On the call for the lifting of the ban on hunting

The ban, introduced by Masisi's predecessor, Ian Khama, in 2014, has been increasingly criticized by people living in areas with significant wildlife populations and previously impoverished communities dependent on the hunt. On June 22, the Minister of Local Government and Rural Development held a vote in the country's parliament asking the government to consider lifting the ban on hunting elephants. The motion was introduced in Parliament by Konstantinos Markus, MP for Maun East, a member of Botswana's Democratic Party of Botswana (BDP), President Masisi

Markus, who was able to win the support of a majority of MPs of all parties. The parties requested that the ban be lifted, including the increase of elephant population in Botswana, the increasing number of human conflicts / wild animals (elephants destroying crops, water pumps and put in endangering the lives of rural dwellers), the loss of hunting income for local communities and the failure of photographic tourism to offset these losses.

He stated that the ban was in contradiction with the objectives of the country's Community Natural Resources Management (CBNRM) program, which aims to make conservation a contribution to rural development. According to Debbie Peake of Mochaba Developments, who is one of the most respected voices of hunting operators in Botswana, it is very important that this ministry and not Environment and Tourism organize the consultation, as this should mean that the means of rural livelihoods the center of debate.

Why Hunting Was Forbidden

Hunting was banned by former President Ian Khama in January 2014 following a wildlife survey wild in northern Botswana. the hunt has occurred. The survey, conducted by Mike Chase of the Elephant Conservation NGO, Elephants Without Borders, was just about the numbers.

The causes of apparent declines in the ostrich (-95%), wildebeest (90%), tsessebe phasmids (84%), and kudu (81%) were not studied. giraffes (66%). Is there an indication of long-term losses or seasonal variations? With the arguments of animal rights NGOs and close friends of Khama, wildlife filmmakers Derek and Beverley Joubert, Khama and his brother Tshekedi (Minister of Environment and Natural Resources) banned sports and commercial hunting. But a study by Joseph Mbaiwa of the Okavango Research Unit, University of Botswana, concluded that the "ban" is not supported by any scientific evidence, and it is unclear. there was no involvement of local communities in the decision ". When he conducted studies on the effects of the ban, Mbaiwa found most people in areas where hunting had been practiced, he contributed significantly to the incomes of the local people, and they did not know what to do. there they oppose losing money and seeing the damage to wildlife on crops, water resources and livestock increase at the end of the hunt. The main damage came from elephants and lions. Chief Timex Moalosi, the chief of the village of Sankuyo north of Maun, told me when I met him in Maun in May, that his people had lost $ 600,000 in income after l '. introduction of the ban

. hunters for 120 animals – including 22 elephants, 55 impalas and nine buffaloes.

He told me after the announcement of the consultation, that he hoped the ban would be lifted and that rural people could once again supplement their incomes. with the sale of hunting quotas and other income streams related to the hunting industry (food, housing, employment, transportation, etc.). Debbie Peake and a number of professional hunters who had previously worked in Botswana echoed this view.

They said that things were moving in the right direction, but it was not yet clear what would be the form of legalized hunting and whether it would go back to the old quota system or would take another form.

What was important, however, was that if hunting resumed, it would produce an income that would encourage people to conserve their habitats, rather than going under the plow or the cow because they did not produced no value for rural communities.

Mbaiwa, in his study also said, that rural communities had not only lost income, but the meat that provided the essential protein.

According to him,

these are the communities that have researched 154 tons of elephant meat, 11.7 tons of buffalo meat, as well as zebras, kudus, wildebeest, impala and warthogs . During a previous trip for the conservation of research in Botswana, a curator of the Sustainable Use Specialist Group of Southern Africa (SASUSG) said that communities such as that the San Bushmen along the Kwai River in the Okavango Delta had lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in income, as well as the supply of meat, thanks to the ban on hunting.

Why Members Oppose the Ban

The Combination of Lost Income, Increased Conflicts with Wildlife and Increased Poaching weighed on the minds of parliamentarians when they voted overwhelmingly to ask the government to reconsider the ban. 19659002] Markus presented his petition as an "issue of urgent public importance" and stated that this urgency was partly due to the latest figures indicating a national elephant population of 237,000, compared to a capacity of of 50 000.

"The expansion of the elephant population in Botswana has impoverished communities, particularly those of Boteti, Ngamiland, Chobe or northern Botswana where the damage to crops and the lack of crops due to elephants are widespread ". He is part of a number of Ngamiland MPs who, in the past, had criticized the ban as harmful to local communities.

It is important to note that the size of the elephant population is difficult to pin down accurately. Botswana, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Namibia and Angola. The large elephant census survey conducted in 2014 established the population at 130,451, but the 2012 survey of the dry season showed 207,545 – Michael Flyman of the Botswana Wildlife Department m 39. said the fluctuations were due to migration and numbers.

What Happens Next?

The consultation process, involving the holding of traditional Kgotla meetings (Botswana's public meeting format, which allows everyone to have their say in a decision that everyone accepts and supports, and they develop the skills to make dreams come true.) It should begin when the current parliamentary session ends towards the end of the first week of August. It will be overseen by a Cabinet Presidential Subcommittee chaired by the Minister of Local Government and Rural Development, Pelonomi Venson-Moitoi.

It is very important that the president be from the ministry responsible for rural livelihoods rather than the Minister of the Environment, Tshekedi Khama, one of the leading proponents of the ban and the minister responsible for wildlife and national parks.

One reason may be that the new president, who replaced Ian Khama on April 1, 2018, wants to appease the growing number of BDP deputies, local councilors, and chiefs who say the ban is detrimental to subsistence of rural dwellers. having a detrimental effect on rural development, and which could cost the rural voters of the party in Ngamiland elections next year.

It is also possible that Tshekedi Khama attacked the motion when it was debated, telling The Monitor newspaper: "Markus' motion says that elephants on the outside of game reserves and national parks should be slaughtered, but what he does not know, it is only 32% of the elephant population is in these parks and reserves ". Botswana would not be beautiful on the international scale if it was to kill elephants.

In fact, the motion does not demand the killing of elephants outside national parks and reserves, only for the lifting of the ban on hunting.

Prior to the ban, elephants were hunted under a quota system and there was never any question that all elephants outside protected areas would be slaughtered.

Such a confrontational approach means that Botswana could witness a heated debate in the coming months, as the government questions the desirability of lifting the ban to meet the demand popular and economic reality.

PROFESSOR KEITH SOMERVILLE

* Mmegi reproduces this article with the express permission of its author, Professor Keith Somerville of the Center for Journalism. University of Kent. Professor Somerville is a member of the Durrell Institute of Conservation and Ecology of the University of Kent, a member of the Zoological Society of London and a principal investigator at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies of the University of London. He is also editor of Africa Sustainable Conservation News