Content uploaded by Lucas Rutina
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Lucas Rutina on Mar 18, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
i
BOTSWANA’S
Protected
Important Bird Areas
Status and Trends Report
2010
Compiled by
Dr. Graham McCulloch, Motshereganyi Virat Kootsositse1, Dr. Lucas Rutina2
1. BirdLife Botswana,
2. Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Botswana
Prepared with Funding from the European Commission
EuropAid/ENV/2007/132-278 and GEF/UNDP
BirdLife Botswana
P. BOX 26691
GAME CITY,
GABORONE
BOTSWANA
Tel:+267 3190540/1 +267 6865618
E-mail: blb@birdlifebotswana.org.bw
Website: www.birdlifebotswana.org.bw
Collaborating Organization’s:
Department of Wildlife and National Parks, Department of Environmental Affairs, Birdlife International and RSPB
ii
Disclaimer:
This document has been produced with the nancial assistance of the European Commission (EuropeAid/
ENV/2007/132-278) and GEF/UNDP. The contents of this document are the sole responsibility of BirdLife Botswana
and can under no normal circumstances be regarded as re ecting the position of the European Commission and/
or GEF/UNDP.
Photo credits: All photos courtesy of BirdLife Botswana unless otherwise stated
Copyright: BirdLife Botswana June 2011
Acknowledgements
We would like to sincerely thank the European Commission and GEF/UNDP for their generous nancial support
towards this monitoring exercise. This report was produced with vital contributions from many recorders. Much
appreciation goes to the Department of Wildlife and National Parks who showed tremendous support and availed
enthusiastic staff members for training and contributing data to assess protected Important Bird Areas. We thank all
the members of staff of BirdLife Botswana for their input and support. In particular, Stephanie Tyler (co-ordinator
of the bi-annual wetlands waterfowl counts), Chris Brewster (Scienti c and Rarities committees member), Pete
Hancock (Maun Branch and co-ordinates counts in northern IBAs) and Keddy Mooketsa (Common Bird Monitoring
Programme coordinator). We would also like to thank members the Cape Vulture Environmental Club, the Khwai
Development Trust, the Nata Sanctuary Trust, the Sankuyo Tshwaragano Management Trust and the Bosele Lake
Ngami Bosele Conservation Trust for their co- operation and keen interest in the whole process. Other contributors
include individual researchers, guides and members of the different bird clubs around the country who have all
contributed to the data collection. We are grateful to BirdLife International and the Royal Society for the Protection
of Birds (RSPB) for their technical support.
iii
Acronyms
iv
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ii
Acronyms iii
Executive Summary 1
1 INTRODUCTION 3
1.1 Overall Project Goal 4
1.2 Aims and Objectives of this report 4
2.0 BACKGROUND TO MONITORING IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS 5
2.1 What are IBAs? 5
2.2 The IBA Programme 5
2.3 What is monitoring? 5
2.4 The BirdLife global monitoring framework 6
2.5 What should we Monitor? 6
2.6 Monitoring history 6
3.0 METHODOLOGY 7
3.1 Application of the global monitoring framework 7
3.1.1 Status of the birds and habitat 7
3.1.2 Pressures/threats 7
3.1.3 Conservation measures/ response 7
3.2 Sources of information 8
3.3 Analysis and presentation approach 8
4.0 RESULTS 10
4.1 Findings and discussion 10
4.1.1 State indicators 10
4.1.2 Pressure indicator 12
4.1.3 Response indicator 16
4.1.4 Pressure, State and Response Trends 17
5. Conclusions 18
6. Recommendations 19
REFERENCES 21
APPENDIX I: Degree of protected area coverage and other management designations
for seven protected IBAs in Botswana. 22
APPENDIX II: List of Trigger Species found in the seven protected IBAs in Botswana. 23
APPENDIX III: An example of a completed data for 2010 from for one of the IBAs: the Okavango Delta 25
APPENDIX IV: List of contributors to the 2010 records 34
APPENDIX V: List of Bird species of national concern in Botswana 36
1
Executive Summary
In 1998, BirdLife Botswana (the BirdLife partner in Botswana) identi ed and documented 12 sites as Important
Bird Areas (IBAs) of Botswana. However, monitoring efforts at these sites have lacked adequate co-ordination and
the success of management and conservation efforts have, therefore, been dif cult to gauge. In 2007, BirdLife
Botswana, together with seven other African countries (Burkina Faso, Burundi, Uganda, Kenya, Tunisia, Zambia
and Zimbabwe) bene ted from European Commission funding to pilot a reporting mechanism for biodiversity
through the monitoring of birds at IBAs using the Pressure-State-Response model adapted from the global IBA
monitoring framework. In Botswana, the target sites for the project are IBAs overlapping protected areas, of which
there are seven: Chobe, Linyanti Swamps, Okavango Delta, Makgadikgadi Pans, Central Kalahari Game Reserve,
Mannyelanong and Kalahari Transfrontier Park IBAs.
This is the third year of project implementation and this report summarises the analysis of data and information
gathered during 2010 and compares them with the gures from the 2008 and 2009 reports. Out of the seven
protected IBAs of the project focus, 2010 records were only received from ve; Chobe, Okavango, Makgadikgadi,
Mannyelanong and Lake Ngami IBAs.
State
Records for the numbers of trigger species recorded at each site was very low at all IBA sites during 2010, with records
coming mainly from the Chobe, Okavango, Ngami and Makgadikgadi IBAs. The highest numbers of wetland trigger
species were found in the Okavango and Makgadikgadi, with Wattle Crane and Slaty Egret making up the numbers
in the Okavango and amingos, once again breeding successfully on Makgadikgadi in their tens of thousands. As
a result of the low numbers of bird counts recorded and submitted in 2010, the habitat quality was used more
often to assess the state of the IBAs (Figure 3). The overall state of the IBAs was still good this year, with only the
Makgadikgadi IBA scoring below good for habitat condition/quality (moderate). Figure 3 shows that the habitat
state of most IBAs has remained the same since 2009. The Okavango IBA has, however, experienced an increase in
its overall habitat condition indicator owing largely to the exceptionally large ooding that has persistently occurred
during the winter periods of 2008 and 2009 in these wetlands, providing larger safer habitat for the water bird
trigger species.
Pressure
The number of threats identi ed by recorders in Botswana’s protected IBAs decreased in number by three compared
to 2009, from twenty two to nineteen different threat types. This is mainly because the number of IBAs, for which
records were received, decreased from the previous year. Data came from BLB and independent researchers only.
The IBA with by far the most threats is Makgadikgadi (16), owing to its enormous size and the wide variety of
increasing land use changes and development around the wetland. In particular, an increase in mining activity at
the Soda Ash mine (well- eld expansion programme) and the increased development at the diamond and new
copper mines in the catchment have increased the overall threat level associated with these activities to 3. The
number of threats to the Okavango and Lake Ngami has also increased, where pressure scores have also increased
to -3 on account of, respectively, poisoning and shing pressures. Indeed, the severity of the threat from poisoning
has become such a serious issue, with impacts on vulture populations been observed across the country, that this
threat has increased the overall level of pressure in the Chobe, Okavango and Mannyelanong to -3. All IBAs, except
for Mannyelanong, received higher threat scores compared with records from 2009. In particular, the pressure
score at Lake Ngami has increased in severity by 2, to -3, owing to the rapid increase and threats from shing in
the lake. Overall, the pressures of the major wetland IBAs have increased during 2010, owing to an increase in
poisoning, shing pressure, res and impacts from mining.
Response
Submissions from recorders regarding responses or conservation measures and management interventions were
again varied for different sites. While many remained largely the same as those identi ed last year, there were some
encouraging success stories in terms of the progress of some conservation measures that have been progressing
over the past few years. This meant that the scores for response indicators haven’t changed from last year. Of
particular importance in this regard; Makgadikgadi has improved in terms of its response indicators, largely owing
to the successful establishment of a sanctuary for the amingo breeding grounds on Sua Pan. In addition, the
completion of Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan for the entire wetland means that improved integrated
management and sustainable development in the area, with effective conservation and appropriate management of
its resources, including its biodiversity will be formally promoted. The Okavango has also seen some improvements
in site-speci c management actions, which include the establishment of a ve year project to implement basin-wide
Integrated Water Resource Management of the Okavango River basin, funded by USAID, called SAREP will form the
implementation phase of the tri-party OKACOM agreement between Botswana, Namibia and Angola. This is a huge
plus for the future management and conservation of the Okavango deltas biodiversity.
2
In conclusion, records received from IBAs have decreased considerably since 2009, with very few gures for trigger
species numbers. The information received was, however, adequate to successfully assess the state of habitat
condition, the current state of pressures and make a good assessment of the conservation and management
activities that are either being developed or being implemented in the ve of the country’s protected IBAs.
Biodiversity at protected IBAs, as shown by birds as a proxy, appears to be generally getting better, although
considerable increased pressures threaten them and their biodiversity, compared to 2008 and 2009. Considerable
efforts are being maintained by BLB, the government and others to curb these pressures, leading to some signi cant
successful progression towards long-term protection and appropriate management of the country’s protected IBAs
and elevating the overall response score in 2010 compared to the previous two years
The main concerns that need immediate effective intervention remain in the form of wildlife and habitat destruction
from re, poisoning, over shing and water pollution, with mining coming out as a serious potential threat in the
future. There are some encouraging positives with the successful establishment of protected areas and management
planning progress and these actions and activities will certainly help maintain biodiversity in these IBAs in the future.
In addition, great progress has been made in strengthening partnerships between BirdLife Botswana, Botswana’s
Department of Wildlife and National Parks, and the Department of Environmental Affairs. As well as strengthening
and coordinating biodiversity monitoring in protected areas, this report has been used as one of the key indicators
used in the government’s annual CBD reports. Valuable relations have been forged and maintained with community
based Site Support Groups, independent researchers, private tourism operators, and the general public, all of
whom have contributed considerably to this monitoring programme.
Finally, the launch of the Common Bird Monitoring programme in November of last year saw the beginning of a
very important monitoring tool, which, like TickBird and the Waterfowl counts, could facilitate and augment IBA
monitoring record collections. Bi-annual monitoring on de ned transects includes recording all species including
IBA trigger species and BirdLife Botswana are determined to make these programmes compliment, enhance and
sustain the IBA monitoring programme.
3
1 INTRODUCTION
In 1998, BirdLife Botswana (the BirdLife partner in Botswana) identi ed and documented 12 sites as Important Bird
Areas (IBAs) of Botswana (Barnes, 1998). These sites are (listed with the IBA numbers in parenthesis):
• Chobe National Park (BW001);
• Linyanti Swamps (BW002);
• Okavango Delta (BW003);
• Lake Ngami (BW004);
• Central Kalahari and Khutse Game Reserve (CKGR) (BW005);
• Makgadikgadi Pans (BW006);
• Mannyelanong Hill (BW007);
• Tswapong Hills (BW008);
• Bokaa Dam (BW009);
• Phakalane Sewage ponds (BW010);
• South Eastern Botswana (BW011), and;
• Kalahari Trans frontier (Gemsbok) National Park (BW012).
The Chobe and Okavango Delta IBAs have the richest avifauna, with 433 and 464 species respectively.
The majority of IBAs in Africa (57% of the 1,230 sites) overlap to varying degrees with some kind of protected areas
(PAs). Although not all IBA boundaries in Botswana are adequately de ned on a map, descriptions of them in
Botswana’s list of IBAs (Barnes et al., 1998) indicate that some follow the boundaries of already designated protected
areas while others follow the bio-geographical boundaries of their respective habitat or ecosystem. Of Botswana’s
twelve IBAs identi ed in Botswana, seven of Botswana’s Important Bird Areas are partially or entirely covered by
some form of designated protected area, under the Botswana government’s Wildlife and National Parks Act (Figure
1).
The Chobe National Park and Kalahari Trans frontier National Park IBA completely overlap with their respective
National Parks, the Linyanti Swamps IBA is partially protected by the Chobe National Park, the Makgadikgadi Pans IBA
is partially protected by the Makgadikgadi Pans and Nxai Pans National Park in the west and the Nata Bird Sanctuary
to the east, the Central Kalahari and Khutse Game Reserve and Mannyelanong Hill IBAs are both designated Game
Reserves, and the Okavango Delta is partially protected by Moremi Game Reserve (see Appendix 1 for details of the
extent of formally protected area coverage at each IBA).
Figure 1. Map of
Botswana’s seven
IBAs, identi ed by
their IBA numbers,
that partially or
entirely overlap
with various
designated
protected areas:
Chobe National
Park (BW001),
Linyanti Swamps
(BW002),
Okavango
Delta (BW003),
Makgadikgadi Pans
(BW005), Central
Kalahari Game
Reserve (BW006),
Mannyelanong
Game Reserve
(BW007) and the
Kalahari Trans
Frontier Park
(BW012).
4
Even though a huge amount of work has been done by BirdLife Botswana in identifying and safeguarding these
IBAs, monitoring efforts at these sites have suffered from a lack of adequate co-ordination. This has been largely due
to insuf cient funding for designing and achieving active participation of stakeholders in reporting on IBAs.
It has been widely accepted and appreciated that birds function as good indicators of ecosystems (Bennun, 2002;
BirdLife international, 2004); particularly wetland health. Since they often respond very quickly to changes in their
environment, their status can be a powerful indicator of changes to other organisms in the ecosystem, which are
more often dif cult to measure. Indeed, birds are monitored in many parts of the world, both for their intrinsic
conservation interest and because they can act as indicators of ecological status (e.g. Owino et al, 2001, Tyler,
2001).
In 2007, BirdLife Botswana together with seven other African countries (Burkina Faso, Burundi, Uganda, Kenya,
Tunisia, Zambia and Zimbabwe) bene ted from European Commission funding to pilot a reporting mechanism for
biodiversity at PAs using the Pressure-State-Response model adapted from the global IBA monitoring framework.
This four-year project, which commenced in 2007, is regionally referred to as the “Instituting effective monitoring
of protected areas (Important Bird Areas) as a contribution to reducing the rate of biodiversity loss in Africa” project.
This report is a product of that project, which essentially aims at monitoring the biodiversity status and trends in
those IBAs overlapping with protected areas, which comprise critical components of the world’s natural ecosystems
and biodiversity.
1.1 Overall Project Goal
Since monitoring is not coordinated in most countries, the project seeks to leverage the support from the national
agencies mandated to manage biodiversity at protected areas to ensure that the process of monitoring is sustainable
and embedded as a core activity that is undertaken on a daily basis. At the institutional and operational level,
the Department of Wildlife and National Parks is mandated to manage, including monitor, biodiversity inside PAs
and the Department of Environmental Affairs (DEA) reports to CBD on biodiversity (e.g. Anonymous, 2009). The
project aims to achieve its goals through ensuring that appropriate capacity is built in the relevant institutions for
monitoring and sustaining all stages of biodiversity monitoring at protected areas. The monitoring process should
also generate information that is widely available and can be used by the relevant institutions to in uence policy
and management actions at various levels.
As indicator species, birds have many advantages as a group to use for biodiversity monitoring. They are known
more than other groups of organisms and have been shown to be effective indicators of biodiversity richness
as opposed to other animals and plant groups. Birds have also been recognised as an excellent barometer for
environmental health, especially in detailed studies where summary biodiversity assessment data from a range of
species may be obtained.
This project aims to use IBA trigger species to facilitate a coordinated and sustainable monitoring programme of
indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem health at the projects target sites; those IBAs in Botswana that overlap
with protected areas, as listed above. In doing so, this monitoring programme aims to support and strengthen
the coordination and capacity of the DWNP in monitoring biodiversity, while providing a useful tool to facilitate its
use in national reports and decision making processes. In Botswana the programme has successfully gained full
support, especially from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks, without which there would be very little
success.
1.2 Aims and Objectives of this report
The report outlines the status of the habitat and/or species, pressures or threats and conservation efforts at PAs
overlapping Important Bird Areas (referred to in some parts of this report as protected Important Bird Areas) for
2010. Since not all species can be covered for biodiversity monitoring, birds were used as indicator species. As this is
the third report of its kind, the report will present IBA data for 2010 regarding the current scenario, where possible,
with respect to avifauna in protected Important Bird Areas. It also compares this year’s data with that of 2008 and
2009 to show the trend in protected IBA status, pressures and response indicators since then.
5
2.0 BACKGROUND TO MONITORING IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS
2.1 What are IBAs?
IBAs are generally sites of global conservation importance for birds and other biodiversity identi ed using
standard internationally agreed criteria, which are objective, quantitative and scienti cally defensible. The sites
must, wherever possible, be large enough to support self- sustaining populations of those species for which they
are important. These sites are distinct areas amenable for practical conservation and part of a wider, integrated
approach to conservation and sustainable use that embraces sites, species, habitats, and people. IBAs are identi ed
on the basis of the presence of globally threatened species, range restricted species, and biome restricted species or
congregations. Species, which are considered in identifying the site as important, are referred to as ‘trigger’ species.
The ‘trigger’ species in Botswana have been listed in ‘Important Bird Areas of Botswana by Tyler and Bishop (1998);
see Appendix II for a list of ‘trigger’ species identi ed for each protected IBA.
2.2 The IBA Programme
The Important Bird Areas (IBA) Programme of BirdLife International is a world-wide project launched in the mid 1980s
aimed at identifying, monitoring and protecting a network of critical sites for the world’s birds. The early stages of
the Programme focused on developing national constituencies and identifying the sites, and the subsequent ones
focus on activities to conserve and safeguard these sites in the long term, with effective monitoring and advocacy
taking place. The aims of the programme are:
• Identify and document globally important places for bird conservation in Africa based on inclusion of
endemic avifauna, threatened species, concentrations of numbers of individuals or species and representation
of regionally characterised bird assemblages.
• Promote, develop and involve national organisations and contributors in the implementation of the
programme.
• Increase national contributions to the programme through the promotion of institution- building, network
development and training as appropriate.
• Publish and distribute widely a continental directory of sites, Important Bird Areas in Africa and associated
islands.
• Promote the publication of national IBA directories in appropriate languages.
• Establish a database containing the critical IBA information in a way that can be maintained, updated and
made available in individual countries and to the wider conservation community.
• Inform relevant national authorities, where appropriate, of the programme and seek their acceptance of its
concept, aims and progress at the national level.
• Inform decision- makers at all levels of the existence and signi cance of Important Bird Areas.
• Encourage and initiate conservation actions at Important Bird Areas throughout the continent.
2.3 What is monitoring?
Monitoring involves repeated collection of information over time, in order to detect changes in one or more variables
of interest. The general objective for monitoring is to evaluate the success of sustaining biodiversity by measuring
speci c indicators. Monitoring is a central part of the IBA process. IBA monitoring is needed both to assess the
effectiveness of conservation measures and to provide an early warning of the extent of threats to biodiversity at a
species, site, habitat, landscape and ecosystem level. Species are very sensitive to changes in their habitat quality
and therefore there is an emerging need to understand what changes are relevant to sites and how these changes
affect the survival of species for which the sites are designated as IBAs. Such information will help in adapting our
interventions accordingly, as well as allocating the scanty resources effectively to the most deserving sites (BirdLife
International, 2006).
At the site level, IBAs are monitored in order to:
• Detect and act on threats in good time. Monitoring data provide ammunition for advocacy and information for
designing interventions;
• Assess the effectiveness of conservation efforts. Is investment in conservation actually bringing about an
improvement? Are ‘sustainable use’ approaches really proving sustainable?
Nationally, IBA monitoring data provide information on biodiversity status and trends (BirdLife International,
2006). This has a great potential for generating information that could feed directly into the process of reporting
to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and other international and (where appropriate) Multilateral
Environmental Agreements (MEAs). It also allows the impacts of economic and environmental policies that affect
more than one IBA to be assessed. A regular IBA status report is also a useful product for national advocacy (BirdLife
International, 2006).
6
2.4 The BirdLife global monitoring framework
In Botswana, monitoring of these areas and the avian biodiversity they contain has largely been built on the use
of a global monitoring framework developed by BirdLife International (2006). The monitoring tool is based on a
Pressure–State-Response model - Pressures are threats facing the trigger species and/or the habitat for the trigger
species; the State refers to the condition or situation of the habitat or population of the trigger species; and the
Responses are the conservation actions taken to reduce the threats or improve on habitat conditions. This monitoring
tool uses the weakest link approach, which detects change without giving details on the cause of the change. The
weakest link approach identi es the most negatively affected habitat or species to be considered for management
or intervention. Consistency in monitoring is crucial in ascertaining the actual measure of the population over time.
2.5 What should we Monitor?
In order that IBAs can be managed to conserve important bird populations and other biodiversity, we need to
understand what is happening to IBAs in relation to those bird species for which the sites qualify. We cannot monitor
every relevant attribute of an IBA, so we need to choose indicators that are appropriate for our conservation goal.
The BirdLife International Monitoring Framework places indicators into a ‘Pressure–State–Response’ framework; an
approach that has also been adopted by the CBD (Figure 2):
Figure 2. The relationship between indicators of pressure, state and response
Pressure
Pressure indicators identify and track the major threats to important bird populations at IBAs. Examples include
rates of agricultural expansion, over-exploitation and pollution.
State
State indicators refer to the condition of the site, with respect to its important bird populations. State indicators
might be population counts of the birds themselves. They might also be measures of the extent and quality of the
habitat required by these birds.
Response
Response indicators identify and track conservation actions: for example, changes in conservation designation,
implementation of conservation projects and establishment of LCGs.
2.6 Monitoring history
In 2006, monitoring protocols for IBAs in Botswana were produced. In 2007, a comprehensive monitoring report for
three IBAs (Lake Ngami, Makgadikgadi Pans and Linyanti Swamps) was then produced (BirdLife Botswana, 2007).
2009 saw the beginning of the engagement and training of monitors from all stakeholders, which resulted in the
rst baseline data report. In the long run, the intention is to monitor and assess all other IBAs and protected areas.
Pressure
Threats to IBAs
State
Quantity and quality of
IBAs
Response
Conservation
efforts for IBAs
7
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Application of the global monitoring framework
IBA monitoring was guided by the IBA global monitoring framework (BirdLife International. 2006). IBA monitoring
sheets were distributed to all stakeholders to facilitate data entry and information gathering, summarized by the
Status, Pressure, Response format and methodology below. To facilitate collation of the data and information
gathered, IBA speci c data sheets were designed per IBA (see Appendix III for an example of a completed IBA data
sheet for the Okavango Delta).
3.1.1 Status of the birds and habitat
The state indicator refers to the state of the bird species in terms of numbers recorded for a particular site or the
condition of a particular habitat for the trigger species, ranked according to Table 1, below. A recorder can monitor
the species number or the habitat condition or both depending on the recorder’s con dence. The basic assessment
of the habitat is considered in relation to the trigger species.
Table 1. A key to assessing the habitat condition as interpreted by the recorder
Status
0123
Habitat Very poor Poor Moderate Good
3.1.2 Pressures/threats
Several threats were identi ed for a particular IBA and all described further by being assigned scores using Table
2 as a key to scoring. Scores were then summed to get a total impact score. A pressure or threat with a high score
became a major threat at the site of assessment. It is worth noting that the summation is assigned a negative, as it
is an unwanted item i.e. the more negative it is the more intense it is.
Table 2. Key to assigning scores to the threats or pressures to the bird species or habitat.
Scores
0123
Timing
Past, unlikely to
return, no longer
happening
To happen
beyond four
years (long
term)
To happen
within four
years (short
term)
Happening now
Scope
Small area/
few individuals
(>10%)
Some of the
area/small
population (10-
50%)
Most of the area/
population (50-
90%)
Whole area/
population
(>90%)
Severity
(Over 10 years or
3 generations)
No deterioration
(<1%)
Slow
deterioration (1-
10%)
Moderate
deterioration
(10-30%)
Rapid
deterioration
(>30%)
3.1.3 Conservation measures/ response
Conservation measures at each site were recorded and assigned scores using guidance from Table 3,on the next
page.
8
Table 3. Key to recording the management intervention at the site and scores used in assessing different action
types
Action type Scores
012 3
Conservation Little or no IBA Some IBA Most IBA Whole area (more
designation covered (0 - covered (10- covered (50-90%) than 90%)
10%) 49%)
Management No management No management Management plan Comprehensive
plan planning has plan but exists but out of and appropriate
taken place management date or not management plan
planning has comprehensive exists that aims to
begun maintain or
improve the
populations of
species
Conservation Very little or no Some limited Substantive Conservation
action conservation conservation conservation measures needed
action is taking initiatives in measures being for the site are
place place implemented but being
not comprehensively
comprehensive and effectively
and limited by implemented
resources and
capacity
3.2 Sources of information
Recorders from the Department of Wildlife and National Parks (park wardens and wildlife
of cers), tour operators (mainly professional guides), and members of the communities around
protected Important Bird Areas were trained using the BirdLife International Global Monitoring
Framework version 1.2 (2006), as outlined above. Appendix IV shows the list of recorders that
contributed to the data and information gathering in 2010.
In addition to the data that was collated on the IBA monitoring data forms, additional information
from the bi-annual waterfowl counts at some of the IBAs was used where necessary to augment
or ll in data gaps in species numbers. A review of current management plans for the protected
areas overlapping Important Bird Areas was carried out to obtain information relating to, and to
put into context the Response indicator of the global monitoring framework.
3.3 Analysis and presentation approach
Information was analysed for each site and presented accordingly to obtain the status quo on
the state, pressure and response indicators:
9
State:
• The highest number of each species recorded on an individual IBA monitoring form was
documented in tabular form for each IBA to indicate its status with regard to the trigger species
populations;
• Habitat status was used to score each IBA and the resulting scores were compared for each
IBA using a graph, with a graph illustrating the change in habitat condition (scores) from 2008
also included;
Pressures:
• Pressures were identi ed for each IBA and listed in a table to summarise them and their
frequency of use by recorders;
• The pressures score for each IBA were compared in a graph and a comparison with pressure
scores form 2008 and 2009 highlighted using a graph;
Responses:
• The list of responses (conservation/management actions) for each IBA were identi ed and
listed in a table to identify what actions were taking place and where;
• Response scores for each IBA were compared among IBAs and with 2008 and 2009 response
scores using graphs;
Trends:
Overall state, pressure and response scores were summarized in a graph for 2010 and compared
with similar overall scores for 2008 and 2009 to identify the current trend by plotting the average
state, pressure and response scores for each year.
Recommendations:
Based on the amount and quality of the data received this year and the resulting information
and analysis, a set of recommendations were made to highlight where improvements can be
made in the current monitoring programme, its coordination and to any of the information that
contributes to IBAs and its effective management and conservation of biodiversity within.
Action type
10
4.0 RESULTS
4.1 Findings and discussion
Records were received from ve IBAs i.e. Chobe National Park, Okavango Delta, Makgadikgadi
Pans, Lake Ngami and Mannyelanong Game Reserve. Lake Ngami is not a site considered in
the scope of this project but the data recorded from this site were included in the analysis as
they were seen to be important and relevant. In the long run, the intention is to monitor and
assess all other IBAs and protected areas and include gures of trigger species recorded through
the Common Bird Monitoring, as well as TickBird and Waterfowl count numbers as much as
possible.
4.1.1 State indicators
Records for the numbers of trigger species recorded at each site was very low at all IBA sites
during 2010, with records coming mainly from the Chobe, Okavango, Ngami and Makgadikgadi
IBAs, where there were more recorders (independent researchers and individual birders and
safari guides) compared to those IBAs that relied on DWNP recording e.g. KNP and CKGR. Even
at these four sites, the records for trigger species numbers were very scanty and only numbers
for some species were provided. Table 4 lists the trigger species identi ed and their highest
number counted by an individual recorder, at each IBA during 2010.
The highest numbers of wetland trigger species were found in the Okavango and Makgadikgadi,
with Wattle Crane and Slaty Egret making up the numbers in the Okavango and amingos, once
again breeding successfully on Makgadikgadi in their tens of thousands. Lappet-faced Vultures
and White-backed Vultures, once again made up the largest numbers of trigger species recorded
in the Chobe National Park.
Table 4. Trigger species and their highest recorded number for each protected IBA.
SPECIES
Chobe NaƟ onal
Park
LinyanƟ Swamps
Okavango Delta
Lake Ngami
Makgadikgadi
Pans
Central Kalahari
Game Reserve
Mannyelanong
Game Reserve
Kalahari Trans-
fronƟ er Park
Lappet-faced Vulture 25
White-headed Vulture 25
White-backed Vulture 150
Wattled Crane 1400
Slaty Egret 4000
Greater Flamingo 100 40000
Lesser Flamingo 100 60000
Great White Pelican 200
Brad eld’s Hornbill 200
Marabou Stork 150
Woolly-necked Stork 20
African Skimmer 200
11
Figure 3. IBA habitat scores collated from the data forms for each IBA and the trend (difference in scores) in habitat
condition since 2009.
As a result of the low numbers of bird counts recorded and submitted in 2010, the habitat quality was used more
often to assess the state of the IBAs (Figure 3). The overall state of the IBAs was still good this year, with only the
Makgadikgadi IBA scoring below good for habitat condition/quality (moderate). Figure 3 shows that the habitat
state of most IBAs has remained the same since 2009. The Okavango IBA has, however, experienced an increase in
its overall habitat condition indicator owing largely to the exceptionally large ooding that has persistently occurred
during the winter periods of 2008 and 2009 in these wetlands, providing larger safer habitat for the water bird
trigger species.
12
4.1.2 Pressure indicator
The number of threats identi ed by recorders in Botswana’s protected IBAs decreased in number by three compared
to 2009, from twenty two to nineteen different threat types. This is mainly because the number of IBAs, for which
records were received decreased from the previous year and DWNP staff did not record threats like illegal poaching
and road construction impacts in Game reserves and National Parks. Again, the data came from BLB and independent
researchers and no information was collated by DWNP this year. Table 5, below, provides a summary of the status of
threats for these IBAs in 2010, with the average pressure score provided for each threat, at each IBA.
The IBA with by far the most threats is Makgadikgadi (16), owing to its enormous size and the wide variety of
increasing land use changes and development around the wetland. In particular, an increase in mining activity
at Soda Ash mine and the increased development at the diamond and new copper mines in the catchment has
increased the overall threat level associated with these activities to 3. The number of threats to the Okavango
and Lake Ngami has also increased, where threat levels have also increased to three on account of, respectively,
poisoning and shing pressures. Indeed, the severity of the threat from poisoning has become such a serious issue,
with impacts on vulture populations being observed across the country, that this threat has increased the overall
level of pressure in the Chobe, Okavango and Mannyelanong to 3. Those threats at Chobe are largely a result of the
increase in impacts and pressures on the system and its trigger species in the surrounding area from farming (and
its associated con ict activities, e.g. poisoning) and pollution.
A summary of the state of Botswana’s protected area pressures is illustrated in gure 4, below. In comparison with
last year’s pressure scores, all of the IBAs, except for Mannyelanong received higher threat scores, with all scoring
a maximum -3 score, i.e. their pressures have increased in severity. In particular, the pressure score at Lake Ngami
has increased in severity by 2, to -3, owing to the rapid increase and threats from shing in the lake. Large and
ever increasing numbers of shing nets are now being deployed in the lake, threatening the feeding and breeding
conditions for sh-eating trigger species. Overall, the pressures of the major wetland IBAs have increased during
2010, owing to an increase in poisoning, shing pressure, res and impacts from mining.
Table 5. Threats identi ed by recorders in Botswana’s protected IBAs, in 2009.
Threats
Chobe National
Park
Linyanti Swamps
Okavango Delta
Lake Ngami
Makgadikgadi
Pans
Central Kalahari
Game Reserve
Mannyelanong
Game Reserve
Kalahari Trans-
frontier Park
Poisoning of by farmers 33 3
Over- shing 223
Water quality reduction/
pollution by sewage
22
Habitat conversion by
development
1
Commercial farming
impacts
1
Hunting; subsistence and
sport
221
Fire 22
Habitat destruction by
elephants
1
Mining activities 13
Powerline obstacles 2
Tourism desturbance 112
Proposed Dam 1
Long-term ground water
level impacts
2
Invasive species 11
13
Problematic natural
species
2
Solid waste pollution 1
Air-bourne pollution 1
Noise pollution/
disturbance
1
Light pollution 1
Natural climate alterations 2
Total Threats per site, reported
by DWNP (D) or independent
researchers (IR) 5 (IR) 6 (IR)
4
(IR) 16 (IR) 3 (IR)
Figure 4. IBA pressure status scores collated from the data forms for each IBA in 2010 and the trend (difference in
scores) since 2009.
14
Fishing and poisoning were recorded as the most frequent and highest scoring pressures to occur in the ve
protected IBAs in 2010, and scoring an average of -3 in each case. This differs somewhat from the highest scoring
threats recorded in 2009, which included re as a major threat to the habitat. 2010 was, however, once again one
of the worst years for the extent and intensity of re outbreaks in recent history (see below for more details). The
fact that this pressure did not come out strongly in this report as a threat was most likely a result of the absence
of monitoring forms from the DWNP relating to the CKGR and KNP IBAs. The impact of re on the Makgadikgadi
National Park was severe, affecting many wildlife species, including observed Elephants and Zebra with large burn
scars.
The following threats on protected IBAs are highlighted for serious consideration as they have serious long-term
impacts and rami cations on the conservation of the IBA trigger species and biodiversity in general, and require
regulation and improved long-term conservation action and management interventions.
Fire
Fires impact birdlife in a number of ways; they cause damage to and loss of reed-beds that were important as roost
or breeding sites and have also killed young birds, such as egrets and Squacco Herons, in their nests at breeding
colonies. Fires also result in the loss of many old dying or mature trees which are important as nest sites for many
hole-nesting birds as well as providing invertebrate food for species such as woodpeckers and Wood-Hoopoes.
Standing dead wood is a very important resource for many bird species.
Owing to a recent wet period in Botswana’s climate, recent wet seasons have provided higher than average rainfall.
This has resulted in large amounts of biomass in the vegetation, particularly, among the grass sword of large
grasslands across all protected areas in Botswana. Large-scale res during 2008 and 2010 have been among the
worst experienced in recent history, with large areas being affected and many plants and animals perishing (Figure
5). Figure 2 shows re occurrences in Botswana from 2007 to 2010. On average, re impacts on Botswana’s IBAs
have been ranging between a combined pressures score of 4 and 5.67. The extent of res in consecutive years
suggests that habitat deterioration due to human induced res is followed by a small improvement the following
year and vice visa, indicating a two year biomass accumulation period before res become widespread and
destructive (Figure 5). Fire impact on Botswana’s IBAs appears, however, more pronounced on IBAs in central and
western Botswana compared with those in northern Botswana. Among other factors that may explain this trend is
that part, or most of the areas surrounding IBA in northern IBAs comprise wetlands (natural re breaks) or are leased
by private companies who actively manage re outbreaks and conduct preventative re management.
The frequency and extent of re incidents has increased, in general, in recent years as a result of an increased number
of re generating activities in and around the protected areas, like farming activities, grass cutting and poaching
with their associated camps. Indeed, evidence shows that many of the res that occur in many of the remote areas
of the country originate along access roads and tracks, as a result of camp res and or cigarette disposal.
It is important, therefore, to address two major issues in relation to this increased occurrence and spread of res:
1. Reduce their causes by increased awareness and prevention of the dangers of camp res and cigarette disposal,
for example, if not extinguished properly, and;
2. Improve re management in protected areas by building on and improving existing management programmes;
re extinguishing techniques and pro-active preventative measures.
15
Figure 5. The extent of area damaged by res in Botswana during the dry seasons of 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010.
Poisoning
In August of this year, BirdLife Botswana (through Pete Hancock) initiated a formal request for action against the
use of illegal poisoning of birds and mammals, addressed to the Minister of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism. The
following comes from this informed request for action:
In the past two years, a minimum of 160 globally threatened vultures have been poisoned in northern Botswana
in three major incidents. Typically, large numbers of vultures (in excess of 50) are killed at each incident, and
this constitutes the single greatest threat to the birds in Botswana. Where it was possible to identify the poison
used, it was an agricultural insecticide, Carbofuran, but some poisoning incidents almost certainly involved a
second insecticide, Aldicarb. The motives for the poisoning vary: In most cases, the vultures are innocent victims of
attempts to kill ‘problem’ predators, but at least one incident - in the Xudum area of the Okavango – the vultures
were targeted by poachers who claimed that the birds were alerting the authorities to their activities. It is believed
that the poisons are being brought illegally into the country from Zimbabwe, in small, unlabelled packages (which
are illegal) and sold on the street as ‘rat poison’.
Other African countries, notably Kenya, are working towards a complete ban of these insecticides, and Botswana
should do the same. However, a ban alone will not suf ce. Botswana already has the legislation needed to curb
illegal use of these pesticides – it needs to be enforced more rigorously in conjunction with a ban. For example,
when the Police check vehicles passing through the veterinary gates, they should be looking for unlabelled packages
of the poisons (the environmental NGO community can produce awareness posters for the police showing what
the poisons look like).
Mining
Mining development is becoming an ever-increasing threat to IBAs around Botswana. A recent increase in the
number and types of mining activities, particularly around Makgadikgadi, and now, too, near Lake Ngami (new
copper mine) has resulted in an increase in the number of potential threats and observed impacts to birdlife in and
around these IBAs. In addition to physical presence of obstacles and disturbance at the mines themselves, increasing
mortalities and disturbance have been observed along the infrastructural routes (roads and power lines). While
these infrastructural developments may be necessary, proper due diligence and appropriate effective mitigation of
such impacts are not given enough attention and enforcement of EIA recommendations in this sector, in particular,
is for some reason severely lacking.
There is also the added threat of the long-term impacts to environmental health, in particular through the
deterioration in groundwater and surface water quality, which are impacts that are much harder to ag and predict,
being dif cult to gauge and quantify. These potential threats are, however, potentially much more concerning
with far reaching rami cations, and very often not fully quanti ed or understood until it is too late. Appropriate
comprehensive monitoring programme nestled in a ‘precautionary principle’ approach to management, that leads
to swift adaptive management interventions in response to the data and analysis that results is, therefore, essential
to avoid and mitigate against such serious impacts. This is something that could be paid more attention to in this
monitoring programme, and certainly should be enforced among the various mining companies throughout the
country.
16
4.1.3 Response indicator
Botswana total area: 578,150 km2 of which 242,120 km2 (41.9%) is set aside for conservation. About 17 percent of the
country has been set aside as national parks and game reserves, with 20 percent set aside for wildlife management
areas. Despite the impressive extent of the countries’ protected area status, management of these sites still lacks co-
ordinated monitoring be it of species or habitat. Out of the twelve IBAs, only six are protected and the rest are not.
Some sites though not protected such as the Tswapong Hills and South-eastern Botswana, hold globally threatened
species, namely the Cape Vulture and Short-clawed Lark respectively.
Submissions from recorders regarding responses or conservation measures and management interventions were
again varied for different sites. While many remained largely the same as those identi ed last year, there were some
encouraging success stories in terms of the progress of some conservation measures that have been progressing
over the past few years. This meant that the scores for response indicators haven’t changed from last year (Figure 6).
Of particular importance in this regard; Makgadikgadi has improved in terms of its response indicators, largely
owing to the successful establishment of a sanctuary for the amingo breeding grounds on Sua Pan. An area
covering the whole of the southern basin of Sua Pan where the amingo colonies exist is now protected by law,
under the Wildlife Act, which strictly prohibits entry into, or ights over the sanctuary (below 7000ft), without
prior written permission by the DWNP and the Ministry of Environment Wildlife and Parks, and only for purposes
of approved research. The regulations for the sanctuary have been drafted, which include provision for a buffer
zone around the sanctuary that will promote controlled and well-managed tourism activities that will bene t the
surrounding communities.
In addition, the completion of Makgadikgadi Framework Management Plan for the entire wetland means that
improved integrated management and sustainable development in the area, with effective conservation and
appropriate management of its resources, including its biodiversity will be formally promoted. Approval of the plan
by the government late in the year means that implementation of the plan will start in 2011.
The Okavango has also seen some improvements in site-speci c management actions, e.g. continued and improved
legislative management implementation, as a result of the 2008 implementation of the Okavango Management Plan
and the actions of the Bio-Okavango project in forming strategic partnerships with various institutes and NGOs, and
conducting various implementing activities in and around the delta. In addition, the funding and establishment of
a ve year project to implement basin-wide Integrated Water Resource Management of the Okavango River basin,
funded by USAID, called SAREP will form the implementation phase of the tri-party OKACOM agreement between
Botswana, Namibia and Angola. This is a huge plus for the future management and conservation of the Okavango
Delta’s biodiversity.
Figure 6. IBA response indicator scores collated from the data forms for each IBA in 2010.
17
4.1.4 Pressure, State and Response Trends
Records received from the IBAs have decreased considerably since 2009, with very few gures for trigger species
numbers in 2010. The information received was, however, adequate to successfully assess the state of habitat
condition, the current state of pressures and make a good assessment of the conservation and management
activities that are either being developed or being implemented in the ve of the country’s protected IBAs.
Biodiversity at protected IBAs, as shown by birds as a proxy, appears to be generally getting better, although
considerable increased pressures threaten them and their biodiversity, compared to 2008 and 2009 (Figure 8).
Considerable efforts are being maintained by BLB, the government and others to curb these pressures, leading
to some signi cant successful progression towards long-term protection and appropriate management of the
country’s protected IBAs and elevating the overall response score in 2010 compared to the previous two years
(Figure 8).
Figure 8. State, Pressure and Response trends since 2008.
18
5. Conclusions
In conclusion, records received from IBAs have decreased considerably since 2009, with very few gures for trigger
species numbers. The information received was, however, adequate to successfully assess the state of habitat
condition, the current state of pressures and make a good assessment of the conservation and management
activities that are either being developed or being implemented in ve of the country’s protected IBAs. Biodiversity
at protected areas, as shown by birds as a proxy, remains stable, although considerable increased pressures threaten
them and their habitat, while considerable conservation efforts are being maintained by BLB, the government and
others to curb these pressures, leading to some signi cant successful progression towards long-term protection
and appropriate management of the country’s protected IBAs.
The main concerns that need immediate effective intervention remain in the form of wildlife and habitat destruction
from re, poisoning, over shing and water pollution, with mining coming out as a serious potential threat in the
future. There are some encouraging positives with the successful establishment of protected areas and management
planning progress and these actions and activities will certainly help maintain biodiversity in these IBAs in the future.
In addition, great progress has been made in strengthening partnerships between BirdLife Botswana, Botswana’s
Department of Wildlife and National Parks, and the Department of Environmental Affairs. As well as strengthening
and coordinating biodiversity monitoring in protected areas, this report has been used as one of the key indicators
used in the governments annual CBD reports. Valuable relations have been forged and maintained with community
based Site Support Groups, independent researchers, private tourism operators, and the general public, all of
whom have contributed considerably to this monitoring programme.
This IBA status and trends report is a national tool that can and should be used to guide decision making, development
planning, enhance collaborative partnerships and reporting on international obligations including the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD). To this effect, great progress has been made in strengthening partnerships between
BirdLife Botswana, Botswana’s Department of Wildlife and National Parks, and the Department of Environmental
Affairs. As well as strengthening and coordinating biodiversity monitoring in protected areas, this report has been
used as one of the key indicators used in the governments annual CBD reports. In addition, valuable relations have
been forged and maintained with community based Site Support Groups, independent researchers, private tourism
operators, and the general public, all of whom have contributed considerably to this monitoring programme.
19
6. Recommendations
BIRDLIFE BOTSWANA
1. An update of the protected IBAs trigger species lists is required per site to take into account the new additions of
threatened species to the IUCN Red Data list.
2. Efforts are required to de ne the IBA boundaries of some of the IBAs where boundaries are arbitrary and PA
overlap is unclear, based on new research and PA management planning that have occurred since IBA identi cation
in 1998. Remote sensing and GIS techniques would be invaluable in this regard.
3. Further training is needed on IBA monitoring and bird identi cation (trigger species), as well as data management
among some of the stakeholders, particularly the DWNP given the frequency of staff turnover and the inconsistency
of reporters and report quality as a result.
4. Improved co-ordination of and relations with the DWNP participants to ensure adequate form completion, quality
control and timely submission, providing additional support to the DWNP focal point coordinator.
5. Site Monitoring Committees remains an area needing improvement. BirdLife should focus further concerted
efforts in this direction to establish key SSGs where they are urgently required or support those already existing by
way of additional participatory involvement encouragement and co-ordination, and capacity building.
6. Improved efforts to increased the scope of and incorporate the Common Bird Monitoring (CBM) System into
the monitoring programme, as it has great potential to include bi-annual trigger species monitoring during CBM
transects.
7. Additional nancial and human resources support should be sourced from stakeholders in the implementation of
the programme and to ensure the sustainability of the monitoring.
8. Improve on the co-ordination and the platform for participants to give feedback on their involvement, and
identify ways of motivating participants to continue monitoring.
9. Organize exchange visits for community participants so that best monitoring practices can be shared and interest
is encouraged and improved.
10. Improve the monitoring programme by paying more attention/training and informing recorders to recording
potentially serious pressure and impacts, like indicators of mining pressure, for example.
Department of Wildlife and National Parks
11. Considerable efforts are required to ensure adequate form completion, quality control and timely submission
of forms by particpants from the DWNP at each protected IBA. Improved coordination by the DWNP focal point
coordinator will help in this regard.
12. Before monitoring can be extended to unprotected IBAs, the system needs to show more signs of it being
sustainable and engaging more recorders. DWNP could be extended to protected areas that are not IBAs rst, which
would satisfy the CBD requirements on biodiversity status in the protected areas. This would also help involve more
of cers and spread and improve monitoring capacity among DWNP of cials.
13. The IBA global monitoring framework adoption in the DWNP could be improved by its further and sustainable
incorporation into the general MOMS system, thereby, assisting the latter programme’s effectiveness and successful
implementation.
14. The most important threats, especially res, poisoning, over- shing and water pollution, should be acted upon
through speci c focused management interventions in the respective PAs by District wildlife of cers and their
subordinates;
• Fire management needs considerable improvement in order to reduce the destruction of biodiversity, through
effective clearing of re breaks, back burning and improved patrolling practices (camp re management) and
community awareness of the dangers of re mismanagement;
20
• Improved Human-Wildlife Con ict mitigation measures should include the enforcement of the ban on
illegal pesticides used to kill predators and scavengers in the community surrounding PAs and nation-wide
in general. Outreach programs could include submission of poisons for compensation, or other strategies to
curb their use and the shocking slaughter of vultures and other raptors, as well as mammalian scavengers;
• Bio-Okavango have implemented a project in the Okavango to identify and raise awareness of No-go shing
areas, in order to provide refuges for sh stocks and enforce the shing ban during the sh breeding season.
This project can be implemented by DWNP along waterways in the respective PAs at some of the other IBA
sites.
21
REFERENCES
Anonymous (2009). Botswana’s Fourth National Report to the Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD). MEWT,
Botswana Government.
Barnes , K.N (ed) 1998. ‘The Important Areas of southern Africa’. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg.
Bennun, L. (2002) The interface between research, education and training. Pp. 224–245 in Norris, K. and
Pain, D. Conserving bird biodiversity: general principles and their application. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press (Cambridge Conservation Biology Series 7).
BirdLife Botswana. 2007. Important Bird Areas monitoring report, Babbler Special Supplement No. 2.
BirdLife International. 2004. State of the World’s Birds 2004: Indicators for Our Changing World. BirdLife
International. Cambridge, UK.
BirdLife International (2006) Monitoring Important Bird Areas: a global framework. Cambridge, UK. BirdLife
International. Version 1.2. Compiled by Leon Bennun, Ian Bur eld, Lincoln Fishpool, Szabolcs Nagy & Alison
Statters eld.
Owino, A.O. et al (2001) Patterns of variation in waterbird numbers on four Rift Valley lakes in Kenya, 1991-1999,
Hydrobiologia, 458:45-53
Tyler, S. (2001). A review of waterbird counts in Botswana, 1991-2000. Babbler Special Supplement No. 1. BirdLife
Botswana. Gaborone.
Tyler, S. & Bishop (1998). ‘Important Bird Areas of Botswana’; In: ‘The Important Bird Areas of southern Africa’,
Barnes, K.N (ed) pp 333-354. BirdLife South Africa, Johannesburg
22
APPENDIX I: Degree of protected area coverage and other management
designations for seven protected IBAs in Botswana.
IBA Protected Area Management Plan Status of the
management plan
Size of the IBA
in Ha
% of IBA
protected
Chobe Chobe National
Park
2002 (Final Draft) Outdated, but
appropriate for the
objectives set
1 069 800 100
Linyanti Chobe National
Park &
Chobe Forest
Reserve
2002 (Final Draft)
None
Outdated, but
appropriate for the
objectives set
20000 Unknown/
no well
de ned
boundaries
Okavango Delta Moremi Game
Reserve
Okavango Delta
Management
Plan area
2006 (Final Draft)
Okavango Delta
Management Plan
Not yet approved
Approved and
implemented since
2008
1 900 000 25% of the
IBA area:
(487100)
Makgadikgadi
Pans
Makgadikgadi
Pans and Nxai
Pan National
Park (‘The Pans
Parks’)
&
Nata Bird
Sanctuary
Flamingo
Sanctuary
Makgadikgadi
Wetlands
2006
2008,
Flam Sanctuary
Regulations
Makgadikgadi
Framework M P
(MFMP) 2010
Pans Parks MP
approved, but out
dated.
Nata Bird Sanctuary
MP: approved
Draft
Complete and
Approved
1 200 000 IBA
boundary
not clearly
de ned but
Pans Parks
is 62% of
IBA area
(747800)
Nata Bird
Sanctuary:
1.7%
(20000)
100%
covered by
MFMP area
(3,645,200)
Central Kalahari
Game Reserve
Central Kalahari
Game Reserve
2003 (Final draft) Not yet approved
and out dated, but
appropriate for
objectives
5 600 000 100
Mannyelanong Mannyelanong
Game Reserve
1997 ( nal draft) Outdated.
Appropriate for the
objectives set
c. 100 100
Kgalagadi
Trans-frontier
Park
Kgalagadi Trans-
frontier Park
1997 (Approved) Outdated.
Tourism development
framework in 2006.
Appropriate for the
objectives
2 840 000 100
23
APPENDIX II: List of Trigger Species found in the seven protected IBAs
in Botswana.
IBA ‘Trigger’ Species
Chobe NaƟ onal
Park
Okavango Delta
Central Kalahari
Game Reserve
Kgalagadi Trans-
fronƟ er Park
Mannyelanong
Game Reserve
Makgadikgadi
Pans
LinyanƟ Swamps
/ Chobe River
Lesser Kestrel X X X X X X X
Pallid Harrier X X X X X
Racket-tailed Roller X X X
Kalahari Scrub-Robin X X X X X X
Broad-tailed Paradise Whydah X X
Brad eld’s Hornbill X X X X
Barred Wren-Warbler X X X X X
Coppery-tailed Coucal X X X
Kurrichane Thrush X X X X
White-bellied Sunbird X X X X X
Woolly-necked Stork X
Lappet-faced Vulture. X X X X X
Dickinson’s Kestrel X X
Chirping Cisticola X X X
Burchell’s Starling X X X
Burchell’s Sandgrouse X X X X X
Arnot’s Chat X X X X
Meves’s Starling X X X X
Hartlaub’s Babbler X X X X
Stierling’s Wren-Warbler X X X
Marabou Stork X X X
Lesser Moorhen X
Cape Vulture X X X X X
Slaty Egret X X
Corn Crake X
Black-winged Pratincole X X X X
Sharp-tailed Glossy Starling X
Great Egret X X
Squacco Heron X
Saddle-billed Stork X
White-backed Duck X
24
Lesser Jacana X
Black-crowned Night-Heron X
African Darter X X
Little Egret X
African Skimmer X
Yellow-billed Egret X
Woolly-necked Stork X
Red-billed Teal X
Cattle Egret X
African Sacred Ibis X
Wattled Crane X X X
Brown Fire nch X
Great White Pelican X X
Rufous-bellied Heron X X
African Pygmy-Goose X
Collared Pratincole X
Goliath Heron X
Black Heron X
African Openbill X
African Spoonbill X X
Spur-winged Goose X
Little Bittern X
Fulvous Duck X
Long-toed Lapwing X
White-backed Night-Heron X
Allen’s Gallinule X
Denham’s Bustard X
Sociable Weaver X
Lesser Flamingo X
Chestnut-banded Plover X
Greater Flamingo X
Kittlitz’s Plover X
White-throated Robin X
White-headed Vulture X
White-backed Vulture X X
Hottentot Teal X
Miombo Rock Thrush X
25
APPENDIX III: An example of a completed data for 2010 from for one
of the IBAs: the Okavango Delta
MONITORING FORM / IMPORTANT BIRD AREAS IN BOTSWANA
PART 1. (Please use a different form for each site)
Name of the IBA: Okavango Delta Date: 2010
Name of recorder (your name): P Hancock
Postal address: PO Box 20463, Maun.
Telephone/fax: 6865618 E-mail: birdlifemaun@gmail.com
1. Period of assessment. From: 1st January To: 31st December, 2010
2. What does this form cover? (Tick a.or b)
(a) The whole IBA (b) Just part of the IBA
If (b), which part/how much of the whole area?
2. Do you live in or around the IBA? (Tick a or b)
(a) Yes (b) No
If (b) when did you visit the IBA and for how long?
What was the reason for your visit(s)? Checking IBA status, and monitoring waterbirds.
PART 2.
STATE OF THE IBA (CONDITION OF THE BIRD POPULATIONS AND HABITAT)
General comments on condition of the site and any changes since your last assessment (if relevant):
Limited monitoring shows that the State, Pressures and Responses in this IBA have not changed signi cantly since
the previous assessment. It is likely that the State has improved signi cantly with the return of the high ood levels
of the 1960s and 1970s since the Delta will has increased substantially in size, but there are no data to support or
refute this (circumstantial evidence comes from improved breeding of some trigger species at traditional heronries).
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW
Give details wherever possible.
Return a completed form once a year if you are
resident at a site or a regular visitor, but note that
relevant information is helpful, at any time.
Consider making use of sketch maps as an
additional means of recording key results,
such as the precise location & extent of threat,
sightings of key species, extent of particular
habitats, routes taken and areas surveyed etc.
Return the completed form to your
nearestBirdLife Botswana of ce.
Relevance of this monitoring process;
It is an objective, quantitative measure of
bird diversity (as part of biodiversity) that
will contribute to achieving the Botswana
Government’s commitment to the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD)
Effective and sustainable monitoring of
biodiversity in Important Bird Areas
To contribute to informed decision making at
all levels
26
1. If you have estimates or counts of bird populations, or other information on the important bird species (trigger
species) at the IBA, please summarize these in the table below:
Bird species / group Population estimates
(Indicate whether individuals
or pairs)
Details/other comments e.g. trend
1 Wattled Crane 1,300 No monitoring but population stable or
increasing due to large oods.
2 Slaty Egret 4,000 No monitoring but population stable or
increasing due to large oods.
3 Lappet-faced Vulture Monitoring results not yet available
4 White-headed Vulture Monitoring results not yet available
5 White-backed Vulture Monitoring results not yet available
6 Southern Ground-
Hornbill
Not monitored
7 African Skimmer Breeding success good during 2010.
8 Bateleur Monitoring results not yet available
9 Martial Eagle Monitoring results not yet available
10 Black-winged Pratincole Monitoring results not yet available
11 Great White Pelican Population believed to be stable
12 Goliath Heron Breeding success good during 2010
13 Saddle-billed Stork Not monitored – population believed to be
stable
14 African Darter Monitoring results not yet available
15 African Openbill Breeding success very good due to high oods –
there has been an irruption of this species
16 Marabou Stork Breeding success good during 2010
17 Great Egret Breeding success good during 2010; new
colonies found
18 Squacco Heron Breeding success good during 2010 – new
breeding site found.
2. If you have information on the area of the natural habitats important for bird populations at the IBA, please
summarize it below. Please note any major changes since the last assessment in the ‘details’ column.
27
Habitat Current area if known
(include units, e.g. ha,
km2, or use codes*)
Details/other comments/major changes
1 Wetland About 20,000 km2 =
Good
The Okavango Delta has doubled in size over the
past two years due to high ood levels, increasing
the available habitat for all waterbirds and, in known
cases, boosting their populations considerably.
2
*Habitat area codes: Good (>90%) Moderate (70-90%) Poor (40-70%) Very poor (<40%)
If you do not know the actual habitat area, give your best assessment of the current habitat area at the site, in
relation to its potential optimum if the site was undisturbed. The percentages are given as guidelines only: use your
best estimate. Please justify your coding in the ‘details’ column.
3. If you have information on the quality of the natural habitats important for bird populations at the IBA, please
summarize it below. Please note any major changes since the last assessment in the ‘details’ column.
Habitat Quality rating Details/other comments/major changes
1 Wetland Good The wetland has ooded naturally with no human
interference.
*Habitat quality rating: Good (>90%) Moderate (70-90%) Poor (40-70%) Very poor (<40%)
Give your best assessment of the average habitat quality across the site, in terms of its suitability for the important
bird species. The percentage ranges relate to the population density of the ‘trigger’ species in its key habitat. Thus
100% means that the species is at carrying capacity in its habitat. The percentages are given as guidelines only: use
your best estimate. Please justify your selection in the ‘details’ column.
PART 3. THREATS TO THE IBA (PRESSURE)
General comments on threats to the site and any changes since your last assessment (if any):
In the table on the next few pages, please score each threat that is relevant to the trigger species in the IBA,
based on your observations and information, for Timing, Scope and Severity. In the details column, please describe
the threat in your own words and explain your scoring. Please note any changes in individual threats since the last
assessment. If threats apply only to particular bird species, please say so.
Use the following guidelines to assign scores for Timing, Scope and Severity. The numbers are there to help you
score, but are intended as guidance only; you don’t need exact measurements to assign a score. For scoring
combined threats Timing, Scope and Severity scores should either be equal to or more than the highest scores for
individual threats; scores cannot be less than those allocated to individual threats.
0123
Timing of selected
threat
Past, unlikely to
return, no longer
happening
Likely in long term
(beyond four years)
Likely in short term
(within four years)
Happening now
Scope of selected
threat
Small area/few
individuals (<10%)
Some of the area/
population (10-50%)
Most of the area/
population (50-90%)
Whole area/
population (>90%)
Severity
(Over 10 years
or 3 generations,
whichever is longer)
No or imperceptible
deterioration (<1%)
Slow deterioration
(1-10%)
Moderate
deterioration (10-
30%)
Rapid deterioration
(>30%)
28
Choose from one of the standard categories below
1. Agricultural expansion and intensi cation. Threats from farming and ranching as a result of agricultural
expansion and intensi cation. Note that agricultural pest control and agricultural pollution-speci c problems are
covered by 5 and 9 respectively, below.
2. Residential and commercial development. Threats from human settlement or other non-agricultural land-
uses with a substantial ‘footprint’; resulting in habitat destruction and degradation, also causing mortality
through collision. Note that domestic or industrial pollution-speci c problems are covered by 9 below.
3. Energy production and mining. Threats from production of non-biological resources; resulting in habitat
destruction and degradation, also causing mortality through collision.
4. Transportation and service corridors. Threats from long, narrow transport corridors and the vehicles that
use them, resulting in habitat destruction and degradation, disturbance and collision.
5. Over-exploitation, persecution and control. Threats from consumptive use of wild biological resources
including both deliberate and unintentional harvesting effects; also persecution or control of speci c species.
Note that hunting includes egg-collecting, and gathering includes rewood collection.
6. Human intrusions and disturbance. Threats from human activities that alter, disturb and destroy habitats
and species, associated with non-consumptive uses of biological resources.
7. Natural system modi cations. Threats from actions that convert or degrade habitat in service of managing
natural or semi-natural systems, often to improve human welfare. Note that ‘other ecosystem modi cations’
includes intensi cation of forest management, abandonment of managed lands, reduction of land management,
and under gazing. ‘Dams and water management/use’ includes construction and impact of dykes/dams/
barrages, lling in of wetlands, groundwater abstraction, drainage, dredging and canalization.
8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes. Threats from non-native and native plants, animals,
pathogens and microbes, or genetic materials that have or are predicted to have harmful effects on biodiversity
(through mortality of species or alteration of habitats (following their introduction, spread and/or increase in
abundance).
9. Pollution. Threats from introduction of exotic and/or excess materials, causing mortality of species and/or alteration
of habitats. Note that domestic and/or urban waste water includes sewage and run-off; industrial ef uents includes oil
spills and seepage from mining; agricultural ef uents and practices includes nutrient loads, soil erosion, sedimentation,
high fertilizer input, excessive use of chemicals and salinisation; and air-borne pollutants includes acid rain.
10. Geological events. Threats from catastrophic geological events that have the potential to cause severe damage to
habitats and species.
11. Climate change and severe weather. Threats from long-term climatic changes which may be linked to global
warming and other severe climatic/weather events.
Type of threat Scores Details
Give speci c details
Timing
Scope
Severity
1. Agricultural expansion and intensi cation
Annual crops – shifting agriculture
- small-holder farming
- commercial farming 1 0 1 There is a potential problem with enrichment
of the waters from fertilizers used upstream in
Namibia and/or Angola, that could result in
changes in water quality that would gradually
effect the Delta.
Perennial non-timber crops – small holdings
- commercial
Wood plantations – small holdings
- commercial
Livestock farming and ranching - subsistence
- small holding
- commercial
Aquaculture – subsistence
29
Type of threat Scores Details
Give speci c details
Timing
Scope
Severity
2. Residential and commercial development
Housing and urban areas
.
Commercial and industrial areas
Tourism and recreation areas
3. Energy production and mining
Oil drilling
Mining and quarrying
Renewable energy
4. Transportation and service corridors
Roads and railroads
Utility and service lines
Flight paths
5. Over-exploitation, persecution and control of species
Direct mortality of ‘trigger’ species
- hunting and trapping
- persecution/control
Indirect mortality (by catch) of ‘trigger’ species
- hunting
Habitat effects – hunting and trapping
- gathering plants
- logging
- shing and harvesting aquatic
resources
311
Over-exploitation of sh resource e.g. at
Chanoga lagoon, could impact negatively
on piscivorous birds. Fishermen also burn
oodplains prior to incoming oods to clear
vegetation so that they can more easily use
their nets.
6. Human intrusions and disturbance
Recreational activities 3 0 0 There is increased boat and air traf c due to
steadily expanding tourism activities.
War, civil unrest and military exercises
Work and other activities
7. Natural system modi cations
30
Type of threat Scores Details
Give speci c details
Timing
Scope
Severity
Fire and re suppression 3 1 1 Uncontrolled res still continue in the IBA
and, coupled with high elephant density, can
destroy reedbeds used by colonially nesting
waterbirds. Fishermen also burn oodplains
prior to incoming oods (see above).
Dams and water management/use
Other ecosystem modi cations
8. Invasive and other problematic species and genes
Invasive alien species
Problematic native species 3 0 1 There is a high density of elephants in the
IBA which has a signi cant impact on trees,
particularly some species used preferentially
by nesting raptors.
Introduced genetic material
9. Pollution
Domestic and urban waste water
Industrial and military ef uents
Agricultural ef uents 3 0 1 Selective spraying of the interior of houses in
the Delta with DDT to eradicate mosquitos
could have wider impacts if not managed
properly.
Garbage and solid waste
Air-borne pollutants
Noise pollution
Thermal pollution
Light pollution
10. Geological events
Earthquakes
11. Climate change and severe weather
Habitat shifting and alteration
Drought
Temperature extremes
Storms and oods
12. Other
31
Type of threat Scores Details
Give speci c details
Timing
Scope
Severity
Poisoning of some trigger species e.g. vultures and
other raptors
3 2 2 During 2010 there have been some incidences
of deliberate and incidental poisoning of
vultures and other raptors.
PART 4. CONSERVATION ACTIONS TAKEN AT THE IBA (RESPONSE)
1. General comments on action taken at the site, including recent changes or developments
Very little conservation action was taken during 2010 either by BirdLife Botswana or the Bosele Lake Ngami
Conservation Trust. The Trust is still functional but is hamstrung by political and administrative issues relating to
the existence of a second Trust in the area.
2. Please place a tick next to the text that applies for each of conservation designation, management planning and
conservation action below. Please add any details and where appropriate give a brief explanation for your choice.
CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Whole area of IBA (>90%) covered by appropriate conservation designation
Most of IBA 50–90%) covered (including the most critical parts for the important bird species)
Some of IBA covered (10–49%)
Little/none of IBA covered (<10%)
Details and explanation
Part of the IBA is formally protected in Moremi Game Reserve; the surrounding concession areas are well-
managed for photographic tourism and enjoy de facto protection. The whole area is designated as a RAMSAR
site.
MANAGEMENT PLANNING
A comprehensive and appropriate management plan exists that aims to maintain or improve the populations
of qualifying species (‘trigger’ species)
A management plan exists but it is out of date or not comprehensive
No management plan exists but the management planning process has begun
No management planning has taken place
Details and explanation
A comprehensive management plan exits for the RAMSAR site, and this includes components related to
trigger species such as the Slaty Egret. Due to the current economic climate, there were less funds available
for environmental management during 2010.
CONSERVATION ACTION
The conservation measures needed for the site are being comprehensively and effectively implemented
Substantive conservation measures are being implemented but these are not comprehensive and are limited
by resources and capacity
Some limited conservation initiatives are in place (e.g. action by Local Conservation Groups)
Very little or no conservation action is taking place
Details and explanation
More conservation action is needed for trigger species speci cally.
The process of listing the Okavango Delta as a World Heritage Site was initiated during 2010, and BirdLife
Botswana is formally contributing to the process.
32
ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN AT THE IBA
Notes on action types:
1. Land/water protection Actions to identify/establish or expand parks and other legally protected areas.
2. Land/water management Actions directed at conserving or restoring sites, habitats and the wider environment.
3. Species management Actions directed at managing or restoring species, focused on the species of concern
itself.
4. Education and awareness Actions directed at people to improve understanding and skills, and in uence
behaviour.
5. Law and Policy Actions to develop, change, in uence and help implement formal legislation, regulations
(including at the community level), and voluntary standards.
6. Livelihood, economic and other incentives Actions to use economic and other incentives and to in uence
behaviour.
7. External capacity-building Actions to build infrastructure resulting in better conservation, including through
civil society development (e.g. enhancing community role in decision-making on natural resource use)
ACTION TYPES Action being undertaken by: DETAILS
ASCBO
Government
BirdLife
partner
Others
(specify)
1. Land/water protection
Site/area protection The private sector (safari
companies) contributes to
protection of the IBA
Resource & habitat protection Sectoral bodies are
responsible for protection
of the site e.g. Wildlife Dept.
is responsible for wildlife,
Dept. of Forestry and Range
Resources is responsible for
forests and rangelands etc.
2. Land/water management
General site/area management The private sector (safari
companies) contributes to
management of the IBA
Invasive/problematic species
control
Habitat & natural process
restoration
3. Species management
General species management
Species recovery
Species (re)introduction
4. Education & awareness
Formal education
Training
33
Awareness, publicity &
communications
5. Law & policy
Public legislation
Policies and regulations
Private sector standards & codes
Compliance, enforcement &
policing
6. Livelihood, economic & other
incentives
Linked enterprises & livelihood
alternatives (e.g. ecotourism)
Substitution (alternative
products to reduce pressure)
Market forces (e.g. certi cation)
Conservation payments
Non-monetary values (e.g.
spiritual, cultural)
7. Capacity building
Institutional & civil society
development
Alliance and partnership
development
Conservation nance
8. Other (e.g. surveys,
monitoring, research, EIAs)
1 Waterbird monitoring BirdLife Botswana conducts
biannual African Waterbird
Counts and Common Bird
Monitoring in the IBA.
2
PART V. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Thank you for partnering with us to conserve birds and biodiversity.
BirdLife Botswana BirdLife Botswana
Gaborone Of ce MaunOf ce
Private Bag 003, Suite 348 P O Box 1529
Mogoditshane, Gaborone Maun
Tel: +267 319 0540/1. Tel: +267 6865618
34
APPENDIX IV: List of contributors to the 2010 records
Recorder Organization Site for which
information has been
availed
Name Sector
Glynis Humphrey Okavango Wilderness
Safaris
Private Sector Xigera, Chiefs Island
Kgalalelo Moagi Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Makgadikgadi Pans
Onkgopotse July Khwai Development Trust Community (Site
Support Group)
Okavango Delta
Marcus Kajuusa Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Makgadikgadi Pans
Ishmael Sikwane Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Moremi Game Reserve
Elizabeth Sefako Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Moremi Game Reserve
Okar Setswalo Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Okavango Delta
Sylvester Masimega Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Okavango Delta
Lucas Johannes Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Central Kalahari Game
Reserve
Justin Soupo Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Khutse Game Reserve
(included with Central
Kalahari Game Reserve)
John Mosenya Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Khutse Game Reserve
(included with Central
Kalahari Game Reserve)
Bethuel Direng Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Khutse Game Reserve
(included with Central
Kalahari Game Reserve)
Morui Kebiditswe Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Central Kalahari Game
Reserve
Oreemetswe
Dingake
Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Central Kalahari Game
Reserve
Mr Ntema Okavango Delta
Batshabi R Boikanyo Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Chobe National Park
Mothusi Jenamiso Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Chobe National Park
Benjamin Setlhong Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Moremi Game Reserve
Mothonyane
Kobamelo
Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Moremi Game Reserve
K Moroba Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Chobe National Park
Madimabe M E Bosele Lake Ngami
Conservation Trust
Community (Site
Support Group0
Lake Ngami
Zenzele Mpofu Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Makgadikgadi Pans,
Okavango Delta
35
Rebecca Ryan Makgadikgadi Pans
Onalenna Selema Department of Wildlife and
National Parks
Parks Authority Okavango Delta
Stephanie Tyler BirdLife Botswana WI Waterfowl Counts
Coordinator
All wetlands
Chris Brewster BirdLife Botswana Scienti c Committee &
Rarities Comm
Mannyelanong and South
East records
Pete Hancock BirdLife Botswana Maun Branch Okavango, Makgadikgad &
Lake Ngami
Keddy Mooketsa BirdLife Botswana Common Bird
MOnitoring
All IBAs
Graham McCulloch Independent Researcher Sua Pan Flamingo
Research
Makgadikgadi
Pete Laver Independent Researcher Chobe NP Research Chobe NP
Neil Taylor BirdLife Botswana Non Governmental
Organization
Makgadikgadi Pans, Central
Kalahari Game Reserve
Motshereganyi Virat
Kootsositse
BirdLife Botswana IBA Monitoring Chobe National Park,
Makgadikgadi Pans, Central
Kalahari Game Reserve
Lesego Ratsie BirdLife Botswana IBA Monitoring All
Benjamin Noga Cape Vulture
Environmental Club
Community (Site
Support Group)
Mannyelanong Game Reserve
Moemedi Letshabo Cape Vulture
Environmental Club
Community (Site
Support Group)
Mannyelanong Game Reserve
Ofentse Nthai Cape Vulture
Environmental Club
Community (Site
Support Group)
Mannyelanong Game Reserve
36
APPENDIX V:
List of Bird species of national concern in Botswana, indicating those that are Vulnerable (VU)
or Near Threatened (NT) in the IUCN Red Data List (2009), and those other species and bird
groups protected under law by the Wildlife Conservation and National Parks Act 1992.
Species, New names: Roberts 7 Birds of National
Concern IUCN Status Protected under
Wildlife Act 1992
Lesser Kestrel C VU Protected
Wattled Crane C VU Protected
Lappet-faced Vulture C VU Protected
Cape Vulture C VU Protected
White-headed Vulture C VU Protected
Lesser Flamingo C NT Protected
Chestnut-banded Plover C NT Protected
Black-winged Pratincole C NT Protected
European Roller C NT Protected
Maccoa Duck C NT Protected
Pallid Harrier C NT Protected
White-backed Vulture C NT Protected
Martial Eagle C Protected
Bateleur C Protected
Kori Bustard C Protected
Southern Ground-Hornbill C Protected
Slaty Egret C Protected
Hooded Vulture C Protected
Grey Crowned Crane C Protected
Hamerkop Protected
Secretarybird Protected
African Spoonbill Protected
All eagles Protected
All buzzards Protected
All kites Protected
All vultures Protected
All harriers Protected
All sparrowhawks Protected
All herons Protected
All egrets Protected
All falcons Protected
All goshawks Protected
All ibises Protected
All pelicans Protected
All storks Protected
All bitterns Protected
