
wildebeests, hartebeests, and zebras.
Therefore, an investigation of factors
that cause wildlife decline in
Botswana is essential. Human factors
such as livestock production—partic-
ularly veterinary fences—are cited as
factors that contribute to the decline
in wildlife populations in Botswana
(Lomba 1991; Mordi 1991; Perkins
and Ringrose 1996; Grag Gibson/
Environmental Investigation Agency
2004; Scott Wilson Resource
Consultants 2000).
Taylor and Martin (1987)
pointed out that 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. In Botswana,
this is achieved through the construc-
tion of a network of veterinary
cordon fences and quarantine camps
that divide the country into disease
control areas between which live-
stock movements are restricted. This
strategy has resulted in Botswana
being crisscrossed by a network of
veterinary cordon fences. The erec-
tion of veterinary fences began in
1958 with the Kuke Fence (Perkins
and Ringrose, 1996). Since then, dif-
ferent districts in Botswana have had
veterinary fences erected one at a
time over the years. This article is
limited to the effects of veterinary
fences on wildlife populations in the
Okavango Delta region in northwest-
ern Botswana. It discusses the effects
of veterinary fences on wildlife popu-
lations based on the principles of
sustainability. The aim is to analyze
the role that sustainability can play in
minimizing the degradation of the
wildlife population in Botswana. The
Okavango Delta is a classical case
study because it has some of the
largest concentrations of wildlife
species in Botswana.
Methods
This article relied on the use of
secondary data sources. Specific
materials used include both pub-
lished and unpublished articles and
reports on veterinary fences and
wildlife management in Botswana.
Government policy documents on
wildlife management (e.g., annual
aerial wildlife surveys), consultancy
reports, maps, books, and other
related information on veterinary
fences and wildlife populations were
also used. The information obtained
from these documents include
wildlife statistics, the changing status
18 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 3
Figure 1—Map of Botswana showing the Okavango Delta (Mbaiwa 2005).
Figure 2—Giraffes in the Okavango Delta. Photo by J. E.
Mbaiwa.

of wildlife populations, and the
effects of veterinary fences on wildlife
populations. Finally, data collected
was analyzed qualitatively.
Results
Beef production remained Botswana’s
chief export product until it was rele-
gated to second by diamond export in
the late 1970s, and to third by
tourism in 2004 (Mbaiwa 2005).
Politicians and decision makers in
Botswana consider the erection of
veterinary fences necessary for the
improvement of the country’s econ-
omy. As a result, Botswana is being
crisscrossed by a network of veteri-
nary fences (see figure 3) to control
livestock diseases. These fences are
noted for having effects on migratory
wildlife populations in the country.
Since this article is limited to
fences in the Okavango region, it is
necessary to describe wildlife migra-
tion patterns here. Wildlife migration
routes are mostly between the inner
(wet) and outer (dry) areas of the
Okavango Delta. In wet seasons when
there is water in all the parts of the
Okavango, wild animals migrate to
the outer parts of the wetland. In dry
seasons when water becomes scarce,
wild animals migrate to the perma-
nent water source areas in the inner
parts of the wetland.
The Kuke Fence
The erection of the Kuke Fence
started in 1954 and was completed in
1958. It runs from the Namibian bor-
der across the northern boundary of
the Central Kgalagadi Game Reserve,
where the Makgadikgadi Fence joins
it. The Kuke Fence has had severe
impacts on the wildlife species found
in the Schwelle region (i.e., the
Kalahari Desert area). As DHV
(1980, p. 21) put it, “The Kalahari
appears to be a single system in
which the Schwelle running north-
west–southeast through the middle
of the region forms an axis, about
which are centered the greatest
animal numbers.” The Kuke Fence
completely cuts the movement of
wildlife species from northern
Kgalagadi and the Schwelle region
with the Northern system (Okavango
Delta region). The fencing of the
eastern parts of Central Kalahari
Game Reserve further cuts wildlife
movement from the Kgalagadi area,
especially Central Kgalagadi Game
Reserve and the Boteti/ Makgad-
ikgadi system. Silberbauer (1981)
stated that after the erection of the
Kuke Fence, severe droughts that are
endemic to Botswana, resulted in
heavy wildebeest mortality and the
effective exclusion of zebra from the
Northern (Okavango) system. Child
(1972) described the wildebeest die-
offs at Lake Xau in 1964 and 1970
and the severe drought of the 1980s
as attributable to the erection of the
Kuke Fence. In the dry season, these
wildlife species could not migrate to
areas of water supply, as the fence
blocked their movement.
There are, however, conflicting
figures on the mortality estimates for
wildebeest die-offs at Lake Xau.
Owens and Owens (1980, 1983) esti-
mate the number to be 800,000
animals, whereas Williamson and
Williamson (1981), Williamson and
Mbano (1988), and Mordi (1989) put
the figure at 50,000 animals.
According to Williamson and
Williamson (1984) and Murry (1988),
the wildebeest die-offs constitute a
massive reduction in large herbivore
biomass in the Kgalagadi system.
This means the limiting effects of
wildlife movement by fences, espe-
cially in drought periods when
wildlife need to migrate to wet areas,
negatively impacts on wildlife popu-
lations in the area.
The Buffalo Fences
The Buffalo Fence is one of the
important fences in Botswana in that
it controls the spread of foot-and-
mouth disease in the Okavango Delta
region. The Buffalo Fence runs from
the south to the north of the Okavango
Delta. The fence has succeeded in
keeping buffalo populations, which
are known for transmitting foot-and-
mouth, within the inner parts of the
delta separate from cattle populations
that remain in the outer parts of the
country. The Buffalo Fence is divided
into the Southern Buffalo Fence
erected in 1982 and the Northern
Buffalo Fence erected in 1996. The
DECEMBER 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 19
Table 1. Changing Status of Some Wildlife Species in Botswana
(Perkins and Ringrose 1996)
Species 1978 1999
Wildebeest 315,058 46,741
Hartebeest 293,462 31,114
Eland 18,832 15,163
Springbok 101,408 51,792
Ostrich 92,286 32,499
Zebra 100,295 55,406
Sable 3,636 (1987) 2,052
Roan 1,228 (1987) 884
Impala 56,773 (1987) 45,183
Sitatunga 1,541 (1987) 1,234
Figure 3—The Southern Buffalo Fence. Photo by J. E. Mbaiwa.

Buffalo Fence is reportedly one of the
most destructive fences to migratory
wildlife species in the region
(Albertson 1998). The fence cuts
across an area that is described to be
a major route for migratory wildlife
species to and from dry and wet
(Okavango Delta) areas. Albertson
(1998) stated that the Northern
Buffalo Fence not only cuts off the
larger migratory patterns of zebras,
wildebeests, and elephants, but also
fragments and restricts the move-
ments of localized populations whose
territories it bisects (see figure 4).
Albertson indicated that wildlife
species mostly affected are eland,
roan, sables, tsessebes, and giraffes.
Veterinary fences such as the
Buffalo Fence are also known for
causing deaths of migratory wildlife
species. Table 2 shows the deaths of
wildlife species along the North
Buffalo Fence in 1998. Further effects
of the Northern Buffalo Fence
include entanglement of species.
Trapping of species and illegal poach-
ing along the Buffalo Fence have also
been reported (Scott Wilson 2000).
The CBPP Fences
The outbreak of the Contagious
Bovine Pleuropneumonia (CBPP), or
simply known as the cattle lung dis-
ease, in 1995 in the Okavango region
led to the extension of veterinary
cordon fences in the area. The CBPP
is a lung disease that affects cattle
and water buffalo. The disease is
highly contagious, and the available
vaccine is ineffective in controlling
it. In fact, treated animals remain
carriers of the disease. In order to
control the spread of the CBPP and
protect beef markets in Europe, the
government erected veterinary
fences that have come to be known
as the CBPP Fences between 1995
and 1996. The CBPP Fences include
the Northern Buffalo Fence, Setata
Fence, Samochima Fence, and Ikoga
Fence (see figure 5).
As the government cordoned off
the whole district, about 320,000
cattle had to be destroyed as well
(Scott Wilson, 2000). These meas-
ures were taken partly to assure
European markets that Botswana’s
beef is safe and free from livestock
diseases. However, CBPP Fences
have proved to be destructive to
migratory wildlife species, as they
continue to die in large numbers
along them. The visible manifesta-
tion of the fence impact is a buildup
of wildlife carcasses along the fences.
The fences also prevent wild animals
from migrating to watering places in
and outside game parks, such as
Moremi Game Reserve located in the
inner parts of the Okavango Delta.
This limiting effect of the fence dis-
putes the once-held belief that game
parks can provide for the year-round
requirements of wildlife species. As
indicated earlier, migratory wildlife
species generally migrate to dry parts
of the Okavango during wet seasons
and back into wet and inner parts of
the Okavango in dry seasons.
20 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 3
Figure 4—An elephant bull walking along the northern Buffalo
Fence in November 1997. The bull has been separated from the
rest of the herd by the fence (Kalahari Conservation Society
2005).
Table 2. Wildlife Species That Died along Northern Buffalo
Fence in 1998 (Albertson 1998)
Species Number Period
Giraffe 5 January–June 1998
Giraffe 5 July–September 1998
Buffalo 2 September 1998
Elephant (cow and calf) 2 September 1998
Roan antelope unknown September 1998
Figure 5—CBPP Fences in the Okavango Delta, Botswana (Darkoh and Mbaiwa 2005).

Albertson (1998) recorded a
number of wildlife species that died
on other fences in the Okavango
Delta area. For example, a trip along
the Setata Fence on October 13,
1997, recorded the following deaths:
seven giraffes, eight gemsboks, two
wildebeests, two hartebeests, three
ostriches, and three kudu (the Setata
Fence was decommissioned and
removed in 2003). As for the Ikoga
Fence, a trip taken by a veterinary
worker covering 20 kilometers in
1996 found the following numbers of
animals killed along the fence: two
kudu, one eland, and one ostrich.
Table 3 shows the number of animals
that were found killed along the
Caprivi Fence. The Caprivi Fence is
along Botswana’s border with
Namibia.
Albertson (1998) also records a
number of wild animals that were
observed either attempting to cross
fences or walking along them (see
figure 6). Some of the animals, partic-
ularly those that move in herds, got
separated from the rest of their group
by fences. Table 4 shows numbers of
animals that were observed along
fences either by ground or aerial
observation.
Studies (e.g., Perkins 1996; Scott
Wilson 1998; Albertson 1998; Grag
Gibson/Environmental Investigation
Agency 2004) on the impact of vet-
erinary fences indicate that none of
the fences in Botswana was erected
after detailed scientific studies—par-
ticularly Environmental Impact
Assessments (EIA)—were carried
out. As a result, there was no prior
knowledge on the part of policy
makers on the possible impacts of
fences on wildlife populations and
wildlife habitat. Apparently, fences in
Botswana are mostly erected as a
reaction to some livestock disease
outbreak, as was the case with CBPP
in 1995–966. This reactive approach
has often led to fences separating
wildlife families from each other.
These animals have been observed
attempting to reunite with each other
but are unable to do so due to fences
that separate them. In addition to
effects on wildlife populations, the
erection of fences without EIAs has
resulted in land and resource use
conflicts with other stakeholders.
For example, veterinary fences have
become hunting areas for poachers
(Scott Wilson, 2000), hence cause
conflicts between wildlife managers
and subsistence communities in
these areas. Resource conflicts have
been found to cause resource degra-
dation (Darkoh and Mbaiwa 2001).
In the case of veterinary fences,
resource degradation includes the
decline in wildlife populations in the
Okavango Delta.
DECEMBER 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 21
Table 3: Wildlife Species That died along the Caprivi Fences,
1997 (Albertson 1998)
Species Number Period
Kudu 5 August 1997
Eland 2 June–July 1997
Sable 1 July 1997
Roan antelope 1 July 1997
Giraffe 5 June 1997
Elephant 1 July 1997
Ostrich, duiker, steenbok unknown July 1997
Table 4: Wildlife Species That Died along Other Fences
in the Okavango Delta, 1997
(Albertson 1998, observed along different parts of the fence)
Ground Observations, Oct. 13, 1997 Aerial Observations*, Nov 9, 1997
Setata Fence
1 adult gemsbok, 1 calf (gemsbok); 4 adult
hartebeests; 1 wildebeest; 4 adult ostriches;
4 adult wild dogs
4 adults (gemsboks); 7 adults, 2 calves
(gemsboks); 5 adults (gemsboks); 4 adults,
1 calf (hartebeests); 3 adults (hartebeests);
1 adult (wildebeest); groups of 2–3
individual ostriches
Ikoga Fence, Oct. 21, 22, 1997
1 adult gemsbok; 1 adult ostrich
No data recorded from aerial observation.
Caprivi Fence, Oct. 24, 25, 1997
7 adults (elands), 2 adults (elands); 1 adult giraffe;
18 zebras; 2 adult kudu; 6 adult elephants,
2 subadults, 1 calf, 3 adults, 2 adult elephants
25 herds of elephants with between 2–55
animals in each observed on different
parts of the fence on November 10, 1997
Northern Buffalo Fence, July 19–21, 1997
2 subadults, 1 calf (roans); 1 adult, 3 calves (roans);
3 subadult elephants, 1 adult female elephant and
1 calf; 1 adult eland and a calf; herd of 110
buffalo, herd of 62 buffaloes (July 21, 1997);
herd of 50 buffalo, herd of 70 buffaloe, herd of 17
buffalo; 1 adult giraffe; 3 adult tsessebes 4 adult
zebras; 1 kudu calf (Oct 1, 1997);
5 subadults, 1 adult (giraffes), 8 adults and 2
subadult giraffes (Oct. 27–30, 1997);
3 wildebeests, 2 adults wildebeest (Oct. 28, 1997);
1 adult tsessebe, 2 adult tsessebes (Oct 27, 1997);
5 adults, 2 subadults (kudu) (Oct 28, 1997)
herd of 40 buffalo, Oct. 1, 1997
herd of 20 buffalo, Oct. 1, 1997
herd of 15 zebras, Oct. 1, 1997
2 adult tsessebes, Oct. 1, 1997
several herds of elephants, Oct. 1, 1997
herd of 18 elephants, Nov. 10, 1997
herd of 30 elephants, Nov. 10, 1997
5 adult elephants, Nov. 10 ,1997
2 subadult elephants, Nov. 10, 1997
herd of 20 buffalo, Nov. 10, 1997
Herd of 18 wildebeest, Nov. 10, 1997

The Impact of Removing Veterinary
Fences on Wildlife Species
Although veterinary fences con-
tribute to wildlife decline in
Botswana, recent studies seem to sug-
gest that a reverse in wildlife
populations can be achieved if some
of the fences are removed. For exam-
ple, an EIA study by Scott Wilson
(2000) on CBPP Fences recom-
mended the removal of the Setata and
Nxai Pan Buffalo Fences. The
removal of the Setata Fence was done
and completed in 2003, and the Nxai
Pan Buffalo Fence was removed in
2004. Figures 7 and 8 show cables
and standards from removed fences.
A recent study by the Kalahari
Conservation Society (2005) indi-
cated that “the removal of the 210
kilometer Setata Fence and the 66
kilometer portion of the Nxai Pan
Buffalo Fence resulted in an immedi-
ate end to negative impacts on wildlife
populations in the affected areas”
(p. i). The Kalahari Conservation
Society study further indicated that
the removal of the Setata Fence has
led to free movement of wildlife over
the old fence as shown by seasonal
migrations of elephants, zebras, and
wildebeests. In addition, gemsbok
and hartebeest populations observed
in 1997 and 1998 comprised very
small, scattered adults of fewer than
five animals or sedentary lone adults
or calves. Those herds in 2005, after
the fence was removed, were typically
larger and more cohesive, with num-
bers and age structures within
normal ranges. With regard to the
Nxai Pan Buffalo Fence, the study
assumed that wildlife populations,
particularly elephants, buffalo, and
zebras, are likely to return to prefenc-
ing levels over the long term. These
results indicate that wildlife popula-
tions in the Okavango Delta can be
reversed if some of the veterinary
fences were to be removed.
Discussion
Findings in this article indicate that
veterinary fences have been used for
livestock disease control in Botswana
since the 1950s. Veterinary fences
cover thousands of kilometers across
Botswana, and they introduce an
entirely artificial constraint upon
wildlife movements that is histori-
cally unprecedented in terms of its
scale, magnitude, and longevity of
impact (Mbaiwa and Darkoh 2005).
Migratory wildlife species depend for
their survival on seasonal migration
between rangelands and water
sources. Veterinary fences block these
migratory routes. The immediate
manifestations of veterinary fences
include the carcasses found along
fences and the animals observed
walking along it. Perkins and
Ringrose (1996) stated that veteri-
nary fences remain central to any
explanation of the dramatic die-offs
of migratory wildlife species that
have occurred in the country in the
last 20 years. Albertson (1998), Scott
Wilson (2000), and Grag Gibson/
Environmental Investigation Agency
(2004) argued that the effects of
veterinary fences include the obstruc-
tion of wildlife migratory routes,
fragmentation of wildlife popula-
tions, and the death of animals due to
dehydration and entanglement on the
fences. Scott Wilson Consultants
stated that poaching along CBPP
Fences in the Okavango is higher
because of the wildlife animals that
become trapped by the fences. As a
result, veterinary fences have a direct
negative impact on wildlife numbers
in the Okavango Delta. The erection
of veterinary fences in Botswana indi-
cates that in most developing
countries, immediate economic bene-
fits for sectors such as agricultural
development are often implemented
to the detriment of other sectors,
such as wildlife management.
The other aspect that emerges
from this study is that the beef indus-
try in Botswana is heavily subsidized
22 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 3
An integration of wildlife production with other
sectors such as agricultural development
should be made a priority at national
and local policy levels.
igure 6—Gemsbok between fence lines in 1998 (Kalahari Conservation Society 2005).

with funds by the European Union
through the Cotonou Agreement
(Perkins 1996; Perkins and Ringrose
1996, Grag Gibson/Environmental
Investigation Agency 2004). The
involvement of the European Union
in Botswana’s beef industry is part of
globalization and international trade.
Globalization and international trade
are important in the economic devel-
opment of any country; however,
they also encourage development
programs and strategies that can
cause negative environmental
impacts. The case of veterinary fences
and wildlife decline in Botswana is
one example of this phenomenon.
Instead of promoting the sustainable
use of Botswana’s wildlife resources,
globalization and international trade
are thus contributing to the depletion
of its wildlife resources. This problem
can partly be addressed by encourag-
ing livestock policies and programs
that adhere to principles of sustain-
ability in Botswana. This can partly
be achieved through the integration
of wildlife management and livestock
production programs. This approach
means that none of these sectors
(livestock and wildlife) should be
given priority to the detriment of the
other, as is the case with the erection
of veterinary fences.
Finally, EIA studies are essential
in promoting an environmentally
friendly livestock and beef sector in
Botswana. This means that EIAs need
to be done before the construction of
any veterinary fence. EIA studies may
also need to be conducted for existing
fences and, where possible, some of
the fences may require removal.
Removing some veterinary fences has
the potential of reversing wildlife
populations in the Okavango Delta.
The Kalahari Conservation Society
(2005) study has shown that the
removal of the Setata Fence and Nxai
Pan Buffalo Fence has the potential of
increasing wildlife populations by
reducing wildlife stress, entangle-
ments, death, and separation from
each other. IJW
REFERENCES
Albertson, A. 1998. Northern Botswana
Veterinary Fences: Critical Ecological
Impacts. Maun, Botswana: Okavango
People’s Wildlife Trust.
Bendsen, H., and T. Meyer. 2002. The dynam-
ics of the land use systems in Ngamiland
and changing livelihood options and
strategies. In Environmental Monitoring of
Tropical and Subtropical Wetlands,
Proceedings of a Conference, Maun,
Botswana, December 4–8, 2002, ed.
Bernard et al. (278–304). Maun,
Botswana: HOORC,
Campbell, A. C. 1995. Utilisation of wildlife in
Botswana from earliest times to AD 900.
In The Present Status of Wildlife and Its
Future in Botswana (pp. 45–67). Gaborone,
Botswana: Kalahari Conservation Society
and Chobe Wildlife Trust Symposium/
Workshop.
Child, G. 1972. Observations on wildebeest
die-off in Botswana. Arnoldia 5(31):
1–13.
Darkoh, M.B.K., and J. E. Mbaiwa. 2005.
Natural Resource Utilisation and Land Use
Conflicts in the Okavango Delta,
Botswana. Gaborone: University of
Botswana: Department of Environmental
Science and Harry Oppenheimer
Okavango Research Centre.
———. 2001. Sustainable development and
resource conflicts in Botswana. In African
Pastoralism: Conflicts, Institutions and
Government, ed. M. A. M. Salih, T. Ditez,
and A. G. M. Ahmed (pp. 39–55).
London: Pluto Press.
DHV. 1980. Countrywide Animal and Range
Assessment Project. 7 vols. Gaborone,
Botswana: European Development Fund
and Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
Grag Gibson/Environmental Investigation
Agency. 2004. A Line in the Sand: The
Unsustainable Expansion of Botswana’s Beef
Industry at the Expense of Local Communities
and the Okavango Delta. London: EIA
Environmental Investigation Agency.
Kalahari Conservation Society. 2005. Kalahari
Conservation Society Assessment Report:
Removal of Decommissioned Veterinary
Fences in Ngamiland District, Botswana.
Gaborone, Botswana: Sierra Club,
Kalahari Conservation Society, and The
WILD Foundation.
Lomba, R. 1991. Buffalo Fences: Botswana’s
Shame. The Death Trap, Collected Papers
on the Buffalo Fence.
Mbaiwa, J. E. 2005. Enclave tourism and its
socio-economic impacts in the Okavango
Delta, Botswana. Tourism Management
26(2): 157–72.
Mbaiwa, J. E., and M.B.K. Darkoh. 2005.
Sustainable development and natural
resource competition and conflicts in the
Okavango Delta, Botswana. Botswana
Notes and Records 37: 40–60.
Mordi, R. 1989. The future of animal wildlife
and its habitat in Botswana. Environmental
Conservation 16(2): 147–56.
DECEMBER 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 23
Figure 7—Cables prepared for collection (Kalahari Conservation Society 2005). Figure 8—Standards prepared for collection (Kalahari Conservation Society 2005).
Continued on page 41

commitment to contribute whatever I
can to the struggle against its destruc-
tion. IJW
REFERENCES
Abram, David. 1997. The Spell of the
Sensuous. New York: Vintage Books.
Gush, Reg. 2000. Mkhuze—The Formative
Years. Hilton, South Africa: Reg Gush.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999.
Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied
Mind and Its Challenge to Western
Thought. New York: Basic Books.
Player, Ian. 1997. Zululand Wilderness:
Shadow and Soul. Cape Town, South
Africa: David Philip Publishers.
Scottish National Heritage. 2003. Policy
Statement: Wildness in Scotland’s
Countryside. www.snh.org.uk/pdfs/
polstat/pd-wsc.pdf.
Taylor, Peter. 2005. Beyond Conservation: A
Wildland Strategy. London Sterling, VA:
Earthscan Publications Limited.
DOUG WILLIAMSON was born and raised
in Johannesburg, South Africa, matriculat-
ing from St John’s College in 1961 and
graduating from the law school of
Witwatersrand University in 1966. After a
brief stint of legal practice he decided to
abandon the law and make a commitment
to working in conservation. Having
acquired appropriate academic credentials
for a career in conservation, he spent a
decade in Botswana, implementing
research projects on the behavioural ecol-
ogy of red lechwe and the ranging
behaviour and habitat needs of gemsbok,
springbok and wildebeest in the Kalahari,
serving as the officer-in-charge of research
in the Department of Wildlife and National
Parks, and managing a combined cattle
and game ranch in the Tuli Block. Then,
after three years in the late Professor Peter
Jewel’s research group in Cambridge
University, he spent five years managing the
King Khalid Wildlife Research Centre near
Riyadh in Saudi Arabia. Thereafter he spent
three years as a freelance consultant before
working for the Food and Agriculture
Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)
for ten years, firstly as a Wildlife Expert on
a combined range improvement and
wildlife management project in Syria, then
as Forestry Officer responsible for Wildlife
and Protected Area Management in the
FAO’s headquarters in Rome. In the course
of all this experience he was exposed to
problems and issues at scales ranging from
the molecular (DNA analyses for taxonomic
purposes) to vast ecosystems (wildebeest
migration in the Kalahari) and from utterly
practical problems to the most abstract pol-
icy considerations. Having reached the
mandatory retirement age of the FAO, he is
now once more working as a freelance con-
sultant.
DECEMBER 2006 • VOLUME 12, NUMBER 3 International Journal of Wilderness 41
Night watch around the camp fire, wilderness trail iMfolozi
game reserve. Photo courtesy of the Wilderness Leadership
School.
Murray, M. 1988. Management Plan for
Central Kalahari and Kutse Game
Reserves. Kalahari Gaborone, Botswana:
Conservation Society.
Owns, M., D. and Owns,. 1980. The fence of
death. African Wildlife 34: 25–27.
Perkins, J. S. 1996. Botswana: Fencing out of
the equity issue, cattleposts and cattle
ranches in the Kalahari Desert. Journal of
Arid Environments 33, 503–17.
Perkins, J. S., and S. M. Ringrose,. 1996.
Development Cooperations Objectives
and the Beef Protocol: The Case of
Botswana, a Study of Livestock/Wildlife/
Tourism/Degradation Linkages. Gaborone:
University of Botswana.
Scott Wilson Resource Consultants. 2000.
National Resource Project. Gaborone,
Botswana: Scott Wilson Resource
Consultants and Environment and
Development Group.
Silberbauer, G. B. 1981. Hunter and Habitat in
the Central Kalahari Desert. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Spinage, C. 1991. History and Evolution of the
Fauna Conservation Laws of Botswana.
Gaborone: Botswana Society.
Taylor, R. T., and R. B. Martin, 1987. Effects of
veterinary fences on wildlife conser-
vation in Zimbabwe. Environmental
Management, 11(3): 327–334
Williamson, D., and B. Mbano. 1988.
Wildebeest mortality during 1983 at
Lake Xau, Botswana. African Journal of
Ecology 26: 341–44.
Williamson, D., and J. Williamson. 1981. An
Assessment of fences on the large herbi-
vore biomass in the Kalahari. Botswana
Notes and Records 31: 91–94.
———. 1984. Botswana’s fences and the
depletion of Kalahari wildlife. Oryx 18:
218–22.
JOSEPH E. MBAIWA is a senior research
fellow, Harry Oppenheimer Okavango
Research Centre, University of Botswana,
Private Bag 285, Maun, Botswana.
Currently, however, he is at Texas A&M
University, Department of Recreation, Parks
and Tourism Sciences, 2261 TAMU,
College Station, TX, USA. Email:
JEMbaiwa@neo.tamu.edu.
ONALETSHEPHO I. MBAIWA can be con-
tacted at P.O. Box 305, Maun, Botswana.
Email: tshephimbaiwa@yahoo.com.
From VETERINARY FENCES on page 23