18 Jun 2019

North West District councillors have expressed displeasure concerning a response from the Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development on the issue of a special waiver to gazette Ditshiping settlement.

The ministry rejected the request on grounds that it did not meet requirements stipulated in the National Settlement Policy.

Councillors said the response did not address what they had requested and wished the relevant authority could re-visit the issue.

Their request dated back to 2017, when the council submitted recommendations to the then Minister of Local Government and Rural Development requesting a special waiver for the recognition of Ditshiping as a settlement following a council resolution.

The council resolution came after the former president visited the settlement and residents requested for the recognition of their village.

Prior to that, a detailed report on assessment of the said settlement was presented before the councillors and the report recommended that the settlement should not be gazetted or upgraded to a village because it did not meet requirements as per the settlement policy.

Another reason advanced was that it was located within a Wildlife Management Area (WMA) and that the population of the settlement was 139, which was below the 500 or 250 for Rural Area Dweller (RADs) settlements.

Despite the recommendations, the councillors resolved to request a special waiver to gazette the settlement on compassionate grounds since the area had difficulty accessing services because of its location in the Okavango Delta.

They said if recognised as a village, Ditshiping would benefit other nearby settlements.

However, the response in question stated that Ditshiping should not be gazetted nor upgraded to a village considering all facts such as the settlement being located within WMA and within a World Heritage Site.

The response further indicated that it was clear that Ditshiping was a seasonal settlement based on hunting.

To this day, the inhabitants migrated to neighbouring settlements during the flood periods and went back when water receded.

The response stated that it was important to allow tourism activities/development so as to encourage the livelihoods of the people of Ditshiping.

It further indicated that the community already co-existed with wildlife, hence tourism based development was already in existence and ought to be encouraged.

According to the response, the people of Ditshiping should be encouraged to have permanent residences in the neighbouring settlements of Shorobe, Matsaudi among others from wherein most of them originate.

Similarly, incompatible land use allocations like masimo should be relocated or a waiver be put in place so as to have them changed to tourism based activities permissible in the area.

But the councillors felt the response was addressing the report instead of their request of a special waiver to gazette the settlement.

They wanted clarity from the council leadership to explain what was submitted to the ministry.

They suspected that officers could have betrayed them because it seemed they had submitted a report on assessment of the settlement instead of their resolution requesting a special waiver.Area councillor, Mr Luke Motlaleselo expressed disappointment, saying the response was not satisfactory.

He noted that even the affected residents would be frustrated to learn about the response.

Cllr Kebareditse Ntsogotlho said areas such as Khwai and Mababe, which were situated in WMA and World Heritage Site, had been gazetted and asked why Ditshiping was discriminated against.

Council secretary, Mr Stephan Motlogelwa, explained that they submitted the council request on special waiver and also attached the report on assessment of Ditshiping.

Council chairman, Mr Duncan Enga requested council to wait for the author of the response since he would be addressing the council on guidelines for establishment of service centre during the current seating.  

He said they would have the opportunity to seek clarity on the matter. ENDS