1.0 INTRODUCTION
At the independence era Botswana was amongst the world’s poorest countries. The country was dependent on Britain to finance its budget. With the discovery of diamonds in 1967, 1972 and 1975 in Orapa, Jwaneng and Letlhakane respectively; Botswana became middle-income country departing the status of being poor country. Despite being middle-income country Botswana still finds itself confined with the problem of poverty. The government has designed numerous programmes and policies to redress the problem of poverty such as; Tribal Grazing Land Policy (TGLP), ALDEP, CEDA and SMME. Despite these programmes and policies poverty continues to persist in the country. Recognizing the problem President Seretse Khama Ian Khama on his inauguration day April 1st 2008 he said his government will come up with initiatives to redress the problem. In 2008 and in subsequent years his government has been known for promoting Ipelegeng programme as poverty eradication mechanism.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss the causes of poverty, policies aimed at alleviating or reducing poverty. The paper will also discuss the successes and failures of those policies. The paper will take the following structure; it will commence by defining the key term poverty. It will then discuss the causes of poverty in Botswana. Thirdly the paper will policies taken by Botswana government address the problem of poverty in the country. The paper will specifically discuss Ipelegeng and Tribal Grazing Land Policy as programme and policy aimed at alleviating poverty. The paper will discuss their successes and failures. Lastly the paper will give a conclusion which is sum up the whole essay.
2.0 DEFINITION OF THE KEY TERM
2.01 POVERTY
According to Alock (1993) poverty means ‘going short materially, socially and emotionally. It means spending less on food, in heating and on clothing than someone on average income’Above all poverty takes away the tools to build the blocks for the future- your ‘life chances’. It steals away the opportunity to have a life unmarked by sickness, a decent education, a secure home and long retirement’ (Alock 1993:3).
Siphambe (2003) define poverty as ‘pronounced deprivation of well-being. The poor lack adequate food and shelter, education and health and are often vulnerable to adverse events outside their control. They are also often treated badly by the institutions of the state and society and excluded from power in those institutions’ (Siphambe 2003:19).
3.0 CAUSES OF POVERTY IN BOTSWANA
Lack of ownership of productive assets such as livestock which is mainly cattle is a significant cause of poverty in the country (Siphambe 2003:23). Osei-Hwedie states that distribution of cattle is skewed; the poorest 71% of traditional farmers own only 8% of traditional herds whilst the richest who make population of 2.5% own 40% (Osei-Hwedie 2004: 10). Hence lack ownership of cattle brings about poverty.
Another cause of poverty in the country is harsh climate conditions. Botswana has semi-arid climate; is an area characterized by low erratic rainfall of up to 700mm per annum and periodic droughts, agricultural harvest are irregular and grazing is satisfactory (CASL). As a result such a harsh climate there has been great decline in traditional Agriculture (Osei-Hwedie 2004:10). The failure to produce food culminates into poverty.
According to Siphambe (2003) poverty in Botswana is to some extent is a result of unemployment and underemployment problem (Siphambe 2003:23). Unemployment is a result of Botswana’s narrow economic base that has contributed to poverty in the country. Mining is the most relatively capital capital-intensive and the remaining sectors are unable to provide sufficient employment (Jefferis 1999:217). The failure to find a job leads to poverty.
Furthermore lack of education and skills is another cause of poverty in the country (Siphambe 2003:23). Better paying and conducive employment is in the formal sector require educated and skilled human resource. Hence as a result of lack education and skills the poor cannot get jobs in the formal sector. Therefore they cannot earn living, thus they are poor.
Lastly a cause of poverty in Botswana is the decline in traditional mechanisms such as extended families and mafisa (Siphambe 2003:23). Historically Batswana lived in extended families and there were able to pool economic resources together and hence kept them above poverty line. Nowadays Batswana live in nuclear families and in such families there is no pooling of resources together. Therefore this results in poverty. Similarly through mafisa poverty was kept at its limits, mafisa is a traditional practice looking after someone’s cattle in return the caretaker will be rewarded with a calve or by milk for his consumption.
4.0 POLICIES AIMED AT ALLEVIATING/ REDUCING POVERTY
4.01 IPELEGENG
Ipelegeng is labour-intensive public work programme and a social safety net mechanism for the poor (Sekwati 2010:23). The programme has been in existence since independence and has changed name to keep up with modern trends (Molosiwa 2013:16). It was conceptualized as poverty eradication strategy under the leadership of the president (Sekwati 2010:24).
In 2009 there was re-occurrence of unfavourable hydro-climate conditions and low employment opportunities; the government decided to run the Ipelegeng program on permanent basis in both rural and urban districts and the programme was inclusive to all ministries (Sekwati 2010). The program’s objectives were to; ‘to provide relief to beneficiaries, carryout essential development projects that have been identified and prioritized through the normal development planning process’ (Molosiwa 2013:17).
Ipelegeng targeted vulnerable, disadvantaged or destitute persons and people with no source of income (Molosiwa 2010:41). The projects undertaken with the aim to alleviate and reduce poverty through Ipelegeng included; ‘maintenance of primary and secondary school facilities, health facilities, staff houses and government offices, desilting of dams and storm water drain, street sweeping, bush clearing and grass cutting in public places and finally debushing of roads and fire breaks’ (Molosiwa 2010:17).
4.02 TRIBAL GRAZING LAND POLICY (TGLP)
Tribal Grazing Land Policy is another policy initiated by Botswana government to reduce poverty in the country; by reducing the gap between the rich and the poor. Its origins can traced to Sir Seretse Khama’s speech in 1975, he said ‘As human population and cattle numbers increase there is great danger that grazing will be destroyed by uncontrolled use of communal grazing areas’unless if livestock number are tied to specific grazing areas no one has an incentive to control grazing. We are faced with a situation which demands our action’ (Frimpong 1995:3). The policy was viewed as a major programme through which rural development was to be released (Fidzani 1998:237).
TGLP aims were; to control the widespread of overgrazing by creating leasehold ranches for large cattle owners out of the already overstocked communal areas; to increase cattle productivity and reduce income gap between the rich and the poor by giving them more grazing land (Malope 2008:385). According to Keijsper (1993) the policy sought to protect non- and small cattle owners (Keijsper 1993:324). TGLP sought to improve equity in communal areas (Malope 2008:184).
According to Tsimako (1991) TGLP was implemented in six districts; Ngwaketse, Kweneng, Kgalagadi, Ghanzi and Ngamiland (Tsimako 1991:7). Under the TGLP tribal grazing areas were demarcated into commercial and communal farming areas. In the latter areas individual with large number of cattle were granted exclusive rights to fence and rear their cattle over a specific place for 50 years on leasehold basis (Malope 2008:386).
5.0 THE SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF POLICIES
5.01 IPELEGENG
5.011SUCCESSES
Ipelegeng has managed to reach out to its target group; vulnerable, disadvantaged are employed sections of the population under the programme (Molosiwa 2013:47). Molosiwa further illustrates the point alluding that the beneficiaries said ‘they are poor people who depend on social welfare services’ (Molosiwa 2013:41). The programme provides relief to powerless members of society by paying for the days worked including public holidays (BOPA 2013). Therefore Ipelegeng benefits the intended people, thus it’s successful.
The programme has also been successful in making developments within communities. Dikgonnye village through Ipelegeng was able to make developments in the form of new classrooms, the library, houses and roads (Molosiwa 2013:47). These developments will indirectly help combat poverty, for instance through the library the students and public in general will acquire knowledge through reading and writing. As Mandela said education is the powerful weapon through which you can use to change the world; thus it is through education that poverty can be dealt away with.
Lastly Ipelegeng can be considered a triumph; by virtue of Ipelegeng the poor standards of living were raised. According to Molosiwa (2013) via the programme the poor were able afford the things they could not buy; for instance they were able to purchase school uniform for children, buy food and some built rooms out of the remuneration of Ipelegeng (Molosiwa 2013:45). As a result having rooms the poor will have the opportunity to have life unmarked by sickness due to the warmth the room is providing. Thus poverty is reduced.
5.0112 FAILURES
Ipelegeng has failed as far as poverty eradication is concerned firstly it provides temporary relief instead of long term relief (Sekwati 2012:76). The remuneration of P510 is insufficient meet daily basic needs requirements, due to ever increasing prices. As a result of insufficient wage the poor cannot save money; the little they receive is all spent on basic needs and as such the poor remain poor.
Ipelegeng is sugar-coated as far poverty reduction is concerned, there is no skill acquisition. According to Sekwati (2012) Ipelegeng does not equip participants with skills to apply in other sectors of the economy (Sekwati 2012:76). A beneficiary of Ipelegeng lamented that ‘cutting tree and grass can’t help them develop’.they are just tolling for nothing’ (Molosiwa 2013:44). Beneficiaries of Ipelegeng fail to graduate from the program due to lack of knowledge, hence they remain poor and a dependency syndrome of the programme is developed.
The programme can further be render a failure because of its exploitative nature that is more pronounced than empowering nature. Ipelegeng provides cheap labour to the government development projects such as road maintenance and manual work for local government (Gwatiwa 2014:70). The Southern District Council praised the programme for closing maintenance gap in the district (Mosetlha 2015). In order for the government do away with poverty it must empower the poor through the provision of work benefits.
6.0TRIBAL GRAZING LAND POLICY
6.01 SUCCESSES
Tribal Grazing Land Policy has its successes in environmental protection and conservation. The policy is complete failure as far as poverty eradication is concerned. According to Frimpong (1995) the policy has brought about awareness on the importance protecting and conserving the environment among both commercial and communal farmers (Frimpong 1995:12). Rotational grazing and water redistribution are practiced as an outcome of the policy, thus ensuring sustainable use of range resources (Tsimako 1991:28).
TGLP has achieved notable successes in Kweneng and Ngwaketse district the development of the ranches has been recorded highly successful (Frimpong 1995:12). There are high levels ranch infrastructural development and proper management standards in TGLP ranches in Ngwaketse, Kweneng and Central districts (Tsimako 1991:28).
According Frimpong (1995) TGLP has led to financial gains that allowed beneficiaries of the policy to supply high quality breeding stock to other farmers (Frimpong 1995:12). This was as a result TGLP; it brought improved methods of livestock management such as supplementary feeding, timely weaning, dehorning, castration and proper artificial insemination (Tsimako 1991:28).
6.012 FAILURES
Tribal Grazing Land Policy failed to reduce the gap between the rich and poor (Malope 2008:388). Kenneth Good states that ‘policy-making on ranching tenure has since the early 1970s worked to concentrated rural resources in few hands, while dispossessing large number of the rural poor’ (Good 1999:194). TGLP was created to provide one farm per person however President Masire’s brother received three and the cabinet remained silent because of potential embarrassment (Soest 2009:15).
TGLP can also factor of compounding poverty in rural areas, the policy led to transformation from patron-client to employer-employee relationship (Fidzani 1998:238). Fidzani (1998) that the latter relationship brings about great doubts that disposed cattle-owners will find jobs on new farm or in the formal sector that generates low employment opportunities (Fidzani 1998:238).
The policy has further failed to redress the poverty situation; during its formation it sought increase access to land to the poor however this did not happen during implementation (Malope 2008:387). According to Good (2008) ‘policy implementation towards the very poor went ahead consistent with pro-rich principle of growth and worsen inequalities, it was time when democracy found its limits’ (Good 2008:122). Good (1999) alludes that the San and Bakgalagadi were dispossessed of the land they had occupied for centuries (Good 1999:194).
Lastly TGLP has been complete fiasco; Shabani (2013) states that most cattle ranches in the Southern part of the country and in Tuli Block in Central District have been changed into game ranches (Shabani 2013). This is inconsistent with policy, has led compounding of poverty because of inappropriate use of the ranches.
7.0 CONCLUSION
The paper sought to discuss causes of poverty, policies aimed at poverty alleviation and their successes and failures in addressing the problem. The paper discovered that of ownership of productive assets, harsh climatic conditions, lack of education and decline in mechanisms such as mafisa and extended family are major causes of poverty in Botswana. The Botswana government promoted policies such as Ipelegeng and Tribal Grazing Land Policy as ways to redress the situation. The paper discovered that both policies are sugar-coated, thus they do nothing in terms of abating poverty in the long run. In the case of Ipelegeng it does not educate the poor, it is exploitative programme because low pay, bought about dependency syndrome and hopelessness among poor. In the case of TGLP the paper noted the gap between the rich and poor was perpetuated; the poor were dispossessed of their land and the sole beneficiaries were the policy makers.
‘
8.0 Bibliography
BOPA, 2013. Ipelegeng provides relief to the vulnerable. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dailynews.gov.bw/news-details.php?nid=2328
[Accessed 27 03 2015].
CASL, n.d. Arid and semi-arid lands: Characteristics and importance. [Online]
Available at: http://www.iisd.org/casl/asalprojectdetails/asal.htm
[Accessed 24 03 2015].
Fidzani, N. H., 1998. Land Reform and Primitive Accumulation: Acloser look at the Botswana Tribal Land Policy. In: M. H. L. W A EDGE, ed. BOTSWANA: Politics and Society. Pretoria: J.L van Schaik Publishers, pp. 229-241.
Frimpong, K., 1995. A Review of the Tribal Grazing Land Policy in Botswana. Pula: Botswana Journal of African Studies, 09(02), pp. 1-16.
Good, K., 1999. The state and extreme poverty in Botswana: the San and destitutes. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 37(2), pp. 185 – 205.
Good, K., 2008. Diamonds, Dispossession & Democracy in Botswana. s.l.:Boydell & Brewer Ltd.
GWATIWA, T. T., 2014. DEVELOPMENT POLICY AND ETHNIC EXCLUSION: THE CASE OF THE ZEZURU INFORMAL ECONOMY IN BOTSWANA. African Study Monographs, 35(02), p. 65’84.
Jefferis, K. R. & Kelly, T. F., 1999. Botswana: Poverty amid plenty. Oxford Development Studies, 27(2), pp. 211-231.
Keijsper, V., 1993. Livestock development in Botswana – Consequences for the rural poor. Africa Spectrum, 28(3), pp. 323 – 339.
Malema, B. W., 2012. Botswana’s formal economic structure as a possible source of poverty: Are there any policies out of this economic impasse?. PULA: Botswana Journal of African Studies, 26(01), pp. 51-69.
Malope, P. & Batisani, N., 2008. Land reforms that exclude the poor: the case of Botswana. Development Southern Africa, 25(04), pp. 383-397.
Molosiwa, M., 2013. Evaluation of Ipelegeng Poverty Eradication Program/Project in Dikgonnye, Gaborone: Facuality of Education.
Mosetlha, T., 2015. Daily News. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dailynews.gov.bw/news-details.php?nid=18881
[Accessed 27 03 2015].
Osei-Hwedie, K., 2004. Poverty Eradication in Botswana: Towards the Realisation of Vision 2016. Pula: Botswana Journal of African Studies, 18(1), pp. 7-18.
Sekwati, L., 2010. Labour Based Public Works in Botswana: Review of Ipelegeng. South Africa, AFRICAGROWTH INSTITUTE, pp. 23-26.
Shabani, T., 2013. Some catle ranches turned into game ranches. [Online]
Available at: http://www.dailynews.gov.bw/news-details.php?nid=4060
[Accessed 27 03 2015].
Siphambe, H., 2003. Dimensions and Measures to Reduce Poverty in Botswana. Pula: Botswana Journal of African Studies, 17(02), pp. 19-25.
Soest, C. v., 2009. Stagnation of a ‘Miracle’: Botswana’s Governance Record Revisited, Hamburg: GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies.
Tsimako, B., 1991. THE TRIBAL GRAZING LAND POLICY (TGLP) RANCHES PERFORMANCE TO DATE, Gaborone: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE.
here…