Worry over sharp rise in Botswana’s wildlife hunting quotas, plans for year-round elephant hunting

Botswana, a landlocked nation in Southern Africa, has emerged as a focal point in the global debate on wildlife conservation with its decision to progressively increase wildlife hunting quotas and implement year-round elephant hunting since lifting a five-year ban on trophy hunting in 2019. This policy shift, while controversial, highlights complex challenges at the intersection of conservation, economic development, and human-wildlife coexistence.

**Background Context and Policy Shift:**

Botswana, home to the world's largest elephant population, estimated at over 130,000, had initially imposed a hunting ban in 2014 under then-President Ian Khama. This ban was driven by conservation concerns, a decline in wildlife populations, and an ethical stance against trophy hunting. However, the decision was reversed in May 2019 by President Mokgweetsi Masisi's administration. The stated reasons for lifting the ban included addressing the escalating human-wildlife conflict, particularly with elephants, which were perceived as destroying crops, damaging property, and threatening human lives. The government also argued that the ban had negatively impacted the livelihoods of local communities who previously benefited from hunting revenue and that regulated hunting could provide economic incentives for conservation.

Since 2019, Botswana has steadily increased the number of hunting quotas. For example, the elephant hunting quota for 2023 was reportedly 400 individuals, a significant increase from initial figures. The plan for year-round elephant hunting further signals a long-term commitment to this policy. This move positions hunting as a tool for wildlife management and a source of revenue, contrasting sharply with the ecotourism model favored by many conservation groups.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

1. **Botswana Government:** The primary stakeholder, advocating for the policy based on national sovereignty, economic benefits (revenue from hunting licenses, employment), and human-wildlife conflict mitigation. They emphasize a 'sustainable utilization' approach.

2. **Local Communities:** Particularly those living near wildlife corridors and protected areas. They often bear the brunt of human-wildlife conflict and are promised direct benefits from hunting revenue, which can be channeled into community development projects.

3. **Conservation Organizations (e.g., WWF, International Fund for Animal Welfare):** Strongly oppose the policy, citing ethical concerns about trophy hunting, potential negative impacts on wildlife populations (especially elephants, which are listed in CITES Appendix II), and the risk of undermining conservation efforts. They argue that ecotourism offers a more sustainable and ethical economic alternative.

4. **Trophy Hunters:** Primarily from Western countries, they are the 'consumers' of the policy, willing to pay substantial fees for hunting expeditions. They often argue that their fees contribute significantly to conservation efforts and anti-poaching initiatives.

5. **Tourism Industry:** Divided. While photographic safari operators fear that hunting could deter ethical tourists, hunting outfitters benefit directly.

6. **International Bodies (e.g., CITES):** Monitor and regulate international trade in endangered species. Elephants are listed under CITES Appendix II, meaning trade is allowed with permits, but concerns about population impacts are always high on the agenda.

**Why This Matters for India:**

While Botswana's policy directly impacts African wildlife, it has significant implications for India and global conservation discourse. India is a mega-diverse country with a strong commitment to wildlife conservation, as evidenced by its robust legal framework and successful projects like Project Tiger. India faces similar challenges of human-wildlife conflict (e.g., with elephants, tigers, leopards) and the need to balance conservation with the livelihoods of communities living near forests.

1. **International Conservation Norms:** India is a signatory to international conventions like the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Botswana's policy sparks global debate on sustainable utilization versus absolute protection, a debate India actively participates in. India generally advocates for stricter conservation measures and often pushes for higher CITES listings for vulnerable species.

2. **Wildlife Management Strategies:** The Botswana case provides a real-world example of a nation choosing hunting as a management tool. India, with its vast wildlife populations and human-wildlife conflict issues, can observe the outcomes of this strategy, informing its own policy debates on compensatory mechanisms, conflict mitigation, and community involvement in conservation.

3. **Ethical Considerations:** The ethical dimension of trophy hunting resonates globally. India's cultural ethos generally frowns upon hunting, and its own Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972, virtually banned hunting, except for specific circumstances like self-defense or scientific purposes. The Botswana policy challenges these ethical stances on a global stage.

**Constitutional and Policy References (India):**

India's commitment to environmental and wildlife protection is enshrined in its Constitution and various acts:

* **Article 48A (Directive Principle of State Policy):** Directs the State to "endeavour to protect and improve the environment and to safeguard the forests and wildlife of the country."

* **Article 51A(g) (Fundamental Duty):** Mandates every citizen "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wildlife, and to have compassion for living creatures."

* **Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972:** This landmark legislation provides for the protection of wild animals, birds, and plants and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto. It prohibits hunting of wild animals, except under very specific conditions, and provides for the establishment of protected areas. India's adherence to this act reflects a strong conservationist approach.

* **CITES:** India is a party to CITES, regulating international trade in flora and fauna to ensure it does not threaten their survival. Botswana's elephant hunting policy directly relates to CITES Appendix II listings for elephants, requiring scrutiny and robust management plans to prevent illegal trade.

**Broader Themes and Future Implications:**

This issue connects to broader themes of sustainable development, the economics of conservation, indigenous rights, and international relations. The future implications are multi-faceted: Will Botswana's policy genuinely reduce human-wildlife conflict and provide significant economic benefits, or will it lead to long-term population declines and damage its international reputation as a premier ecotourism destination? The success or failure of this approach will inform conservation policies across Africa and potentially influence global perspectives on wildlife management, particularly in regions grappling with similar challenges of balancing human needs with conservation imperatives. The debate will continue to highlight the tension between 'use it or lose it' arguments for conservation financing and the 'intrinsic value' arguments for absolute protection. The international community, including India, will closely watch the ecological and socio-economic outcomes of Botswana's bold policy experiment.