Login
Password
Sources on this Page

> Headlines by Category

 Home / Regional / Africa / Botswana

You are using the plain HTML view, switch to advanced view for a more complete experience.

African Caucus: 2016 Cotonou Declaration
The African Governors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank met at Palais des Congres de Cotonou, Benin on the August 4-5 , 2016 for the African Caucus, chaired by Abdoulaye BIO TCHANE , Beninese Minister of State for Planning and Development, Chairman of the African Caucus. The discussions focused on the general theme “Scaling Up Bretton Woods Institutions Support to Address Shocks, Boost Growth and Enhance Transformation in Africa”.  The "Cotonou Declaration" is the outcome of the work of  ministers of Finance and/or Development of the 54 African countries, as well as the governors of central banks of the region.
Global Wildlife Program
Why is the Global Wildlife Program needed? The illegal wildlife trade (IWT) is a global threat. The problem is particularly acute in Africa, where iconic species – the African elephant, white and black rhinos, and pangolins – are being poached to extinction. In 2013, over 20,000 elephants were slaughtered for their ivory. The rhino poaching crisis is also escalating. In 2007, a total of 13 rhinos were poached in South Africa, in 2015, 1175 rhinos were poached resulting in an increase of over 8,900%. As species are poached and illegally harvested at increasingly unsustainable levels, wildlife crime has become the fourth most lucrative illegal business after narcotics, human trafficking, and weapons. The presence of wildlife in protected areas ensures that an ecosystem can function and maintain natural capital (soil, forests, air, water, etc.). As natural resource crime such as poaching increases, it results in environmental degradation. This adversely affects ecosystem services which in turn affects the survival of these communities who depend upon these services for livelihoods, fuel and food. The cost of environmental crime to developing countries is estimated to be more than US$70 billion a year (World Bank 2014). To respond to the growing crisis and international call for action, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in June 2015 launched the “Global Partnership on Wildlife Conservation and Crime Prevention for Sustainable Development” program also known as the Global Wildlife Program (GWP). What does the Global Wildlife Program aim to do? The GWP is a World-Bank led global partnership that promotes wildlife conservation and sustainable development by combatting illicit trafficking in wildlife. This seven-year, $91 million grant program is helping to mobilize an additional $513 million from a wide range of partners to promote investments across Africa and Asia. By approaching the poaching crisis holistically through various country projects and a larger global project, it seeks to reduce both the supply and demand that drives the illegal wildlife trade, and protect species and habitats through integrated landscape planning. GWP’s priority and immediate focus is combating wildlife poaching, trafficking, and crime. The program will also focus on improving wildlife management, providing livelihood opportunities through tourism, and improving governance throughout the supply chain for illegal wildlife products.  In addition, the program will support integrated landscape management, land use zoning and natural resource management best practices. Through its global and country projects, the GWP will:Promote community-based natural resource management and tourism development: Often in challenging political environments.Help countries achieve their biodiversity goals: It will support the implementation of country priorities identified in the National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, Elephant Action Plan and other wildlife and tourism national strategies.Accelerate learning: It will develop an online repository of information and conduct training and capacity building workshops to ensure knowledge exchange between countries, partners and other stakeholders. It will provide opportunities for regional and global knowledge exchanges.Enhance collaboration: It will foster intergovernmental cooperation, leverage monitoring and evaluation and geospatial tools, increase intelligence sharing to track criminals, collaborate on efforts around anti-money laundering, capture lessons learned, apply best practices, and innovative communication strategies.  In addition, it will include a component to promote best practices in ports and collaboration between African and Asian countries and agencies involved in reducing maritime transport of illegal wildlife products, especially ivory.Strengthen partnerships: It will build synergies with the International Consortium on Combating Wildlife Crime (ICCWC). It is a collaboration between the CITES Secretariat, INTERPOL, UNODC, the World Customs Organization and the WBG, which has been a partner to ICCWC since 2010.Implement a monitoring and evaluation framework:  It will develop and deploy a monitoring system for the program to track program progress and serve as an integral tool to promote synergies amongst national projects.Coordinate programs with the GEF Secretariat and implementing agencies: To ensure coordination amongst projects within and beyond the program. This will be an important mechanism for implementation of GEF-6 (2014-2018) Biodiversity Strategy program three which is focused on preventing the extinction of known threatened species. The GWP also aims to target other focal areas of the GEF-6: Biodiversity, Land Degradation, Climate Change and Sustainable Forest Management.Promote donor coordination: As part of ongoing engagement with key international donors, the program will serve as a platform to assess the current state of international funding to tackle illicit trafficking in wildlife. It will help create a baseline the donor community can build upon, which in consultation with recipient countries, can establish the future state vision for IWT financing. This will facilitate sharing of lessons learned and inform strategic efforts to fill financing gaps for priority intervention areas. Who are the GWP partner countries? The 10 initial countries that endorsed part of their GEF-6 Star allocation for national projects that tackle the wildlife crisis include Botswana, Cameroon, Ethiopia, Gabon, India, Indonesia, Mozambique, Republic of Congo, Tanzania, and Zambia. The GEF agencies contributing to the partnership include the Asian Development Bank (ADB), International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), the World Bank Group (WBG) and World Wildlife Fund (WWF). As the program’s lead agency, the World Bank will create and implement an effective coordination and knowledge platform amongst the national projects.  11 additional national projects are expected to be added to the program soon. Funding and governance The GWP is funded by the GEF and overseen by a steering committee. Since 2015, the Bank has chaired the program steering committee, which includes the GEF Secretariat as well as the previously mentioned GEF agencies and associated institutions that are leading in the field (CITES TRAFFIC, WildAid, and Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS). To learn more about the GWP, please contact Dr. Claudia Sobrevila, GWP Program Manager: csobrevila@worldbank.org
New Trade Portal Makes Import, Export Easier, Cheaper in Botswana
GABORONE, March 15, 2016 – With the launch of a new trade portal, the Botswana government is lowering trade costs, decreasing time to do business and easing customs cooperation when moving goods and services in and out the country. With the support of the World Bank, the portal is also expected to contribute towards increased trade and investment. The main objective of the Botswana Trade Portal is to make it easier for traders and investors to comply with regulatory requirements associated with the importation and exportation of goods as well as in helping Botswana comply with the World Trade Organization (WTO) Bali Agreement on Trade Facilitation. “The establishment of this trade portal forms a key part of the World Bank Group's new Country Partnership Framework for Botswana to help generate export-led diversified growth and employment, as well as the promotion of private sector-led jobs intensive growth,” said Guang Zhe Chen, World Bank country director for Botswana. The trade portal is a web-based database system, which makes all cross-border trade regulatory information  available at a stroke of a key.The information includes all laws, prohibitions, restrictions, technical standards, the entire commodity classification and tariffs, all procedures for license and permit application and clearance, copies of all forms as well as plain language instructions. The trade portal also enables traders to see, in response to a single query, all the obligations they need to comply with to import or export a specific good. It was developed in response to a request by the Government of Botswana through its trade agency, the Botswana Investment and Trade Centre (BITC). “With all this information readily available and clear instructions and flow-charts on how to export or import, traders should find it quicker and easier to be compliant and discharge all their formalities with fewer time consuming interactions, said Vincent Seretse, Botswana Minister for Trade and Industry. Seretse added that the trade portal would boost Botswana’s efforts to become a globally competitive player in the overall share of trade in the world. Financed through a $600k grant, the Botswana Trade Portal is supported through the World Bank Group (WBG) Trade Facilitation Support Program. The WBG’s global facility helps countries implement their international commitments on trade facilitation, specifically following the new WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement. After Mauritius, Botswana was the first mainland country in Africa to ratify this agreement, which states that every member of the WTO has an obligation to publish on the internet all trade related information promptly and transparently. The WBG’s Trade Facilitation Support Program also helps countries to implement reforms aimed at increasing trade, investments, and job creation. This support was matched by the technical efforts of the BITC, under the leadership of Chief Executive Officer Letsebe Sejoe, as well as the multiple of Botswana government trade-related agencies who played a critical part in the development of the portal. “Making all of Botswana’s regulatory requirements for importing and exporting available to the private sector in an easily accessible, transparent and searchable format, is a key step forwards towards a simpler, faster and lower-cost investment climate,” said Richard Record,  World Bank senior economist. The Botswana Trade Portal is one part of the WBG’s efforts to help promote private sector-led, jobs-intensive growth in Botswana. The larger partnership between the government and the WBG reaches across a range of sectors, including social protection, health, education, water, transport and natural resource management.
Improving Africa’s School Feeding Programs: Analysis Sheds Light on Strengths, Challenges
WASHINGTON, June 9, 2016 – In Kenya, more than 1.5 million school children are fed a hot lunch of corn and legumes each day, the only meal many of them will have. More than 8.8 million South African students receive a cooked mid-morning meal, and those in the poorest provinces are also served lunch. Cabo Verde’s national school feeding program not only provides one hot meal a day to thousands of school children, it also employs more than 1,000 women from within the school communities.   For the first time, detailed data about national school meal programs are available in the newly-released Global School Feeding Sourcebook: Lessons from 14 Countries. Using case studies from around the world, including programs in nine countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, the sourcebook provides a comprehensive analysis of school feeding programs to identify common themes, challenges and good practices.    “I think we are now at a stage where it’s not whether school feeding is important, it’s how to design and deliver school feeding,” said Andy Tembon, World Bank senior health specialist. “This sourcebook comes at a very important moment, because it gives us an idea of how to strengthen and how to scale up school feeding programs.”   According to the analysis, the strongest and most sustainable programs are those that respond to a community need, are locally-owned and incorporate some form of parental or community involvement. In Namibia, communities are expected to provide fuel, cooking utensils and storerooms. In Mali, school feeding programs have put schools at the heart of local development by promoting locally-owned meal programs. In Ghana, the government uses a digital school meals planner to develop nutritionally balanced school meals using local ingredients.   The sourcebook is the third in a series of analysis on school feeding by the World Bank, the World Food Programme (WFP) and the Imperial College London’s Partnership for Child Development (PCD). The first, Rethinking School Feeding (WB, 2009), highlighted the long-term social investment of school feeding, and its role as a short-term productive safety net for children and families. The second, the State of School Feeding Worldwide (WFP, 2013), shows that school feeding programs serve as many as 368 million students in almost every country in the world at a global cost of $75 billion.   Developed in response to demand from governments and development partners, the sourcebook offers guidelines for designing and implementing sustainable national food programs, as well as recommendations for strengthening existing programs. Nine Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) countries are included in the analysis: Botswana, Cabo Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Namibia, Nigeria and South Africa. “School feeding programs can help to get children into school and help keep them there, increasing enrollment and reducing absenteeism,” said World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim and WFP’s Ertharin Cousins in a joint foreword. “While there are many successful models for rich countries, there is specific demand from governments in low and middle income countries for guidance on how to strengthen and scale up their national programs. This latest joint publication is a response to this demand.” Lesley Drake, lead editor of the analysis and PCD’s executive director said “the overall message from the sourcebook is that there is no ‘one size fits all’ for school feeding and there are many routes to success.” Additional key findings about school feeding programs in SSA countries in the sourcebook include:   Botswana: The government has successfully implemented its national school feeding program continuously for 45 years, witnessing enrollment growth and school attendance rates that are highly associated with the availability of food at school. There are a number of strengths, however, there is still room for improvement, and a need for more robust data, analysis and reporting. Cabo Verde: The government has repeatedly shown its commitment to a policy of universal coverage of school feeding programs in public pre-primary and primary schools, and is now revising the objectives to meet the changing needs of communities. The major challenge is how to meet the demand to provide healthy meals and support the local economy and agriculture, while keeping the program affordable. Cote d’Ivoire: In addition to increased school access, retention, and success, the school feeding program has sparked behavioral changes among children including hand washing, good eating habits, nutritional, and hygiene practices. For a sustainable program, the report calls for strengthened governance, capacity, monitoring and evaluation, as well as improving agricultural technical skills and the introduction of advanced agricultural technology and equipment. Ghana: School feeding in Ghana is decentralized and outsourced, relying on caterers for food procurement, preparation and distribution. This creates jobs for the communities, and allows schools to focus on education rather than food duties. While implementation of school feeding programs need political support and commitment, the report notes it is important for the government not to politicize the program, which can affect targeting and quality. Kenya: The country stands out for developing innovative and complementary school feeding programs, with both successes and challenges. The Njaa Marufuku Kenya (Eradicate Hunger in Kenya) program, under the Ministry of Agriculture, is geared toward agricultural development and capitalizes on the ministry’s agricultural expertise and integrates community food and nutrition security with school feeding. However, continued financing is a challenge. The Home Grown School Meals (HGSM) program, under the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, aims to tackle low school enrollment and attendance, high dropout rates and low academic achievement. As it transitions from World Food Programme support to being government led, the program would benefit from increased links to local agriculture. Mali: Launched three years ago, the national school feeding program has contributed to an increase in school enrollment and retention in primary schools, especially for girls. The program promotes locally-owned school feeding programs, benefitting communities through community organizations, providing training, and supporting smallholder famers. One challenge is that there has not been an impact evaluation on the program, so there is no significant data on its social and economic impacts.  Namibia: School feeding programs serve as an incentive for poor and/or marginalized learners, or those affected by HIV and AIDS to attend school more regularly and consistently perform better. However, in the past decade, the impact of the HIV pandemic, droughts, floods and the rising prices of food have shifted the program to a safety net or means of social protection rather than improved childhood nutrition. The government has increased funding to fully-finance the program, and there are also plans to expand, which will serve as an opportunity to improve it. Nigeria: In Osun State, the innovative system of checks and balances that has been developed over the years has ensured good governance and is a model of good practice within the country and the region. Cooks procure the food every two weeks for 50 children per cook, inspiring smallholder participation. However, the funding capacity is limited; the current budget is a strain on the finances of the state.  South Africa: The school nutrition program is designed to alleviate poverty, improve access to education and academic performance through good nutrition. Meals are provided daily to more than eight million children, and there are plans to reach more. Since the beginning of its program in 1994, community participation has been identified as the key to success, with parents encouraged to volunteer and help make decisions through School Governing Bodies. Developing links between school feeding and local agriculture production more systematically could result in greater community involvement in schools and even greater economic benefits. 
No “One Size Fits All” Solution to Sustainable School Feeding Programs
New Data Highlights National Meal Program Successes and Challenges WASHINGTON, June 9, 2016 – National school feeding programs have contributed to higher primary school enrollment and retention in Sub-Saharan African countries, and created jobs within the communities they serve, according to newly-released analysis of global school feeding programs. Produced in response to demand from governments and development partners, The Global School Feeding Sourcebook: Lessons from 14 Countries, analyzes a range of government-led school feeding programs to provide decision-makers and practitioners worldwide with the knowledge, evidence and good practices needed to bolster their national school feeding efforts. With case studies from countries including Botswana, Cabo Verde, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Mali, Namibia, Nigeria and South Africa, the Sourcebook highlights the tradeoffs associated with alternative school feeding models, and analyzes overarching themes, trends and challenges across them. According to the analysis, the strongest and most sustainable programs are those that respond to a community need, are locally-owned and incorporate some form of parental or community involvement. In Namibia, communities are expected to provide fuel, cooking utensils and storerooms. In Mali, school feeding programs have put schools at the heart of local development by promoting locally-owned meal programs. In Ghana, the government uses a digital school meals planner to develop nutritionally balanced school meals using local ingredients.    With school feeding’s proven ability to improve the health and education of children while supporting local and national economies and food security, school feeding  programs exist in almost every country in the world for which there is data, for a total annual global investment of $75 billion. This provides an estimated 368 million children worldwide with a meal at school daily. However, too often, such programs are weakest in countries where there is the most need. In a joint foreword, World Bank Group President Dr. Jim Yong Kim and World Food Programme Executive Director Ertharin Cousin said the research showed how school meals programs help to get children into the classroom and keep them there, “contributing to their learning by avoiding hunger and advancing cognitive abilities.” “Today, national school feeding programmes are increasingly embedded in national policy on poverty elimination, social protection, education and nutrition,” they added. Lesley Drake, Imperial College London’s Partnership for Child Development’s executive director and lead editor of the report said, “The overall message from this research is that there is no ‘one size fits all’ for school feeding and there are many routes to success. Context is key. This sourcebook will act as valuable tool for governments to enable them to make evidenced-based decisions that will improve the effectiveness of their school feeding programs.” The Sourcebook follows Rethinking School Feeding (WB, 2009) and The State of School Feeding Worldwide (WFP, 2013) as the third in a trilogy of agenda defining analyses produced by the World Bank, World Food Programme and Imperial College London’s Partnership for Child Development (PCD) global partnership, which have shaped the way in which governments and donors alike approach school feeding. “Helping countries to apply this knowledge [in this Sourcebook] to strengthen national school feeding programs will contribute to reducing the vulnerability of the poorest, giving all children a chance for an education and a bright future and eliminating poverty,” said Kim and Cousin. The Sourcebook is free to download at the World Bank’s Open Knowledge Repository.  
Global School Feeding Sourcebook: Key Findings
The Global School Feeding Sourcebook: Lessons from 14 Countries examines the 14 national programmes in terms of Five Quality Standards as identified in Rethinking School Feeding (WB, 2009) that are needed for school feeding programmes to be sustainable and effective. These standards include: design and implementation; policy and legal frameworks; institutional arrangements; funding and budgeting; and community participation. Design and implementation School feeding is most frequently designed as a social protection measure for poor and vulnerable communities with the key outcome being an improvement in education through increased enrolment, reduced absenteeism, and enhanced gender equality. For example primary school enrolment in Nigeria’s Osun State increased by 28percent since the introduction of free school meals. Increasingly, policy makers are seeing school feeding as a means to tackle health and nutrition issues whether that be stunting and anaemia caused by undernutrition or obesity caused by over nutrition. In Ghana, the government uses a digital school meals planner to develop nutritionally balanced school meals using local ingredients. Another trend is for countries to connect school feeding with local food production and purchase, also known as Home Grown School Feeding. This benefits both rural economies and school children alike as children benefit from nutritious fresh food and farmers benefit from being able to sell their produce a new market. In Brazil, for example, it is federal law that 30percent of food for school meals is procured from small family-run farms.  Policy and legal frameworks Effective programmes need well-articulated policy and legal frameworks. Every country reviewed in the study has included school feeding in its regulatory framework. This has been achieved using different types of legislative and executive measures dependent on the national context. Institutional arrangements There is no single institutional design, but the key determinants of success include co-ordinating stakeholders from across multiple sectors; ensuring that there is enough government capacity at national and local levels; and creating mechanisms to ensure quality and accountability of the school feeding programmes. The cross-sectoral aspect of school feeding is exemplified by Kenya, where its programmes are coordinated jointly by the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Agriculture. Funding and budgeting School feeding costs usually represent a small fraction of educational expenditure (typically 10-15 percent) with the purchase of food being the main cost-driver. Identifying sustainable and protected sources of funding remains the key challenge for many low-income countries. Analysis shows that there is strong political will to continue to fund school feeding as it is a popular intervention with the public, but not all funding is public, and private sector partnerships are a growing area of financial support. In Cape Verde schools can partner with local businesses such as hotels for extra funds which can be put towards cooking facilities. Community participation The strongest and most sustainable programmes are those that respond to community need, are locally-owned and incorporate some form of parental or community contribution. In Namibia, many communities are expected to provide fuel, cooking utensils and storerooms. Indirect benefits of school feeding include employment opportunities for example, in Chile, low-income mothers are given catering training. School feeding can also mean increased income and training for smallholder farmers; as well as complementary school health activities, as in both Mexico and Brazil where parents are taught about the importance of nutritionally balanced diets.  
アフリカ地域
概要 2015年のサブサハラ・アフリカの成長率は、主に石油をはじめとする商品価格の下落を反映し、2014年の4.5%を下回る4.1%となる見込みです。 金属その他の主要一次産品の輸出国では、一次産品価格の下落に伴い活動が鈍化する一方、ほとんどの低所得国では、インフラ投資と農業拡大により堅調な成長が続くと予想されています。非石油部門、特にサービス部門では成長が続き、2016年以降の成長率を押し上げると見られます。低位中所得国と高位中所得国では、公共投資の増大と観光業の回復により成長が促進されるでしょう。 詳細は2015年度年次報告書(PDF)をご覧ください。  活動 世界銀行グループは、アフリカ地域の経済成長と貧困削減、経済的多様化、また新たな包括的開発フレームワークに重点をおいて取り組みを行っています。 また、以下の分野に優先的に取り組んでいます。農業生産性の向上小農家に対する技術面や資金面での支援、アグリビジネスへの投資、水源管理、また気候変動に優しい農業を推進しています。エネルギーの確保安価で安定的かつ持続可能なエネルギーの供給の他、気候変動適応と防災が最重要課題です。地域統合地域間の連携を強め、経済の活性化と生産性の強化を図ります。都市化水、衛生、交通、住居、権力とガバナンスの管理が、都市化による生産性と収入向上の鍵となります。質の高い人的資本としての若年層の育成雇用のニーズと人材のギャップを埋めるべく、若年層の技術スキル向上支援を行っています。 詳細はアフリカ地域ページ(英語)をご覧ください。
Cinco cosas que tal vez desconozca sobre los conflictos entre los seres humanos y la vida silvestre en Botswana
Botswana tiene alrededor de 2200 millones de habitantes y una cantidad estimada de 134 000 elefantes, la población más numerosa de este tipo de mamífero en África, (i) de los cuales solo entre el 20 % y el 30 % vive en zonas protegidas. Un estudio del Departamento de Vida Silvestre de Botswana, realizado a partir de informes de incidentes, registró 1212 conflictos relacionados con los cultivos y 1013 conflictos relacionados con el ganado en el distrito de Chobe; 1919 conflictos relacionados con los cultivos y 5666 conflictos relacionados con el ganado en Ngamiland, y 1712 conflictos relacionados con los cultivos y 8254 conflictos relacionados con el ganado en el distrito central entre 1994 y 2006. 1. ¿Dónde y por qué existen conflictos entre los seres humanos y la vida silvestre? Los conflictos entre los seres humanos y la vida silvestre se concentran más y tienen un mayor impacto en las regiones agrícolas, donde el aumento de la población humana empieza a traspasar el territorio de los animales. Los elefantes, por ejemplo, los mamíferos más grandes que existen en la tierra, necesitan comer una cantidad suficiente de raíces, pastos, frutas y corteza para mantener sus enormes cuerpos, lo cual significa que un elefante puede destruir los medios de sustento de un agricultor pobre en una sola noche. Este es un gran problema en las zonas rurales de África. El crecimiento de la población, la intensificación agrícola y la creación de riqueza han reducido el espacio donde vivir y los recursos tanto para los seres humanos como para los animales, creando conflictos. Las preferencias alimentarias de los animales y los patrones migratorios son muy importantes en esta rivalidad. Las personas cultivan en las cercanías de las fuentes de agua y tienden a cosechar en marzo y abril, en la misma época cuando los elefantes se desplazan hacia las grandes masas de agua 2. ¿Qué tipo de pérdidas puede causar la vida silvestre? La fauna silvestre puede destruir los cultivos, los medios de sustento, la infraestructura y la vida humana. Es importante visualizar el tipo de agricultores de los que estamos hablando: estos agricultores son los más pobres de los pobres, que tienen explotaciones agrícolas de tan solo casi el doble del tamaño de mi oficina. Cuando un elefante aplasta una cerca, y se come todos los cultivos de una persona, eso es todo. La situación es peor cuando una mujer es la jefa del hogar, porque la agricultura para las mujeres representa seguridad alimentaria, es esencial para alimentar a sus familias, a diferencia del ganado que es mantenido como fuente de riqueza y usualmente su crianza está en manos de los hombres. 3. ¿Qué enfoques han funcionado para reducir los conflictos? En el contexto del Proyecto de coexistencia de la vida silvestre y la vida humana en el norte de Botswana, respaldado por el Banco Mundial, el Departamento de Vida Silvestre y Parques Nacionales puso a prueba la eficacia de diferentes enfoques:Cercas de ají: se pusieron ajíes en los alrededores de los cultivos para ahuyentar a los elefantes, porque a estos animales no les gusta el olor ni el sabor de esta planta. Un beneficio adicional es que las personas pueden también vender el ají y obtener un ingreso extra. Otra alternativa es colgar un trapo empapado con pasta de ají alrededor del perímetro de las plantaciones.Quema de ladrillos de ají: el humo y el olor de la quema de ladrillos hechos a base de ají, con la ayuda del viento, llegan al lugar donde se encuentran los elefantes, lo cual impide que estos animales se acerquen, e incluso los mantienen a una larga distancia. Los ladrillos se fabrican con estiércol de elefante, semillas de ají y grasa, para que ardan por un periodo más largo. Estos han demostrado ser muy efectivos.Cercas de abejas: este enfoque fue aplicado con éxito por un hombre que cuidó muy bien el perímetro de sus colmenas. Las abejas se usan para espantar a los elefantes e impedir que se aproximen.Corrales con cercas eléctricas a prueba de depredadores: una de estas vallas se construyó en la aldea de Lesoma, conocida de otra manera como “La tribu de la arena”. La cerca era sólida y lo suficiente alta para ahuyentar a los animales que buscaban cazar el ganado y comerse los cultivos.Perros guardianes del ganado: estos perros, cuando estaban bien entrenados, pudieron espantar a los animales, y en muchos casos evitar ataques de leones y chitas. Los perros tuvieron que ser sometidos a constantes reevaluaciones para que la interacción entre ellos y los animales que cuidaban no se tornara violenta.Semillas de maduración temprana: la plantación de semillas de maduración temprana y una cosecha rápida antes de la migración de los elefantes también fue una manera efectiva de disminuir los conflictos.Medios de sustento alternativos en el sector del turismo: capacitar a los adultos jóvenes para que trabajen en la industria del turismo relacionado con la vida silvestre, de modo que dependan más de la conservación de estos animales para obtener un ingreso. Esto puede generar actitudes más positivas entre las personas acerca de la fauna y la flora silvestre.
Programme mondial pour la vie sauvage
Pourquoi avoir créé le Programme mondial pour la vie sauvage ? Le trafic d’animaux constitue une menace d’ampleur mondiale. Le problème est particulièrement grave en Afrique, où des espèces emblématiques (l’éléphant, le rhinocéros blanc et le rhinocéros noir, le pangolin) sont au bord de l’extinction à cause du braconnage. En 2013, plus de 20 000 éléphants ont été massacrés pour leur ivoire, tandis que l’on a assisté ces dernières années à une explosion du braconnage des rhinocéros : le nombre de rhinocéros chassés illégalement en Afrique du Sud est passé de 13 à 1 175 entre 2007 et 2015, soit une hausse de plus de 8 900 %. Le braconnage et le prélèvement d’espèces végétales protégées atteignent des niveaux tels que cette forme de criminalité se classe désormais au quatrième rang des trafics les plus lucratifs, après les stupéfiants, les êtres humains et les armements. La présence de la flore et de la faune dans des zones protégées est ce qui permet à un écosystème de fonctionner et de préserver le capital naturel (sol, forêt, air, eau, etc.). Le braconnage et les autres crimes perpétrés contre des ressources naturelles ont pour conséquence de détériorer l’environnement et de nuire aux services que fournit un écosystème, ce qui met en péril la survie des communautés qui dépendent de ces services pour assurer leurs moyens de subsistance, se chauffer et s’alimenter. Selon une étude de la Banque mondiale de 2014 (a), le coût de cette criminalité environnementale pour les pays en développement se chiffrerait à plus de 70 milliards de dollars par an. Afin de faire face à une crise de plus en plus aiguë et de répondre à l’urgence d’une action internationale, le Fonds pour l’environnement mondial (FEM) a lancé en juin 2015 le « Partenariat mondial pour la préservation de la faune et de la flore sauvages, la prévention du crime lié aux espèces sauvages et le développement durable », également connu sous le nom de Programme mondial pour la vie sauvage (ou GWP selon son acronyme en anglais). Quel est l’objectif du Programme mondial pour la vie sauvage ? Le GWP est un partenariat mondial placé sous la direction de la Banque mondiale et ayant pour but de promouvoir la préservation de la faune et de la flore et le développement durable en luttant contre le commerce illégal des espèces sauvages. Ce programme, qui s’étendra sur sept ans, est doté d’un financement de 91 millions de dollars qui permettra de mobiliser 513 millions de dollars supplémentaires auprès d’un grand éventail de partenaires, avec l’objectif de promouvoir des investissements en Afrique et en Asie. En abordant la crise du braconnage de manière globale, via des projets nationaux divers et une opération internationale de plus grande ampleur, il vise à réduire à la fois l’offre et la demande qui alimentent le trafic tout en protégeant les espèces et leurs habitats par le biais d’un aménagement intégré des paysages. Le GWP s’attachera en priorité et dans l’immédiat à combattre le braconnage, le trafic et la criminalité liée aux espèces sauvages. Il mettra également l’accent sur l’amélioration de la gestion et de la conservation de la faune, le développement des moyens de subsistance par le biais du tourisme et l’amélioration de la gouvernance sur toute la chaîne d’approvisionnement des produits dérivés d’espèces sauvages protégées. Le programme apportera aussi son soutien à des politiques de gestion intégrée des paysages et de zonage pour le contrôle de l’occupation des sols, ainsi qu’à l’application de pratiques optimales en matière de gestion des ressources naturelles. Par le biais de ses projets nationaux et de son projet mondial, le GWP s’emploiera à :Promouvoir une gestion des ressources naturelles et un développement du tourisme axés sur les populations locales dans des contextes politiques souvent difficiles.Aider les pays à atteindre leurs objectifs de biodiversité en soutenant la mise en œuvre des mesures prioritaires recensées dans leurs stratégies et plans d’action nationaux de promotion de la biodiversité, le Plan d’action pour les éléphants et d’autres stratégies nationales relatives aux espèces sauvages et au tourisme.Accélérer l’acquisition des connaissances en mettant en place une banque d’informations en ligne et des ateliers de formation et de renforcement des capacités afin de veiller à la circulation des savoirs entre les pays, leurs partenaires et les autres parties prenantes, et en s’efforçant de favoriser les possibilités de partage des connaissances au niveau régional et mondial.Intensifier la collaboration en s’attachant à encourager la coopération intergouvernementale, à exploiter les outils de suivi-évaluation et les technologies géospatiales, à renforcer le partage du renseignement afin de suivre la trace des criminels, à collaborer dans le domaine de la lutte contre le blanchiment des capitaux, à tirer les leçons de l’expérience, à appliquer des pratiques optimales et à innover dans les stratégies de communication ; le programme comprendra en outre un volet axé sur la promotion des meilleures pratiques pour le secteur portuaire et la collaboration entre les pays africains et asiatiques et les organismes impliqués dans la lutte contre le transport maritime de produits dérivés d’espèces sauvages, dont l’ivoire tout particulièrement.Renforcer les partenariats en créant des synergies avec le Consortium international de lutte contre la criminalité liée aux espèces sauvages (ICCWC), qui réunit depuis 2010 le Secrétariat de la CITES, Interpol, l’Office des Nations Unies contre la drogue et le crime (ONUDC), l’Organisation mondiale des douanes et le Groupe de la Banque mondiale.Mettre en place un cadre de suivi et d’évaluation en élaborant et en déployant un système en mesure de contrôler les avancées du programme et de fournir un outil d’intégration qui favorisera les synergies parmi les projets nationaux.Travailler avec le Secrétariat et les agences de mise en œuvre du FEM afin de veiller à la bonne coordination des projets entre eux et en dehors du programme. Le GWP constituera un mécanisme important pour la mise en œuvre du programme n° 3 de la Stratégie pour la diversité de FEM-6 (2014-2018), qui vise à prévenir l’extinction d’espèces que l’on sait menacées. Il cible également d’autres domaines d’intervention au titre de FEM-6 : la diversité biologique, la dégradation des sols, le changement climatique et la gestion durable des forêts.Promouvoir la coordination des donateurs : dans le cadre des efforts déjà entrepris pour collaborer avec les principaux bailleurs de fonds internationaux, le programme permettra de faire un état de lieux des financements internationaux destinés à la lutte contre le commerce illégal d’espèces sauvages. Cet état des lieux pourra servir de référence à la communauté des donateurs afin d’établir, en consultation avec les pays bénéficiaires, les objectifs de financement futurs dans ce domaine. Ce processus facilitera la diffusion des enseignements acquis et permettra d’orienter les efforts stratégiques en vue de remédier aux déficits de financement dans des domaines d’intervention prioritaires.   Quels sont les pays partenaires du GWP ? Les dix premiers pays à avoir décidé de consacrer une partie de leur allocation STAR (au titre de FEM-6) à des projets nationaux de lutte contre la crise des espèces sauvages sont les suivants : le Botswana, le Cameroun, l’Éthiopie, la République du Congo, le Gabon, l’Inde, l’Indonésie, le Mozambique, la Tanzanie et la Zambie. Les agences du FEM qui participent à ce partenariat sont la Banque asiatique de développement, l’Union internationale pour la conservation de la nature (UICN), le Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement (PNUD), le Programme des Nations Unies pour l’environnement (PNUE), le Groupe de la Banque mondiale et le Fonds mondial pour la nature (WWF). En tant que chef de file du programme, la Banque mondiale sera responsable de la création et de la mise en place d’une plateforme de coordination et de connaissance efficace pour les projets nationaux. Le programme comprendra prochainement 11 projets nationaux supplémentaires. Financement et gouvernance Le GWP est financé par le FEM et supervisé par un comité directeur. Ce comité, présidé depuis 2015 par la Banque mondiale, est composé du Secrétariat du FEM et des agences citées précédemment, ainsi que de plusieurs institutions associées de premier plan (le réseau TRAFFIC, l’organisation WildAid et la Wildlife Conservation Society). Pour en savoir plus sur le GWP, veuillez contacter Mme Claudia Sobrevila, chef de programme pour le GWP : csobrevila@worldbank.org
5 Things You May Not Know About Human - Wildlife Conflict in Botswana
Botswana has a population of about 2.2 million people and an estimated 134,000 elephants, the largest population of elephants in Africa, only about 20 to 30% of which live within protected areas. A survey conducted by the Botswana Department of Wildlife, through incident reports, recorded 1,212 crop conflicts and 1,013 livestock conflicts in the district of Chobe, 1,919 crop conflicts and 5,666 livestock conflicts in Ngamiland, and 1,712 crop conflicts and 8,254 livestock conflicts in the Central district between 1994 and 2006. 1. Where and why is human-wildlife conflict happening? Human-wildlife conflict is most concentrated and impactful within agricultural regions where human population growth begins to encroach on animal territory. Elephants, for example, the largest mammal to walk the earth, need to eat enough roots, grasses, fruit and bark to sustain their large bodies. This means that an elephant can destroy a poor farmer’s livelihood in one night. This is a big problem in rural parts of Africa. Human population growth, agricultural intensification and wealth creation has limited the living space and resources for both humans and animals, creating conflict. Animal eating preferences and migration patterns play a big role in the rivalry. People farm near water and tend to harvest in March and April, at the same time as elephants migrate to large bodies of water. 2. What kind of losses do wildlife cause? Wildlife can cause destruction to crops, livestock, infrastructure and human lives. It’s important to picture the kind of farmers we are speaking about -- these farmers are the poorest of the poor, with farms only about double the size of my office. When an elephant tramples a fence, and eats all of a person’s crops, that’s it. The situation is worse when a woman is the head of the household, because agriculture for women is food security, essential to feed families, as opposed to cattle which is kept for wealth and usually raised by men. 3. What approaches have worked to reduce conflict? In the context of the World Bank- supported Northern Botswana Human Wildlife Coexistence Project, the Department of Wildlife and National Parks tested the effectiveness of different approaches:Chili pepper plant fences- Chili pepper plants surrounding the plants were used to deter elephants, because elephants do not like their smell or taste. An added advantage is that people can also sell chili peppers for additional income. Another version of the Chili pepper fence is to hang up a cloth infused with chili paste around to perimeter of the crops.Burning chili pepper bricks- The burning of chili pepper bricks, with the help of the wind, sends the strong smell of chili peppers in the direction of elephants and discourages them from coming closer, even from a long distance. These bricks are formed with elephant dung, chili pepper seeds and grease, so that they burn longer. They have proven to be very effective.Bee fences- This approach was successful for one man who took good care of his perimeter of bee hives. Bees are used to deter the Elephants from coming close by.Electric predator proof fence kraals– Only one of these fences was constructed in the village of Lesoma, otherwise known as the “Sand Tribe”, and it was sturdy and high enough to fend off animals looking to prey on crops and livestock.Livestock guard dogs- These dogs, when well trained, were able to fend off animals in many cases from lion and cheetah attacks. The dogs had to be constantly re-evaluated so that the interaction between them and the guarded animals didn’t become violent.Early maturing seeds- Seeds planted and harvested fast enough to reap a benefit before the migration of the elephants was also an effective way to minimize conflict.Alternative livelihoods in tourism sector -- training young adults to work in the wildlife tourism industry, so that they rely more on the preservation of these animals to earn an income, creating more positive attitudes among humans toward wildlife.
Post Selected Items to:

Showing 10 items of about 1300

home  •   advertising  •   terms of service  •   privacy  •   about us  •   contact us  •   press release design by Popshop •   Official PR partner PRNews.io •   © 1999-2016 NewsKnowledge